Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-06 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of November 6, 2002 November 12, 2002 5,2. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Call to order. Meeting was called to order 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Thomas. Ali BOS members, except Mr. Martin, were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Ella Carey and Wayne Cilimberg. r From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda, · Charlie Trachta, Don Lyon, Michael Coppola, John Gallagher and Monica Pawinski commented on the School Board's redistricting discussions and asked the Board of Supervisors to explain the Comp Plan process to the School Board, and to look at neighborhood schools. Tom Loach spoke about the growth occurring in Crozet and encouraged the Board to plan for the educational needs of the community as Crozet continues to grow. FY 2003 Appropriations, $367,656 (Forms #2003017, 2003018, 2003019, 2003020). · APPROVED. 5.3. Authorize County Executive to execute First Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Woodcreek Subdivision on behalf of the County. · AUTHORIZED County Executive to execute document on behalf of the County. 514 Appoint Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to. Virginia Code Secs 27-34.2:1 and 27-36. APPOINTED Howard Lagomarsino, Jr., as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized by Code. 5.5 Scope of WOrk for Route 29 Corridor Improvements. · APPROVED as recommended. a. 6b. Discussion: Roundabout at Airport Road and Dickerson Road. · AUTHORIZED VDOT to move forward with the plans as recommended by the Airport Authority Board. Transportation Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Jim Bryan: - Updated Board on Free State Road connector project. Lindsay Dorrier: · Suggested VDOT install signage to alert drivers about the Vintage Market entrance on Route 20 South given that this stretch of road allows passing~ Sally Thomas: · Provided Jim Bryan with a copy of a letter from Mr. Moore regarding oversized and wide load trucks, and construction traffic on Route 22/231. ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Prepare letter acknowledging speaker's comments for Chairman's signature. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to Melvin Breeden, Roger Hildebeidei and appropriate staff persons. County Attome¥'s office: After receiving County Executive's signature forward to appropriate individual. Clerk: Notify Fire/Rescue of appointment. Clerk: Prepare letter to MPO, with copy to City Council, for Chairman's signature. Clerk: Prepare letter to VDOT, with copy to CTB member, City Manager and Airport Authority. Clerk: FonNard comments to Jim Bryan. FY 2003 Revised and FY 2004 Projected General Fund Revenues/FY 2004 Preliminary Budget Guidance. · CONSENSUS to approve the preliminary FY 2004 12. 13. allocation of local revenues to the Capital Improvement Program, in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial advisors, and to the School Division and the General Government areas for operating costs. Work Session: ZTA-01-09. Parking. · CONSENSUS that stand alone structures would require a special use permit. · CONSENSUS that garages count in requirement for residential parking provisions. · ADD waiver for minimum parking by Planning Commission. · PUBLIC HEARING scheduled for January 8, 2003. Work Session: Mountain Overlay District Zoning. Ordinance and Map Amendment. · REQUESTED County Attorney provide a compariSon of the version of the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission and the version of the ordinance previously tabled by the Board. · REQUESTED Planning provide a time schedule for incorporating this into their work plan. · Tentatively SCHEDULED joint public hearing with Planning Commission for February 19, 2003. Closed Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. · At 1:05 p.m., the Board went into closed session to consider appointments to boards and commissions, to discuss acquisition of property for public facilities and to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specir= legal matters requiring the provision of legal advk;e relating to an agreement between the County and other political entities. Certify Closed Session. · At 2:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session and certified the closed session. 14. Appointments. · APPOINTED Dr. Martin Schulman to the Route 250 West Task Force, to complete the unexpired term of William Vlasis, to expire on September 5, 2002. · APPOINTED Ivo Romenesko to DISC II, to replace Bob Watson. · APPOINTED Ida Lee Wooten, as the University of Virginia representative on the Housing Committee, to replace Doily Prenzel, with term to expire on December 31,2003. SP-2002-041, Mountainwood Executive Center (Sign 15. 16, 17. 18. 19. Budpet Office: Proceed as directed. Jan Sprinkle: Make changes as directed. Clerk: Advertise for public hearing. County Attorney's office: Provide information as directed. Wayne Cilimber.q: Provide information as directed. Clerk and Planning Department: Schedule public hearing. Clerk: Prepare appointment letters and copy appropriate individuals. Update Boards and Commissions book. Clerk: Set out condition of approval. (Attachment 2) #34). · APPROVED SP-2002-41 subject to the one condition recommended by the Planning Commission. ZMA-2002-009. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Sign ~90). · APPROVED ZMA-2002-09 as proffered. Clerk: Set out proffer. (Attachment 2) 20. 21a. To consider an Ordinance to amend Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles and Traffic. · ADOPTED the attached ordinance to be effective January 1,2003. 21b. JOINT MEETING WI SCHOOL BOARD. Discussion: FY 2004 Compensation/Benefit Recommendations. · Both boards VOTED to eliminate the deceleration factor in the classified/administrator merit formula. Took no action on the other recommendations; to wait until January 2003 after additional revenue information is available. Matters not Listed on the Agenda. David Bowerman: · Emphasized that the Board does not want to get involved in the redistricting issue but encouraged the School Board to take into account the County's strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comp Plan as the School Board is dealing with redistricting. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda. Bob Tucker: · The TransDominion Express Steedng Committee is requesting a $1000 donation from the County for a lobbyist. The Board requested a letter be sent to the committee asking for additional information on who the lobbyist is and what other counties and cities are doing. Sally Thomas: · Asked that the Board receive a briefing, during its work session on the ClP, from staff on what DISC is doing. · Lee Catlin, Mark Shore and others have been working on a video, with PBS, of local properties connected to Lewis and Clark. · Public participation meetings on the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan review are scheduled for November and December. · She and others were subpoenaed to testify regarding Foxfield, · In regard to Lewis and Clark, CORE II is coming to town in January. · Attended a meeting with the Secretary of Transportation and the Transportation Commissioner and, she was impressed with what the Commissioner is doing in terms of getting VDOT in financial shape. · She and other members of the High Growth Coalition met with the Governor to encourage him not to take away any of the High Growth's revenue sources. · Updated the Board on her attendance at the VML conference. · Attended the dedication of the Baker-Butler Elementary School. Clerk: Forward copy of ordinance to Melvin Breeden and County Attorney's office. (Attachment 3) County Attorney's office: Include in next update of County Code. Human Resources: Proceed as directed. Clerk: Prepare a letter for the Chairman's signature. · Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has a well-done web site which outlines their plans. · Met with the Nature Conservancy who has chosen the Rivanna watershed as a significant watershed. Met With Ka{hleen Kilpatrick, Director of State Historic Resources, to encourage support of visual quality scenic overlay district legislation. · The Un JAM Round 2 workshop will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2002 at the Senior Center. · Walter Perkins is now Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, · The High Growth Coalition will be meeting at the Homestead at 4:00 p.m., on Monday, November 11, 2002. · Board members received a memo regarding employees of Technicolor. · Mentioned the Livestock Compensation Program and the problem with farmers from Albemarle County not receiving assistance. A clerical error was made at the state level where they did not forward the information to the federal level. Everyone is working to get the problem corrected. Adjourn. · Meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m. 23. lewc Attachment I - Housing Resolution of Intent Attachment 2 - Conditions of Approval Attachment 3 - Ordinance No. 02-9(1) Attachment I RESOLUTION OF INTENT Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, the Albemarle County Housing Committee, as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors, has identified a need for additional affordable housing opportunities available to low- and moderate-income families as evidenced by high median sales prices/rents and decreasing supplies; and addressing the affordable housing issues will require engaging the real estate development community in providing additional affordable housing opportunities; and existing partnerships with all housing providers, including those nonprofit agencies providing housing and housing services, should be expanded and new partnerships created; and Whereas, the Board of Supervisors has indicated support for the development of affordable housing that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model principles; and Whereas, the Housing Committee will work with County staff and other agencies to seek and recommend incentives, financial and other, to promote the development of affordable housing; and Whereas, the Housing Committee has drafted an affordable housing policy and recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding the affordable housing policy statement; Now therefore be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to define affordable housing and to outline objectives and strategies to promote development of safe, affordable housing for all County residents and those who desire to reside in the County (draft amendment attached); and Further resolved, that the Housing Committee hold a sedes of focus group/public input meetings on the proposed draft amendment and forward its recommendation to the Planning Commission; and Further resolved, that the Planning Commission hold a public headng on this resolution of intent and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. Attachment 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item No. 18. SP-2002-041. Mountainwood.Executive Center (Si.qn.#34). Request to allow operation of Mountalnwood Executive Center in an existing bldg, to consist of commercial office space & up to 42 executive apartments in accord w/Sec 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ord. TM 76, P 46F, contains 8.98 acs. Loc on Rt 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) approx 1/4 mile from intersec of Old Lynchburg Rd & Fifth Street Ext. Znd CO. Scotts~ille Dist. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002 (copy on file in Clerk's office). Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA.2002-009. Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Sign #90). Request to rezone 0.5 acs from RA to C1 to allow installation of stormwater detention/quality facility & septic drain field for commercial use loc across US 250 on same property. TM 79, P 9, is loc on Rt 250, (Richmond Rd) at intersec of Rt 250 and Rt 22 (Louisa Rd). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Scottsville Dist. PROFFER FORM Date: October 25, 2002 ZMA # 2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Tax Map and Parcel Number: 79-9 0.50 Acres to be rezoned from RA to C-1 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it isagreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the property, which is that portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is south of Route 250. The stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall serve only the following uses that may be established on the portion of Tax Map 79, Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250: Section 22.2.1 (a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, and milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops); Section 22.2.1 (b)(16) (automobile service stations); and Section 22.2.1(b)(19) (temporary constructions uses). These three classes of uses are allowed by right under Section 22.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code), as that section is in effect on November 6, 2002. A copy of Section 22.2.1 is attached hereto. The property shall not be divided, and shall not be divided from the portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250. Signature of All Owners (Signed) Uoyd F. Wood, Jr. Pdnted Names of All O~ers . Date Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 10-25-02 Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02-9(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, Ucense fees--Amounts, as follows: CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC Attachment 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02-9(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, License fees-Amounts, as follows: CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES Sec. 9-404 Ucense fees-Amounts. A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and thirty dollars ($30.00) for gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used pdmadly for the transportation of passengers. B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of twenty dollars ($20.00). C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers, there shall be an .annual license fee as follows: Gross Weight Annual Fee 0 - 1,500 lbs. $ 9.50 1,501 lbs. and above $20.00 D. in the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle. E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license ~'of Sixteen dollars and fifty cents ($16.50). (Code 1967, §12.-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-9(1), 11-10-99; Ord. 02-9(1), 11-6-02) State law reference-;Va. Code § 46.2-752. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2003. PLEASE SiGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON MATTERS NOT'LISTED ON THE AGENDA FROM THE PUBLIC jl 2 NAME (Please print clearly) 3 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier: ,Jr. Charles S. Martin Rivaana COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (4341 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White. Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Tom Loach 1255 Bayberry Court Crozet, VA 22932 Dear Mr. Loach: Thank you for recently taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors. As the Board begins budget discussions, it will take into consideration your comments regarding funding and the education needs of the community. The Board will need to look at all areas of the budget in which there could be potential reductions in order to eliminate the anticipated deficit. Board members share your same concerns that our educational system not suffer due to fiscal constraints. As you may also know, the ACE program is extremely important to Board members and citizens of the County, and the Board will continue to make every effort to see that it is adequately funded. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scot~svill, Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX I434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter F.. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Charles Trachta 203 Westbrook Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Trachta: Thank you for taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors to comment on the School Board's redistricting discussions. Although the Board of Supervisors is not a part of the redistricting process, it has made the School Board aware of the County's strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr. S¢offsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Joueff Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Don Lyon 1629 Brightfield Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Lyon: Thank you for taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors to comment on the School Board's redistricting discussions. Although the Board of Supervisors is not a part of the redistricting process, it has made the School Board aware of the County's strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sin cerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT~c cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsag (3. Dorrier, ,Jr. S¢otts~ille Charles S. Mar~in Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board .of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Vir§inia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally, H. Thomas Samuel Miler Mr. Michael Coppola 308 Dover Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Coppola: Thank you for taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors to comment on the School Board's redistricting discussions. Although the Board of Supervisors is not a part of the redistricting process, it has made the School Board aware of the County's strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHTlec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Ir. Scottsvi]le Charles S. MarQn Riwanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX I434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter F. Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. John Gallagher 521 Eastbook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Gallagher: Thank you for taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors to comment on the School Board's redistricting discussions. Although the Board of Supervisors is not a part of the redistricting process, it has made the School Board aware of the CoUnty[{':strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comprehensi_.v_e Pla:6~ In setting its-.mgeting schedule, the Board of Supervisors has always attempted to accommodate aS'many citizens as possible. As you know the Board also meets at 6:00 p.m. on the second,Wednesday of the month so that citizens who cannot come during the daytime can come at an evening meeting. The Board is always open to suggestions and will keep your comments in mind. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, ,Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally' H. Thomas Samuel Miller Ms. Monica Pawinski 404 Eastbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Pawinski: Thank you for taking the time to come before the Board of Supervisors to comment on the School Board's redistricting discussions. Although the Board of Supervisors is not a part of the redistricting process, it has made the School Board aware of the County's strategy for the urban and rural areas as set out in the Comprehensive Plan. Again, thank you for taking the time to come before the Board. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ec cc: Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of Supervisors . ~. F_Jla Washington Carey, CMC, C~' Reading fist for November 6, 2002 October 3 I, 2002 March 25 (A), 2002 August 14, 2002 September 4, 2002 September 1 I, 2002 Ms. Thomas Mr. Martin Pages I- 18 (end at Item # I I) - Mr. Dorrier Pages 18 (beginning with Item # I I) - end - Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THEM. /ewc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE 'SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Requested FY 2003 Appropriations SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriations #2003017, 2003018, 2003019, and 2003020 to provide funds for various General Government and School programs. AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Hildebeidel, Ms. White REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: / ~ ~ o-~rginia §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 first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E-911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of these requested additional FY 2003 appropriations is $367,656, which is below the threshold level for a budget amendment, however, if additional appropriations are needed for FY 2003 that cause that threshold to be reached, a budget amendment would be required at a future date, and these appropriations would be incorporated into it. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of four new FY 2003 appropriations, of which two are appropriations for school programs which total $336,561, and two appropriations are grants for County Police Department programs totaling $31,095. A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Appropriations #2003017, 2003018, 2003019, and 2003020. 02.168 I 0-25-02P05:22 RCVD A~Dro=riation 2003017 Attachment A $188,504.39 This appropriation provides for the foil awing School Division contributions and grants: The Shannon Foundation for Excellence in Public Education awarded several schools grants totaling $10,838.00. Baker Butler was awarded $5,476.00, Cale Elementary was awarded $500.00, Crozet Elementary was awarded $1,000.00, Greer Elementary was awarded $440.00, Hollymead Elementary was awarded $1,000.00, Murray Elementary was awarded $497.00, Woodbrook Elementary was awarded $500.00, and Western Albemarle High School was awarded $1,425.00. These grants will be used to purchase instructional materials to assist stud ents in various learning experiences. Mar[ha Jefferson Hospital (MJH) awarded the MJH Innovation Child Health Improvement Initiative Grant in the amount of $1,000.00 to Murray Elementary School. This grant will fund a program in nutrition training for students and parents, with hands on projects and encourage home reading projects. The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made a grant award in the amount of $5,500.00 to Henley Middle School. This grant award will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in- residency programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts. State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of $22,000.00. This grant will fund the Mobile Classroom Project, the Do Drop in Bus. This bus is equipped as if it were a classroom. The goal of the program is to improve the academic performance of students through extending the time available to learn. Three Albemarle County Public School teachers have been awarded Staff Development Stipends in the amount of $1,000.00 each under the Golden Apple Award. Better Living, Inc is the sponsor for the Golden Apple Award. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded an Artists-in-Education Residency Program Grant in the amount of $3,670.00 to Yancey Elementary School. This program will enhance existing arts bY integrating the musical ar[s, visual arts, and academic curricula. The Virginia Society for Technology in Education (VSTE) awarded Yancey Elementary School a grant award in the amount of $1,000.00. The money will be used to partially fund a digital document viewer. This equipment will improve learning in the content areas through writing; both teachers and students will use the digital document viewer to model the evaluation and editing of writing. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded an Artists-in-Residency Program Grant in the amount of $2,635.00 to Stony Point Elementary School. This program includes exploration of African Culture through arts, music and dance and is an integral component of the regular cumcula for academic, visual arts and music. Title Ill, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was passed to improve student learning by states and districts as part of a comprehensive approach to close the achievement gap especially between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. To comply with the law, states and districts must now make decisions that have enormous consequences for students including those with limited English proficiency. This grant, in the amount of $58,235.00, is provided to assist in implementing the law to maximize the success of Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students. Federal funding for the Carl D. Perkins Vocational Grant was increased by $38,137.00 over the original budget estimate of $125,000.00. These additional funds will be used to help purchase equipment for the high schools vocational labs. The ESOL Outreach Grant provides funds to offer six non-traditional venues in which English Language instruction will be provided in a Family Literacy environment. Limited English families that currently are unable to attend classes regularly due to transportation issues and work conflicts will be targeted. The venues are: monthly ESOL community nights, ESOL job fair, ESOL Healthcare fair, expansion of the current Adult ESOL Program at Albemarle High School to include computer literacy, readily available computer labs and lower student/teacher ratios, Hispanic Outreach and an ESOL "Motheread/Fatheread" Family Literacy Program. There is a fund balance retained by the State in the amount of $42,489.39 from FY01/02 grant budget to be re-appropriated for FY02/03. ApDrm3riation 2003018 $ 26,094.86 This is a U. S. Department of Justice grant for the Albemarle County Police Department for certain operational strategies and capabilities which are confidential under Justice Department guidelines. This is the last half of the second year of the grant. The grant period is January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. There is no local match. Al~13roDriation 2003019 $ 5,000.00 This appropriation provides $1,250 in state categorical grant funds and $3,750 in federal categorical grant funds to purchase two additional Automatic External Defibrillators (AED's) for the County Police Department. There is no local match. Recognizing the importance of quick response in saving persons experiencing cardiac arrest, the County Police Department has trained all 105 sworn officers in CPR and the use of an Automatic External Defibrillator (AED). At this time, the Police Department has only been able to purchase one AED. With this grant, two more AED's will be purchased. AI3~)roDriation 2003020 $148,056.8~ This appropriation provides for the following School Division contributions and grants: Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $2,500.00 from the Woodbrook Elementary School PTO. This donation will be used to pay for a teaching assistant to help in the cafeteria. The Public Charter School Startup Program is designated for Murray High School. This program helps to facilitate intensive, experiential learning opportunities in order to provide academic and personal success for students who are at-risk to leave school or graduate below potential. There is a fund balance retained by the State of $86,373.57 from FY01/02 to re-appropriate for FY02/03. Governor John Warner launched the partnership for Achieving Successful Schools (PASS) Initiative to give special attention and assistance to Virginia's at-risk schools. PASS has targeted more than 100 academically warned schools that have struggled with the Standards of Learning tests to receive visits from academic review teams. Greer Elementary School has been designated as PASS Partner SchoOl and a team of two teachers and a principal will be sent to Amherst on six two-day visits. The PASS initiative will reimburse Greet Elementary School for substitutes hired. The Program for Seamless Transition (POST) grant award was not fully expended in FY01/02. The grant has a fund balance of $1,710.46 to re-appropriate for FY02/03. Virginia Business-Education Partnerships has a carry over grant balance of $55,972.85 from FY01/02. This balance was retained by the Virginia Department of Education and is now available for use by Albemarle County Schools These funds will be used to cover expenditures in the Business-Education Partnership Grant Program. iFMS2 ~I~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE lAPP # I~ 2003 017 i REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION , DATE~ 10/11/02 BATCH NUMBER EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS. SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER FYPE FUND DEPT OBJECl ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODEAMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I 3502 60606 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies ~ J 1 10,838.00 I 3104 60216 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J I 1,000.00 . 1 3104 60252 312500 ProfSvc Instruction J 1 5,500.00 I 3104 60215 132100 PTWages/Teachers J 1 18,500.00 I 3104 60215 210000 FICA I J 1 1,415.00 1 3104 60215 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J I 2,085.00 1 3104 61311 580500 StaffDev I J 1 3,000.00 I 3104 60213 31250(] ProfSvc Instruction J 1 3,670.00 1 3104 60213 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J I 1,000.00 ~ I 3104 60211 312500 ProfSvc Instruction J 1 2,635.00 1 3215 61101 112100 Salaries-Teacher J I 38,889.00 I 3215 61101 210000 FICA 'J 1 2,905.01 I 3215 61101 221000 VRS J 1 3,671.12 1 3215 61101 231000 Health Ins J I 3,309.87 I 3215 61101 232000 Dental J 1 140.00 1 3215 61101 301210 Contract Svcs J 1 1,900.00 I 3215 61101 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 2,200.00 I 3215 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 5,220.00 1 3207 61190 800100 Machinery/Equipment J I 38,137.00 1 3150 61101 111400 Salaries-Other J 1 2,880.00 I 3150 61101 114100 Salaries-TeacherAide J 1 3,960.00 I 3150 61101 132100 P/TWages-Teacher J 1 24,594.70 I 3150 61101 210000 FICA J 1 2,404.75 I 3150 61101 221000 VRS J 1 314.00 1 3150 61101 231000 Health Ins J 1 194.00 I 3150 61101 232000 Dental J 1 10.00 I 3150 61101 241000 VRS Group Life J 1 25.00 I 3150 61101 312000 Other ProfServices J 1 2,286.30 1 3150 61101 520100 Postal Services J I 400.00 1 3150 61101 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 342.50 I 3150 61101 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 1,000.00 1 3150 61101 601700 Copy Supplies J 1 460.70 I 3150 61101 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 3,424.00 I 3150 61101 800710 DP Software J I 193.44 J 2 3502 18000 181223 Shannon Foundation J 2 10,838.00 2 3104 18000 181252 MJH Grant I J 2 1,000.00 3104 18000 181221 Upton Grant J 2 5,500.00 2 3104 18000 181247 State Farm Grant J 2 22,000.00 2 3104 18000 .181258 Golden Apple Grant J 2 3,000.00 2 3104 24000 240249 Revenue-AIERES J 2 3,670.00 2 3104 18000 181265 Revenue-VSTE J 2 1,000.00 2 3104 24000 240355 Revenue-AIERES J 2 2,635.00 2 3215 33000 330119 Title III J 2 58,235,00 2 3207 33000 330107 Carl Perkins J 2 38,137.00 2 3150 33000 330600 ESOL Outreach Grant J 2 42,489.39 3502 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 10,838.00 3502 0701 APPROPRIATION 10,838.00 3104 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 38,805.00 3104 0701 APPROPRIATION 38,805.00 3215 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 58,235.00 3215 0701. APPROPRIATION 58,235.00 I 3207 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 38,137.00 3207 0701 APPROPRIATION 38,137.00 I 3150 05.01 ESTIMATED REVENUE 42,489.39 3150 0701 APPROPRIATION 42,489.39 . TOTAL . J 377,008.78 188,504.39 188,504.39 I tPREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 10/11102 I BD. OF SUPV. APPROVAL: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 11/06102 i ACCT. APPROVAL: I I DATE: FMS2 T COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .............. APP # ~1v 2003 018 REVISED 6~84 APPROPRIATION DATE/10/08102 BATCH NUMBER EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, Internet Crimes 1 SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER ~PE FUND DEPT OBJEC'[ ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I -1528 31013 120000 Overtime J 1 24,240.00 I 1528 31013 210000 FICA J I 1,854.86 2 1528 33000 330414 Federal Categorical Aid J 2 26,094.86 1528 0501 Est. Revenue 26,094.86 1528 0701 Appropriation 26,094.86 TOTAL 52,189.72 26,094.86 26,094.86 ~PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 10108102 '~BD. OF SUPV. APPROVAL: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 11/06102 iACCT. APPROVAL: I ' DATE: iENTERED BY: L~.~. i DATE: BATCH NUMBER EXPLANATION: POLICE GRANT, Defibrillators SUB. LEDGER ' GENERAL LEDGER rYPE FUND DEPT OBJEC] ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODEAMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I 1515 31013 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 5,000.00 I_ 2 1515 24000 300001 State Categorical Aid J 2 1,250.00 2 1515 33000 300001 Federal CategoricalAid J 2 3,750.00 1515 0501 Est. Revenue 5,000.00 1515 0701 Appropriation 5,000.0n iTOTAL 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 10/08/02 BD. OF SUPV. APPROVAL: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 11106102 ACCT. APPROVAL: I I DATE: ENTERED BY: L~ .... 2.-. .......... L DATE: fFMs2 ~I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ............... APP # 1~ ~ 020 /REVISED 6184 APPROPRIATION DATE/ 10/14102 I BATCH NUMBER ~EXPLANATION: VARIOUS SCHOOL PROGRAMS AND CONTRIBUTIONS. r SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJEC'I ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I 2212 61101 114100 Salary-TeacherAide J I 2,322.34 I 2212 61101 210000 FICA I J 1 177.66 1 3149 61311 132100 P/TWages-Teacher J 1 16,667.42 I 3149 61311 160300 Stipends-Cur. Dev J I 17,000.00 1 3149 61311 210000 FICA I J I 2,575.56 I 3149 61311 580000 Misc Expense J 1 2,000.00 1' 3149 61311 550100 Mileage-Travel J 1 800.00 1 3149 61311 580500 Staff Dev I J 1 5,000.00 1 3149 61311 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J 1 30,330.59 I 3149 61311 800100 Machinery/Equipment J I 12,000.00 1 2204 61101 152100 SubWages-Teacher J I 1,385.00 1 2204 61101 210000 FICA I J 1 115.00 I 3136 61102 601300 Inst/RecSupplies J 1 1,710.46 t 1 3209 61103 117100 Salaries-Bus Driver J I 8,000.00 / I 3209 61103 ' 160300 Stipends-Cur. Dev J I 22,000.00 / 1 3209 61103 210000 FICA I J I 1,683.00 1 3209 61103 350000 Printing/Binding J 1 2,000.00 I 3209 61103 420100 Field Trips J I 3,000.00 1 3209 61103 601300 Inst/Rec Supplies J I 5,000.00 1 3209 61103 800100 Machinery/Equipment J 1 14,289.85 2 2000 18100 181109 Donation J 2 2,500.00 2 3149 33000 330117 Charter Schools Pgm J 2 86,373.57 2 2000 24000 240260 PASS Initiative J 2 1,500.00 2 3136 51000 540000 Appro. Fund Balance J 2 1,710.46 2 3209 24000 240299 Va Business Education J 2 55,972.85 2000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 2,500.00 2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 2,500.00 i 3149 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 86,373.57 3149 0701APPROPRIATION 86,373.57 2000 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 1,500.00 2000 0701 APPROPRIATION 1,500.00- 3136 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE 1,710.46 3136 0701 APPROPRIATION I 1,710.46 3209 0501 ESTIMATED REVENUE ~ 55,972.85 3209 0701 APPROPRIATION 55,972.85 TOTAL 296,113.76 148,056.88 148,056.88 PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 10/14/02 BD. OF SUPV. APPROVAL: ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 11106/02 iACCT. APPROVAL: I ' DATE: iENTERED BY: i ~_l ~__ · ' DATE: David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 40I Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 15, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis $. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Ms. Monica Pawinski, President Woodbrook Elementary School PTO 404 Eastbrook Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Ms. Pawinski: On behalf of the Board of Supervisors, please accept our sincere thanks for the PTOs recent donation to Woodbrook Elementary School. It is a pleasure to acknowledge your investment in our educational .system. These funds will be used to help enhance the quali~ of education provided to our students. Again, thank you for your continued support. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc cc: Members, Board of Supervisors Dr. Kevin C. Casmer Printed on recycled paper FIRST AMENDMENT of the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND EASEMENTS WOODCREEK THIS FIRST ),aMENDMENT to the Declaration of Covenants, Cond/tions, Restrictions, 'and Easements, "Woodcreek," is made this 29th day of January, 2002, and amends the instrument dated July 27, 1993, of record~in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1335, page 0554. WITNESSETH- WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides in Section 4.4 that the Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Lot Owners of Woodcreek; and, WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides that no restriction with respect to Lot 10 may be amended except with the approval of the County of Albemarle;' NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being more than two-thirds (2/3) of the LOt Owners of Woodcreek, and the County of Albemarle by its authorized agent, do hereby approve the following amendment to said Declaration: Article 111, Section 3.2 (c) is amended to read as follows: No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats, or other domesticated household pets may be kept on the Lots, subject to rules and regulations adopted by the Association, and further except that horses may be kept on Lot 10. No household pet shall be permitted offthe Lot occupied by such pets' Owner except on a leash. This First Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts which, when taken together, shall be deemed and construed to comprise one document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this instrument as of January 29, 2002. WOODCREEK LAND TRUST By: . . _ George H. Gilliam, Trustee COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: ..... T~he foreg~ofin..g.?strument was acknowledged before me this cff~7..day zuuz ay tJeorge 1-1. tJllliam, as Trustee for Woodcreek ~d' 'Trust. l / My commission expires: The fo..r.e~ing is approved by the. County of Albemarle: Autl: ' nzed Agent eOM ONWEALT OF VmGIN COUI~OrY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing in.s .mmaent was acknowledged before me this 74~ day of/qr~J. 2002 by ~u~ ~.q.,q~t,d~ ~(7~. ,on behalf of the County of Alb-~--marle. Notary Public k_ My commission expires: ~ ,~, c~OO~ R/arty McClum i/ Jer~/d£er Mdt~luae Steve Paitsel Lisa Pgitsel e ~ y~/g~,,r Eli Lesser Barbara Lesser Paul Balik Bruce Barkley ,P2oib. Mentzinger (...) ¥ cher COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~7 day o~2002, by Joseph Sabot. ~~t~ ..c~' My commission expires: ! ! COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: by Joy The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ 7 day o~2002, Sabot. - N'~tary ~l'c~- 't My commission expires: / / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of~d2/0~ 2002, byBarryMcClune' ///~ / f~-' ~ . t N~tary ~j~bl~c '[ --~ My commission expires: ~--/~Z ~/0 ~"-- (,_J COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: My commission expires: The foregoing instrument was' acknowledged before me thisc~ ~ d by Jennifer McClune. ~ ~_~ bli,F lof~~J~02, COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Steve Paitsel. //Q /~ - ! ' .--.. Nk°tTary m~ My commission expires: o~t'028 /~ ~ / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Lisa Paitsel. day of 2002, My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o~7' day of~u~ur}~tj2002, by Richard Br0wn. My commission expires: c~/c~ 8/t9 ~ L/ -- ! ! COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .o27 day by Melinda Brown. /] /,~ - My commission expires. ~ff,,3~/t~"'-- N~y'P~ie" ~ ..... /- / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: by jeff sThauel!°reg°ing instrument was acknowledged b~~~thi~_~ ~ild ff~~a 002' My commission expires: ~///o2 ~>fft9 k5'-' N°ktary P~hc/ [ ~ ''~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Christine Saul. //~ j day o~~.~02, / . Nok Yp fior- My commission expires: c:~'~ ~ /00'""- (.~/-' / -/ 6 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-Mt: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ff~_._~ay of ~t2JlC~t,~2002, by Tom McQueeny.]~otary ff//~0~ d ~~ ~bl~c My commission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this og7 day of~d. tlj~q2002, by Suzanne Yeaman. /h i F'~ - (~ ' ~ . N~tar~ PtOglid ' I - fl '" yoommis io xp s: *'/0 0---- C/ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: LTesh~e~.Oregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisoF7 d~ay o~2, byEli .~ ndj,~. ~l, ~ _I My commission expires: o~L/e~ ¢~~''- N°~P~li/c ' 1- 0ff COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisog ~tda~y by Barbara Lesser. //~ My commission expires: o~///~ ~6~''- N~tary ~lir COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Paul Balik. day of. 2002, My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o77 day by Julie Balik. //Q 'J · . ..__. Notary P,t{blie/ .... My commission expires: OL/r~ ~/~)D (,J (,J / / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thiscxg"~ day by Bob Mentzinger.N~o'Ct~f COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .0t_7 ~r day o1~111d._~2002, byLyanArcher. ///~ · f ~,, ~ , " t . ..._._-. No~y P~c / ' [- d- ' My commission expires: o~-//~ ~D COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~7 day o~~2002, by Cordelia Lenz. My commission expires: 9 33 P 057 I RURAj' ~RESERVA~ZON DEvEr. opMEN~ EASEMF. I~ ·his deed-of easement made this 2n~" ...... dayOf .... July .... ' · 1993, between George H. Gllllam, ~rustee for Woodcreek Land ~rust, h~reln called the Grantor~. and the County of Albemarle, h~rein referred to as the County, and the Public 'Recreational Facilities. Authority of Albemarle ..-'County~ herein referred to as the-Authorit]~, both. of which togethe~ are herein referred to as the G~antees. -- ~fiEREAS, Chapt.e= 17, ~ltle 10.1 of the Code o~ Virginia, Sections ~0.1-7000 through 10.1-1705, entLtled -open space ~an~ Act," enriched ~o preserve open-s~ace land in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and autho~lze~, among others, any County or public recreational facilities authority to acquire perpetual easeme~s'~for the purpose of preserving open-space landi 'and k~iEREAS, the Authority has been created--unde:..tha~:p=ovlsions of Chapter 29, ?tile 15si·of the Code of Virginia, 1950~ Sections 15.1-1271 through 15.1-1287 to accept, hold, and adminJster open-space land and interest therelnl and ~HEREAS the Authority County Zoning Ordinance states that the rural preservation development option shall be for -the purposes of preservation of agricultural and forestal land~ and activities~ ~b) supply protectlon~ and/or (c} conservation o~ natural,~ scenic or historic resources~ and :~ FrlEREAS, the Rural Areas els. trlct.~ained~irn~the~AZbemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that the rural preservation~development option is Intended to encourage more effective land usage ln,'te~ms o£~:the goals,and objectives ~or the Rural Areas aa oat forth ~ln*~the,~Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan than can be~achle~,gd.*"under~*..c~nventlo.aal development~ and b'HEREAS, the Grantor is the owner of propert~*~tobe developed under the rural preservation development option 'of the Albena=leCounty Zoning BIll 336PG05'72 Ordinance, such property to contain a rural preservation tract (s) together wi~h development lots, defined as such therein; NOW THEREFORE, in recognition of the foreg(;ing and in' consideration of the mutual covenants herein and the acceptance by the Grantees, the Grantor does hereby grant and. convey to the Granteus ..an open-space easemen~ in grc. s~ over, and the righ~ ~n-pe~etuity to restrict ~he of, the real eutate consisting of 57,720 acres C~ether with improvements described hereinafter as: Lot 10, ~oodcreek, on a subdivision pla~ thereof prepared by B. Aubrey Huffmat~ & Associates,,L~., da~ed May 7, 1992,.a~tached ~o ~he 9ecZarat~on of Covenantk~ 'Cond~Cions~ Restr'~c~ions and Easements~ -~oodcreek, recorded ~ed~a'te~"y~.rpr~or--heret'~j:~: ~: ~:-~:. Res:r~c~ons are hereby ~mposed~ bn :he deve2opmen: and u~ge:'of the aforemen:io~ed rea~ es:~Ee. The ac:~ ~h~Ch"~he GrantOr, ~hetr-heSra, successors ~n ~n~eres:s and assigns, covenan: :o do and no: :o do upon :he aforementioned real estate, and ;the restr~c~i0ns which the ~ran~eeS" are hereby entitled to enforce, are and shall be 1. Accumulation of trash, refuse, ju~,~'.6~ >an~' :~ther ~sight~y ~terial is nc~ permitted on the;~U~a~Y:'T:&~a"6~0~'~. 2. Display of billboards, signs or permitted on or over the Rural Prese~ation Trac~ except state the name and/or address of the o~ers, to advertise the sale or lease of the Rural Prese~ation Tract] to advertise d~>veLc:~he sale of goods or services Pr~uced incidental 't0 a pe~itted use of the Rural Preser%~tion T=~c~"'Or to P~ovide notice necess.~y for the protection of the Rural Preservation Tract and fo?' giving directions ~o vi~i=ors. No such shall exceed three ~y three fee~ in size. No Rural Preservation Tract shall be diminished in size. 4. No t:i~er cutting shall be pe~itted except in accord with plan subject to aUprova], by the ~rantees. Clearin~ o( dead ~od shal'] be permitted without a plan. open land sba:il be maintained ~:!ng sound conservation practices... The a~ea to he cleared oa the Rural PreSE:rVatton Trac*. shall be limited to the minimum necessary for th~ road, driveway, and the building site including ~s ~olate~ 5. Grading, blasting, eat'th removal, fill, or waste activit~ prohibited excep~ fo~ purposes-of tl~erin~ Rn accordance a plan approved as per pa~ag~apfl' 4 above o~ fo~ dam conntructi~n ~o c~ea~e ~.~vate ponds o~ lakes'==on the Rural Prese~vatlon Tract pursuant to a plan app~ov~d by the Grantees. Construction of ~etmltted buildings and connecting p~lvate roads Is exert from these., ~equirements. llining and dflll'lng oE wells except as necessary go~ water is pfohlblted on the Rural Prese~vation ~ract. built or uintained on the Rural PreServation Tract othe~ than co~onl~ or approp~latel~ tncidental thereto and (~l) bull~lngs ~d Structures.. 7. Industrial or co~efcial activities other than silvicultu~e o~ horticulture ¢ · are p~htb'i t~d. 8. Rep~esentatives oE the G~antees ~y ente~ the Rural Preservation~ Tract ~ fro~ tl~e to time fo~ the puf~se Inspection and enforcement c~ the te~ms' of thfs permission ffo~ or reasonable~'notice , to :the:'o~ef~. o:~ owner's ~epresentative. 9. Grantots, theis belts, succe~so=s and ass] ~s 8hall nottty the G.rantees In writing within ten (10) days attet"clo~ing of any transfer or =ale o~ the Ru;al. Prese.;~at~on T~act. oln~anY deed conveying the Rural Pcesefv~tion TraCt, 'th3S ease=en~shal~l be referenced .by Deed B~'h ~ and Page': Nu=~; axe ~ ,:the: deed ~ 3 ..: - .el ! 336P 0571, Pu~suan~ hereto Is .ub~l ~e~ by ::~ertl~led ui'l...to "t~:.~l~'~;.:'~ the Beard o~ Supe~vtao~.o o~ the County-aE-~ t.h~ Cha/r~r~ of Aut, h~=tty .and ~t t~e County and the AuthogJ. ty fail to ~ gesg,ond tn ~rt~tnq ~1thtn ~o'~t'~-fi~ '(45) daT80~ such ~e~e~t b~ the~Cle~k, then the 'G~ant~es:Shall be*deemed to have approved the're.est and ~'~'"~'~antO~ ~y p~ocoed the action for which app~ovaZ was H~. consen~ or appzoval or the Grance~o~hereunde~ o~i'~:l be dee~d given, provided in paragraph unless ~th the County and the Authority agree in Although this easemen~ In gross ~11 benoflt' ~he public as described ab0vff, n~hing herein shall be~'construed.to convey to the publ.~c any Eight8 og acco88 to or use of the,'~ope~t~ described: he~ein. G~anto~s~ thel~ h~lrgf.sucoessorf and assigns hereby retain exclusive.rtgh~ to such acce&s and use, sub3ect :to the terms he~eo'f. Acceptance of this easement by the County ~or ~'Albeu~le and the Public Recreational Fact ltties Autho~i ty o~ Albemarle County is authorized by Section ~0.1-170~o~ the Code o~ Virginia. 1250, as ~nded. ~ the Authority should (a) ~ dissolved or tn any o~he= way cease its corporate eylstence, o~ for any other ~eason be unable to act to E'n~orce/,th~ :restrictions provided: ~r he~e'tn; o~,~b~acqu~Z,ee the land sub3ec~ to this easomen~thbn all rtghbS, o~he.~U~r~t~cin the foregoing easemea~ 'sha~ au~omatlcall~ ve~c~ ?in~?the~,Vi~gAnX& Ou~ooEs Founda;~lon. a ~od~ ~olitic o~ the '~non~ealth o~ ~VIEg.~.~ia.~-~ ~ Grantor ~ VI/GTNIA: THIS DEED WAS PRESENTED, AND WITH CERTIFICATE ANNEXED, IS ADNITTED ,'1 (039) IN THE CLERK' S OFFICE ~OF County, Grantee therein. ' ''#y Commission expirest No ta~y~! PublLc ........ · .......~ THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALB~ TRANSFER FEE $ (212) -VSLF $' . 1.00 (145) CLERK'S FEE $' 13.CIO (301] PLAT $ . SEC.§8.1-802:. :~ STATE TAX $_.. (038) LOCAL TAX ....... $ (220) LOCAL TAX $- ~(223) ~n~t=ument was acknovledge~l botoze'~e th~8 ~ day _ G~antor(~) theze/n. My co~lssion exptzest No ta=y .Pu~l lc Dlrbc~o~ of Planning and'ConunA~ 'Develo~uen~, Agen~ of ~h® .A~be~e zy ~ubl~c COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements for Woodcreek Su bdivision SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Authorize County Executive to execute the First Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements on behalf of the County STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker/Cilimberg/Benish/Davis BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: 7/23/93 Rural Preservation Development Easement an dFirst Amen/~en~~''~ / In 1991, the County approved Woodcreek subdivision, a rural preservation development. Section 4.4 of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (hereinafter, the "Declaration") provides that the Declaration may not be amended with respect to Lot 10 without the consent of the County, in addition to the approval of not less than two-thirds of the lot owners. The Amendment has been endorsed by 16 of the 19 lot owners of Woodcreek, or 84.2%, whiCh exceeds the 66.6% minimal requirement. DISCUSSION: The lot owners desire to amend Section 3.1(c) of the Declaration to allow horses to be kept on Lot 10, which is the rural preservation tract. The Declaration currently allows horses to be kept only on Lots 1 and 2. The keeping of horses is a permissible activity on a rural preservation tract. The Planning Department has expressed a concern about clearing on Lot 10. Paragraph 4 on page 2 of the Rural Preservation Development Easement, recorded with the Declaration, states: "No timber cutting shall be permitted except in accord with a plan subject to approval by the Grantees (the County of Albemarle and the Public Recreation al Facilities Authority of Albemarle County). Clearing of dead wood shall be permitted without a plan. Open land shall be maintained using sound conservation practices. The area to be cleared on the Rural Preservation Tract shall be limited to the minimum necessary for the road, driveway, and the building site including its related appurtenances." The County's consent to allow horses to be kept on Lot 10 would not affect Paragraph 4 of the Rural Preservation Development Easement and, therefore, no additional clearing for pasture land would be permitted. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the First Amendment of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements on behalf of the County. 02.166 ~ 0-2c)-~J2 ?02: u ~ FIRST AMENDMENT of the DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND EASEMENTS WOODCREEK THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions, and Easements, "Woodcreek," is made this 29th day of January, 2002, and amends the instrument dated July 27, 1993, of record, in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1335, page 0554. WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides in Section 4.4 that the Declaration may be amended by an instrument signed by not less than two-thirds (2/3) of the Lot Owners of Woodcreek; and, WHEREAS, the aforementioned Declaration provides that no restriction with respect to Lot 10 may be amended except with the approval of the County of Albemarle; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, being more than two-thirds (2/3) of the Lot Owners of Woodcreek, and the County of Albemarle by its authorized agent, do hereby approve the following amendment to said Declaration: Article III, Section 3.2 (c) is amended to read as follows: No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any Lot, except that dogs, cats, or other domesticated household pets may be kept on the Lots, subject to rules and regulations adopted by the Association, and further except that horses may be kept on Lot 10. No household pet shall be permitted off the Lot occupied by such pets' Owner except on a leash. This First Amendment may be signed in any number of counterparts which, when taken together, shall be deemed and construed to comprise one document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have signed this instrument as of January 29, 2002. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: WOODCREEK LAND TRUST 2002 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ o~7 day of~ ~-~41,~rt~ bY George H. Gilliam, as Trustee for Woodcree~d Trust.~ ,~ ~ My commission expires: c~/c2 ~/~9S ~ N~ Pt~li~ ' The foregoing is approved by the County of Albemarle: Authorized Agent COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2002 by , on behalf of the County of Albemarle. My commission expires: Notary Public 2 Steve Paitsel Lisa P~itsel Christine Saul-. 'i~om McQueeny Eli Lesser Barbara Lesser Paul Balik Balik Bruce Barkley _,~b. Mentzinger (..) v .... L~cher COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument wasacknowledged&/ . ~~~(~. ~~-~bef°re me this ~7 day of~&t~la~ 2002, by Joseph Sabot. MY commission expires:_ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .o7 ~ day o~~:t~__~002' by Joy Sabot. ~'~ ~. ~,t ,, ^ , d/)~,,, My commission expires: ~/~ ~'/tO ff"" / 4 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o??t day of~t//O~ 2002, by Barry McClune. : My commission expires: ed-~o~ Sa/0 ~~-' ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thisc~ ~t d~ay of~_dffttt~//z/2002, by Jennifer McClune. ///~ j ~ ~~ My commission expires: e~7/~2 ~/~ [/ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this e~t dav of~autoa-2002 by Steve Paitsel. . ,~~p:O i: ~ ;C~_ ~ My commission expires: o~o21~ /t)~ ff~' --- ~ t / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this by Lisa Paitsel. day of 2002, My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: · The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this .~ day o~Jj,~jt}-..2002 by R~chard Brown. My co~ission expires: COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thiso2'7 day off/to, triO 002, by Melinda Brown. //~ MY commission expires: ~1~ e/D~ -' O' ' ..... /- / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ day of, , .2002, by Jeff Saul. //Q / /~ ~ My commission expires: ~o2 ~/0tS'" P~' ' ~ ~ / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this o~7 day o~~4~02, by Christine Saul.~/t~ No~tl/~ cF~"l k MY commission expires:.., o~//~_ ,D''-'-' ~i - - / / 6 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: My commission expires: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this '(/t~day of by Tom McQueeny. ~'~ ,,.,1 5~/,X.~ ~¢°tary ~bl'i'c COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing insmunent was acknowledged before me this ~7 day of~L[~2002, by Suzanne Yeaman. /'~ /'~ - --t~ . . N~Otar~ Public/ '. I - 4 My commission expires: ~--/c~? ]tg~'---' ~ ~ / / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thise2'7 d~ay of~J~j/~ 2, by Eli Lesser. My commission expires: c~/e2 ~/0~'-' Nokl'ar~ P~I~ ' / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was /~,~ acknowledged before me thiso2.~tda o 2 02, by Barbara Lesser. ~ ~~l~lll My commission expires: ~ ~/~ ~' - . d t- / COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of by Paul Balik. 2002; My commission expires: Notary Public COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~ ~ day o 002, by Julie Balik. //~ MY commission expires: C~/r,2 5//) D....--- Notary P~blid' .... COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this~__...'~ day o~!~.~dltg~002, by Bob Mentzinger. ' ~o~~~/ 1 ~~-~ ~, rl~ J~,~'-''~~ ~ 1 My commission expires: e~--/tOY?/tgtS'"-' ' ~i ''- - - ~-~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this0~_ day o 2002, by Lyrm Archer. //Q ~// ~~ MY commission expires: ~~,3 ~ COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit: The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ~27 day o~~a~2002, by Cordelia Lenz. ~/~ ~ ~ My commission expires: ~/e~/~5~~''''' I~-t~ ~b~c ' I~ ~ ~ 9 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, dr. Sco~vilte Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX I434) 296-5800 Waiter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Dan Eggleston D~rector of F~tre and Rcs~u~ Ella W. Carey, Cl~g?~v November 11, 2002 Appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal At its meeting on November 6, 2002 the board of ,Supervisors appointed Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers ofthe Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code Sections 27-34.2:1 and 27-36. /EWC CC: Tom Foley Mark Trank Printed on recycled paper COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE S U M MARY AGENDA TITLE: Appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ITEM NUMBER: SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Authorize appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Eggleston, Davis, Trank ACTION: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one or more assistant fire marshals that may in the absence of the Fire Marshal carry out his duties and responsibilities. In addition, V rg n a Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that in addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, the governing body may autho[.ize an assistant fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or other la~v enforcement offi~;er and the authority to investigate and prosecute certain designated offenses. DISCUSSION: The appointment of Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. (recently hired as Fire Prevention Inspector/Investigator) as an assistant fire marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of his job description. Howard has satisfactorily completed the required training for fire marshals exercising police powers as required by the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs. The Board has previously authorized assistant fire marshals to exercise police powers. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Howard Lagomarsino, Jr. as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 and Virginia Code § 27-36. 10-2g-O2P12:37 RCVD 02.165 David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. S¢offsville Char]es S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis S. Rooker ,Jack Jouett Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. Harrison B. Rue Executive Director Thomas Jefferson Planning District CommisSion Post Office 1505 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Scope of Work for Route 29 Corridor Improvements Dear Mr. Rue: At its meeting on November 6, 2002 approved the Scope of Work for the Route 29 Corridor Improvements as developed by the MPO Policy Board and MPO Technical Board on September 9, 2002. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/ewc pc: Charlottesville City Council Printed on recycled paper To: From: Subject: Date: Members, Board of.Supervisors Sally H. Thomas Scope of'Work for Route 29Corridor Improvements October 30, 2002 The attached proposed Scope of Work is being developed by the MPO Policy Board and the MPO- Tech Committee which includes County staff and one planning commissioner. Dennis Rooker and I thought other members of the Board would like to see it. We recommend approval and will act on' the County's behalf in pursuing the study. If you would like further discussion, we'll be happy to invite MPO and/or County staff to come to answer any questions we can't handle, Pursuing this project may eventually involve County staff and/or County funds, We are aware of a need to expedite the study, given the Albemarle Place/Sperry property proposal and the University of Virginia's proposal for its North Grounds Connector to the present Route 29/250 West bypass. We are also aware of other studies that will provide timely input into the corridor study, especially studies done by Albemarle Place applicants and by consultants for the University of Virginia. MPO staff is working at puffing everything together into one package to seek VDOT approval and funding. City Council adopted the Scope of Work with a few amendments on October 7. At that time, Council also rescinded its 1995 resolution that had opposed a grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic Road and Route 29. sht/ewc Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission POB 1505, 300 E. Main St, Charlottesville, VA 22902 www.~pdc.org Phone: 434-97%7310 Fax: 434-979-1597 Emaik tjpd~pde.org Proposed SCope of. Work - 9/9/02 Note: This Scope has been approved by the MPO Policy Board for the purposes offundraising and discussions with potential public and private partners on how to move forward It will continue to be amended as needed pursuant to those discussions and furthe.r public input. Route 291Hydraulic Road/ROute 250 Area Transportation Improvements Project Goals: De:¢e!op a context-sensitive, ..mmPi-modal-transpo~-ation ~mprovements p!an-tocomp,,,ment" :-' ~ existing and anticipated development along the Route 29 corridor, with Phase 1 focused on the eXtended area surrounding the intersections of Route 29 with Hydraulic Road and Route 250. The comprehensive traffic and urban design study will develop and analyze alternative designs for: 1) Improving the movement of people and goods through the area via multiple modes; 2) Reducing congestion for both local and through traffic; 3) Increasing customer access to businesses and services; 4) Improving connections to and minimizing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses; and 5) Creating transit-oriented development opportunities. 6) Respecting existing tax and fee revenue paid to respective jurisdictions. Background and Current Situation: This proposed study is based upon the expansion of a'recommendation in the CATS 2015 to* identify improvements to the Route 29 intersections at Hydraulic, Greenbrier, and Rio Roads. Grade-separated interchanges were recommended and planned for these three intersections based on the VDOT Route 29 Corridor Study of 1990. The Charlottesville Commercial Corridor Study (Torfi Gallas and Partners / CHK, 12/00) proposed that a grade-separated interchange be built at the intersection of Hydraulie Road and U. S. Route 29. Subsequently, another engineering study proposed a conceptual design- for a grade-separated interchange that would take significantly less land than the prior urban diamond interchange designs, while improving traffic flow and pedestrian and bicycle access (Intersection Alternatives and Complementary Improvements: Route 29 and Hydraulic Road, Glatting Jackson, et. al., 4/01, for SELC). Additionally, an extensive series of data COllection and studies has been conducted over the past two years by the developers of the Albemarle Place project. This has included traffic counts, existing and future conditions intersection capacity analyses, preliminary designs for at-grade improvements, detailed corridor topographic and as-built mapping, and retail demand, economic assessment, and market analysis of both the corridor and regional markets (see Appendix/1). More recently, a joint City-County workshop for elected officials, Planning Commissioners, & School Board members was conducted as part of the Un JAM 2025 long-range plan update. This workshop prioritized continued City-County Cooperation focused on the study area. The need for this study has also been heightened by discussions at Albemarle County Planning Commission in reviewing a propoSed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the area that includes the Albemarle Place Project. Funding for the study has not yet been programmed. The MPO and local governments have requested that VDOT assign it Preliminm3r Engineering funds bom the Primary Road allocation. To date, VDOT has not allocated the requested funds; however the MPO has continued to pumue funding by way of including the project as a high priority in the TIP and in the UPWP. Most recently, it was included as a high priority in the MPO's Pre-Allocation Hearing Statement. Specific improvements to the Route 29 and Hydraulic Road intersection, the Route 250 and Hydraulic Road intersection, and the Route 250 and Route 29 intersection, the extension of Hillsdale' Drive, (if not previously funded), Route 250/Barracks Road, and the Route 250 and North Grounds Connector will be considered a part of Phase 1 of a Comprehensive Route 29 North Corridor Study, to be conducted for the area from Route 250 to the North Fork Rivanna border. ProCeeding with 'this Study is~urgentdue tonearby developments~f-regional .impact currently being reviewed in Albemarle County, as well as UVA facilities planning that may increase traffic through the intersections. The Study will be conducted by the MPO, with a Steering Committee representing VDOT, the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce, North Charlottesville Business Council, Meadows Neighborhood, JABAWAC, citizen representatives, and the MPO (if the Scope is expanded to include the UVA North Grounds Connector intersection with Route 250, there will be a UVA representative on the Steering Committee). The Project Technical Committee will include staff bom City, County, VDOT '(Planning, Residency & Urban), VDRPT, UVA, and the MPO. A multi-disciplinary fu-m or team will be selected through competitive process to conduct the study, and shall include qualified experts in traffic engineering, urban design, transit and multi- modal design, . economic impact and development analysis, and~.constructi0a, zp.ha.s, ing.~_ __The Steering Committee will reserve the right to award the entire contract to one team in phases or to divide the work into separate coordinated contracts, based on the merits of the submitted proposals. Scope of the Route 291Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Area Intersection Study: Phas, e I ' l) Review the findings of the 1988 Sverdup Study,-taking into account intersections and traffic projections that have been developed since that time, as well as more recent studies such as those mentioned above, the Route 29 Pedestrian Study, and recent land use and zoning changes being developed by the City and County, including any approval by the County of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for the area including the Albemarle Place project.. Given the level of development along the corridor since the 1990 study- and the 24% growth in population over the last decade - it will be necessary to I) expand the area (beyond the 1990 Study) to include additional intersections and adjoining roadways; 2) collect new data as appropriate;, and 3) Adjust build-out projections in the City and County and include TIP projects inthe base case. The actual new data required should be minimal, since extensive data collection, analysis, and modeling has been conducted recently by the developers of the proposed Albemarle Place Development. These studies are under review by VDOT and County staff, and (pending final review) will be 'assumed to offer valuable, usable data that will shorten both the time and cost of this study. (see Appendix A for a list of these recent studies). The Study Area networks: [] Route 29/ [] Route 29/ [] Route 29/ should include, at a minimum, the following intersections and street Hydraulic Road; Route 250 Bypass; Angus Road; Route 29/Greenbrier Drive; Route 250 Bypass/Hydraulic Road; [] Route 250 Bypass/Barracks Road; ~ []... ~~ic/Commonwealth Drive; [] Hydraulic/Georgetown Road; [] Commonwealth Drive/Greenbrier Drive; [] The proposed Hillsdale Drive extension; [] The proposed grid pattern of roads in the Hydraulic Road "superblock;" [] The proposed intersection of the UVA North Grounds Connector with Route 250; [] Route 29 North at Rio Road. [] Emmet Street/Ivy Road Intersection [] Route 29'North of Rio Road to the North Fork ofthe Rivanna River [] Holiday Drive/Angus Road/Route 29 [] Massie Road/Emmet Street [] Greenbrier/Hydraulic 2) Assess multi-modal transportation needs based on an evaluation of existing and proposed land use and transportation conditions. The study should recommend corridor and intersection improvements that foster transit service and ensure the best possible traffic flow and safety, greatly increased mobility for pedestrians and .bicyclists, and the least conflict between vehicles, pedestrians, and' bicycles. This should specifically include implementation of the re¢ommendatiors _Ct. om the Rt. 29 Pedestrian Study. Additionally, the study should focus on context-sensitive intersection improvements that consider the economic development implications of new facilities. All proposed improvements- especially interchange designs - shall be designed for maximum capacity and throughput rather than maximum speed. This requirement should provide smoother traffic flow at moderate speeds, without requiring excessive land for higher-speed access ramp designs. The improvements and strategies required to meet the study goals could include, but are not limited to: [] Intersection and corridor capacity and safety improvements [] Urban design improvements [] Transit-oriented development strategies [] Dedicated bus lanes and other transit alternatives [] Transit system enhancements [] Pedestrian facilities D Bicycle facilities ~ [21 Access to businesses along Route 29 and adjacent roads ~ Parking management strategies ~ Accessibility'for people with disabilities [21 Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) strategies such as traffic signal timing and coordination ~ Capacity for special events 3) Develop context-sensitive design alternatives with preliminary eng~eering, and roadway design sufficient to test the feasibility and performance of the identified alternatives at the base-case intersections of Rt. 29/I-Iydraulic; Rt. 29/250 Bypass; Hydraulic/250 and U. S. 250/Barracks Road; the extension of Hillsdale Drive if it has not been previously funded, and a grade separated interchange at U. S. 250 and the proposed North Grounds Connector Te~in of capaci~ shall be done through 2025 to coordinate with the MPO's long-range plan (current scenarios done by the Albemarle Place team are only through 2006). Simulation modeling (like CorSim)shall also be performed on key alternatives. Each of the alternatives shall also apply to the Rio/29, North Grounds/250 Bypass, Greenbrier/29, and other intersections as appropriate if the Scope is expanded. The following alternatives shall be studied, at a minimum, but shall not limit the development of other creative solutions that meet the outlined goals: A; 'No-Build' Alternative B. At-grade improvements at key corridor intersections C. A system of grade separated improvements at the 29/Hydraulic and 29/250 Bypass intersections employing VDOT urban design criteria for the subject improvements D. An integrated system of grade-separated improvements at 29/I-Iydraulic and 29/250 Bypass (with Rt. 29 through lanes passing below {or over) existing elevation of .. Hydrau!ic Rd., .similar to. prior SELC/Glatting Jackson/Ku!a~h .......... proposal for tight urban diamond interchange) E. An integrated system of grade-separated improvements at 29/Hydraulic and 29/250 Bypass with Rt. 29 through lanes passing under (or over) a large roundabout for Hydraulic Road through traffic and turning movements; or with smaller roundabouts at the intersection of the exit ramps/service roads with Hydraulic Rd. _ - F. Partial system improvements. G. Improvements to the secondary grid network between Greenbrier and Hydraulic on both sides of Route 29. 4) Conduct a detailed analysis of the economic impacts on and/or benefits to any businesses or landowners within the study area that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed improvements. The analysis should include both short and long term impacts on busines, ses, such as loss of signage, parking, landscaping, and access, potential disruption and loss of business during construction and projected traffic service levels after construction, and costs to the public due to land acquisition and relocation costs and removal of property t~om the tax rolls. It should also evaluate potential economic benefits of improvements to the overall "customer delivery system," as well as potential increased value of properties that take advantage of oppommities for compact, mixed-uSe development. 5) 6) Implement a public involvement strategy to-~elp develop and evaluate concepts, review recommendations, and build consensus on a shared vision for the corridor. In addition to continued oversight by the Project Steering Committee, activities should include open public workshops as well as a series of focus groups and meetings with affected business and landowners, adjacent neighborhoods, and other interest groups. Outline a prioritized phasing plan for construction of the necessary improvements and to make investments to operational strategies such as transit, traffic signals, parking policies, etc. Construction phasing of improvements and maintenance of service and access shall be considered in evaluating the design alternatives, to minimize disruPtion during construction. The economic analysis should also outline potential .fuhding mechanisms for construction of improvements. Exploration of these funding mechanisms shall include evaluation of the potential benefits' and implications of creating Public-Private Transportation Authorities (PPTA) such as that used to build Route 28 in Northern Virg~ Tax Increment Financing Districts, a Commu~tY RedeveloPment Authority, or similar entity permissible under Virginia laws. Phase H 1) Phase II shall consist of expanding the efforts in #'s 3-6 above to include preliminary engineering and review of the other intersections in the study'area if determined desirable by the MPO. Those intersections most likely to be included are: a) Rio/29 b) Greenbrier/29 c) North Grounds Connection/250 Appendix A to Proposed Scope of Work Route 291Hydraulic Road/Route 250 Area Transportation Improvements Project List of recent traffic and land use studies performed by the developers of Albemarle Place: Per letter from Frank Cox, 8/9/02, these studies and data will be made available digitally for use by the consultant team selected. Prior to release of any RFQ for consultants on this .study, independent verification of the validity of the assumptions, data and analysis will' be obtained bom VDOT and Albemarle County. ~ Per Mr. Cox: "In conjunction with my work on the Albemarle Place Neighborhood Model project, the following regional corridor land use and traffic planning investigations have been performed by our consUltant team, and have been submitted to the County and VDOT with' the CPA. This work has been accepted and affirmed for uS~ with the ongoing evaluation of the CPA for the subject project:" (1) a physical, retail demand model, and economic assessment of corridor frontage commercial properties between the R_ivanna River and Barracks ROad Shopping Center, (2) a comprehensive field interview survey, of retail consumer patterns assessing origin and destination characteristics at key corridor retail shopping locations, .(3) a corridor passby traffic analysis and internal capture analysis study of the geographical area which circnmscribes the corridor's regional retail facilities, (4). AM and PM peak hour traffic counts at twenty two intersections, including those mentioned in your draft scope, (5) existing conditions intersectional capacity analyses for the twenty two intersections of AM and PM traffic volumes, (6) future conditions (2006) intersectional capacity analyses for the twenty two intersections of AM and PM traffic volumes (excluding development on the Sperry property), (7) future conditions (2006) intersectional Capacity analyses for the twenty two intersections of AM and PM traffic volumes (including Albemarle Phce traffic projections and hssigtm~ents), (8) transportation improvements recommendations for the Albemarle Place build-out year of 2006, (9) preliminary designs, for at-grade improvements at HydraUlic Road to approximate current capacity ratings under the 2006 build-out scenario for Albemarle Place. (10) detailed corridor topographic and as-built mapping for the section between Greenbriar Drive and the 29/250 Bypass, and (11) comprehensive demographic and market analysis as well as an economic evaluation of the fegional retail and employment markets in the PDC's region of influence. "The subject studies were prepared under my direction by Ramey Kemp and Associates (Raleigh, NC), with the initial scope of work for the traffic impact protocols and scope of intersection evaluations approved by and incorporating recommendations of both VDOT and the County. The passby and internal capture elements of the study were conducted by Rick Chellman, a noted new urbanist transportation planner located in New Hampshire. This work was coordinated and reviewed VDOT traffic planners in Richmond as well as Michael Demetsky, a LIVA transportation engineering professor and well known national contributor.to the literature of traffic engineering theory." "In summary, this work would add significant value and reduce the overall cost and timefxames associated with the enwisioned 6-month study. I believe that VDOT would confirm the appropriateness of the use by your study of our traffic counts on the twenty two intersections which extent beyond the region.of influence that you propose in the MPO scope of work." Ella Carey From: Sent: To: Subject: Sally Thomas Wednesday, October 30, 2002 4:11 PM Ella Carey; Bob Tucker; Dennis Rooker; Wayne Cilimberg Scope of Work for 29 corridor improvements I thought BOS had adopted or approved the MPO's proposed corridor study, but we didn't actually do so. It might help the MPO to have our approval. I propose putting it on the consent agenda next to transportation items. We don't have time for the usual staff report if it's to go out in this week's agenda package. Would the following cover note from me suffice since time is tight? If any of you think that we need a more thorough discussion or staff report, this can be postponed to another meeting altogether. Attached proposed Scope of Work is being developed by the MPO Policy Board and the MPO-Tech committee which includes county staff and one planning commissioner. Dennis Rooker and I thought other members of the Board would like tO see it. We recommend approval and will act on the County's behalf in pursuing the study. If you would iike further discussion, we'll be happy to invite MPO and/or county staff to come to answer any questions we can't handle. Pursuing this project may eventually involve county staff and/or county funds. We are aware of a need to expedite the study, given the Albemarle Place/Sperry property proposal and the University of Virginia's proposal for its North Grounds Connector to the present 29/250West bypass. We are also aware of other studies that will provide timely input into the corridor study, especially studies done by Albemarle Place applicants and by consultants for the University of Virginia. MPO staff is working at putting everything together into one package to seek VDOT approval and funding. City Council adopted the Scope of Work with a few amendments on October 7. At that time, Council also rescinded its 1995 resolution that had opposed a grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic Road and Route 29. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE Office of the Clerk of' City Council P.O. Box 911 · Charlottesville, Virginia · 22902 Telephone (804) 970-3113 0-I 8--02 POi October 17, 2002 Ms. Sally Thomas, Chair Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Ms. Thomas: Enclosed please find a certified copy of a resolution adopted by the Charlottesville City Council on October 7, 2002 requesting State funding for a traffic study ofthe U. S. Route 29 North Corridor and Scope of Work. Also attached is a copy of the 1995 resolution which the resolution rescinds. Sincerely, Jeanne Cox Clerk of City Council Adopted October 7, 2002 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING STATE FUNDING FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY OF THE U.S. ROUTE 29 NORTH CORRIDOR, INCLUDING THE INTERSECTIONS AT U.S. ROUTE 29 AND U.S. ROUTE 250 AND AT U.S. ROUTE 29 AND HYDRAULIC ROAD WHEREAS, the CATS 2015 Plan (the long-range transportation plan for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Region) recommended certain improvements to the U. S. No~h Corridor and by resolution on 8/6/90 ',he C/ty of Cb, arlottesville:endorsed ,thOse improvements and requested VDOT to implement the changes; and, WHEREAS, included among those improvements were the construction of grade- separated interchanges on U.S. 29 North at Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743), Greenbrier Drive (Rt. 866) and Rio Road (Rt. 631); and, WItEREAS, by Resolution adopted on January 17, 1995, a copy of which is attached hereto, City Council requested the Virginia Department of Transportation not to proceed with the construction of a proposed grade-separated interchange at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and U.S. Route 29, as designed by the Department of Transportation, because (a) of the anticipated adverse economic impact on surrounding commercial properties, (b) the construction of the interchange, as designed, would eliminatea'significant percentage'of road improvements being constructed on U:S:-Rt: 29 at that time, and (c) the design of the grade-separated interchange would not be in character with the size and nature of the community; and, WHEREAS, other proposals for a grade separated interchange at Hydraulic Rd and at Route 29 have been suggested to reduce traffic congestion and minimize the impact on existing businesses; and, WHEREAS, other possible improvements in the corridor, that would meet the objective of reducing traffic congestion and create no net loss to surrounding commercial, business and minimize impact on residential properties, may be feasible; and WHEREAS, an increasing amount of both commuter and through traffic is using U.S. Route 29 North, as evidenced by a population increase of almost 24% in Albemarle County during the last decade; and, ~ Adopted October 7, 2002 WHEREAS, major commercial development is planned in Albemarle County on Hydraulic Road in close proximity to the intersection with U.S. Route 29 and also on U.S. Route 29 North, which may greatly exacerbate existing traffic congestion problems; and, WHEREAS, a major capital improvements program by the University of Virginia may also increase traffic/on both U.S. Route 29 and U.S. Route 250, and at the intersection of those two roads; and, -~ WHEREAS, the 1990 VDOT traffic stUdy projected that the level of service on the Route 29 and Hydraulic Rd. intersection would be'at an "F" level of service bY the year 2010; and, WHEREAS, the efficient functioning of the Route 29 corridor is essential to the economic health and quality of life of the Charlottesville ! Albemarle region and of the state; and, WHEREAS, -intersection improvements at the two intersections should facilitate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and mass transportation, consistent with transportation goals articulated in the 2001 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Charlottesville; and, WHEREAS, the Route 29 Corridor from the 250 Bypass north to Hydraulic Road generates approximately $4,500,000 in direct revenues which is essential to the financial stability of-the City;~-and~ WHEREAS, this Council recognizes the intrinsic' value of each individual business located in the U. S. Route 29 North corridor. NOW; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of ~Charit~tte~¥ffie that~ That the. City Council hereby rescinds its prior Resolution dated January 17,. 1995, a copy of-which is attached, to the extent that it requests VDOT not to proceed with the design of a proposed grade- separated interchange at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and U. S. Route 29, but affirms its objection to the specific interchange design proposed by VDOT which was the subject of that 1995 Resolution. o In light of the foregoing studies and information, a copy of this resolution should be forwarded to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) with a request that they prioritize the study Adopted October 7, 2002 (outlined in the attached proposed Scope of Work) and request sufficient state funding for a comprehensive study and evaluation of improvements for the U. S. Route 29 Corridor, from Airport Road to the proposed North Grounds Connector on the U.S. RoUte 250 Bypass and the Emmet Street/Ivy Road intersection. Particular priority should be given to the intersection at U. S. Route 29 North and Hydmalic Road, the intersection at U. S. Route 29 and U. S. Route 250, U. S. Route 250 and Hydraulic Road and U. S. Route 250 and Barracks Road and the secondary road network which is adjacent to Route 29 between Greenbrier .and Hydraulic Roads. This study should include the following elements: Conduct a detailed analysis of the economic impacts on and/or benefits to any businesses or landowners within the study area that would be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed improvements. The analysis should include both short and long. term impacts on businesses, such as loss of signage, parking, landscaping, and access, potential disruption and loss of business during construction and projected traffic service levels after construction, and costs to the public due to land acquisition and relocation costs and the reduction in value or the removal of property from the tax rolls. It should also evaluate potential economic benefits of improvements tothe overall "customer delivery system," as well as potential increased value of properties that take advantage-of oppommities for compact, mixed-use development. Implement a public involvement strategy to help develop and evaluate concepts, review recommendations, and build consensus on a shared vision for the corridor. In addition to continued' oversight by the Project 'Steering~ranfittee, acti~ties should include open public workshops as well .as a series of focus groups and meetings with affected business and landowners, adjacent neighborhoods, and other interest groups. The State Funded study should be by a qualified traffic engineering firm under contract to the MPO in its role as a regional transportation planning agency. The first phase of the study should examine the entire study area in context of developing an integrated transportation system within the urbanized Route 29 Corridor. The study through the Steering Committee shall offer a range of solutions for the Adopted October 7, 2002 governing bodies and State to review. The study shall also prioritize implementation of all suggested solutions and offer preliminary cost calculations. The first phase of the study should include preliminary engineering for improvements to the intersections at U. S. Route 29 North and Hydraulic Road and the intersection at U. S. Route 29 and U. S. Route 250, the intersection at U. S. Route 250 and Barracks Road and the intersection at U. S. 'Route 250 and Hydraulic Road, the Hillsdale Drive Extension and for a grade-separated interchange at the intersection of the North Grounds Connector and the Rt. 250 Bypass. A second phase of the study might expand the integrated transportation system area to include the Route 29 corridor from Greenbrier Drive to Airport Road with preliminary engineering at selected intersections as determined at a later date. This Resolution is contingent upon approval of the attached Scope of Work as written. Any change or revision in the Scope of Work shall be subject to review and approval by City Council prior to submission of this Resolution to the MPO or to the Commonwealth. A copy of this Resolution shall be send to the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation;--and tothe University of Virginia,~-.the Board of- .......... Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission with a request that they support the studies requested herein. .... _App~-Oved-by Council October 7, 2002 C~~ CoUncil A RESOLUTION BY THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING THE PROPOSED GRADE SEPARATED INTERCHANGE AT U, S. ROUTE 29 AND HYDRAULIC ROAD WHEREAS, on January 10, 1.995, this City Council and the City Planning Commission held a joint public heating on the urban diamond interchange proposed by the Virginia. Department of Transportation ("VDOT") for the intersection ofU. S. Route 29 and Hydraulic Road; and, WHEREAS, in 1991 the City, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia issued a joint resolution that endorsed the concept of a grade separated interchange at the Hydraulic Road intersection, as part of efforts to improve traffic flow in the Route 29 North corridor; and, WHEREAS, City CounCil deems it necessary to re-examine the appropriateness of a grade-separated interchange at this location because: (I) of the specific interchange design proposed by VDOT, (2) of new estimates of the proposed cost of the project, (3) of new data on the economic impact of the interchange on City businesses, and (4) of new information on the fiscal impact of the proposed project on City revenues; and, WHEREAS, City Council has considered the recommendations from the City's planning staff and the Planning Commission, and reviewed the design, plans, and projections prepared by the consultant for VDOT; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville that the Sqrginia Department of Transportation is hereby requested not to proceed with the design and construction of the proposed grade-separated interchange at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and U.S. Route 29, for the following reasons: 1. Construction of the proposed interchange would destroy four commercial' buildings and would have an adverse economic impact on a significant number of additional City businesses; 2. A significant percentage of the road improvements now being constructed on Route 29 would be eliminated by the construction of the interchange; 3. In terms of cost, aesthetics, environmental impact, and traffic movement, this .grade~separated interchange is not in character with the size and nature of the community~ and is inappropriate as a major'entrance corridor into the City. BEIT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council believes that the City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, and the University of Virginia should continue to play the predominant role in determining the type, ~mre, and sequencing of road improvements in the Ronte 29 corridor, and that Virginia Departmeii[ of Transportation should continue to seek their input before any fin-ther decisions are made. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to the Virginia Secretary of Transportation, the CommiSsioner of the Virginia Department of Transportation, the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors, and to the University of Virginia. Approved by Council January 17, 1995 - ~ ~rk of~Ci~y~ Council~ 10-22-02P04:25 RCVP 2002 THIRD QUARTER BUILDING REPORT County of Albemarle Dept. of Planning & Community Development Office of Geographic Data Services 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5823 INDEX I. Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B) II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C, D, & E) III. Comparison of Ail Building Permits (Chart F) KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA Single-Family (includes mod ular) Single-Family Attached Single-Family Townhouse Duplex Multi-Family Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park) Accessory Apartment -2- During the third quarter of 2002, 205 building permits were issued for 371 dwelling units, In addition, 6 permits were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $15,000. II. Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month MONTH 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 JAN 190 50 26 54 38 49 52 52 55 FEB 53 43 44 44 39 84 43 39 348 MAR 72 47 61 57 65 65 54 54 74 APR 69 46 71 75 62 102 63 62 63 MAY 60 41 63 118 65 55 72 196 198 JUN 70 62 41 89 85 75 50 181 117 JUL 186 51 87 59 74 69 56 46 235 AUG 49 44 105 34 221 56 65 55 64 SEP 47 56 64 48 68 68 49 32 72 OCT 51 42 186 216 61 48 48 86 NOV 60 66 43 49 48 42 49 36 DEC 32 48 44 62 48 57 49 36 TOTAL 939 596 835 905 874 770 650 · 875 1226 Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month Chart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Monthi JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MONTH 1:32000 E]2001 12002~ Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services -3- Quarter 3, 2002 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA Sf/Th DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS RIO 21 8 4 0 0 0 0 33 9% JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1% RIVANNA 37 0 25 0 0 1 0 63 17% SAMUEL MILLER 19 0 0 0 0 1 2 22 6% SCOTTSVILLE 22 4 0 0 174 3 0 203 55% WHITE HALL 47 0 0 0 0 1 0 48 13% TOTAL 148 12 29 0 174 6 2 371 100% Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL SF SFA SFFFH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 1% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 25 7% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 13 4% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 4 0 0 0 174 0 0 178 48% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0%' CROZET COMMUNITY 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 6% HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 23 0 17 0 0 0 0 40 11% PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 2% RIVANNA VILLAGE 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 90 12 29 0 174 0 0 305 82% RURAL AREA 1 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 4% RURAL AREA 2 11 0 0 0 0 1 0 12 3% RURAL AREA 3 26 0 0 0 0 2 1 29 8% RURAL AREA 4 6 0 0 0 0 3 1 10 3% RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 58 0 0 0 0 6 2 66 18% TOTAL 148 12 29 0 174 6 2 371 100% Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services -4- Quarter 3, 2002 II. COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY TYPE (continued) Chart E. Breakdown of Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS UNITS Agnor-Hurt 6 8 12 0 0 0 0 26 ' 7% Baker Butler 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4% Broadus Wood 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3% · Brownsville 20 0 0 0 0 1 0 21 6% Crozet 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 17 5% Greet 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% Hollymead 15 0 4 0 0 0 0 19 5% Meriwether Lewis 4 0 13 0 0 0 0 17 5% Murray 9 0 0 · 0 0 0 1 10 3% Red Hill 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1% Cale 14 4 0 0 174 0 0 192 52% Scottsville 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 5 1% Stone Robinson 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 16 4% Stony Point 7. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 2% Woodbmok 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 3% Yancey I 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0% TOTAL 148 12 29 0 174 6 2 371 100% III. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS Chart F. Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. .NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM. NO. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ RIO 33 $ 3,871,540 28 $ 976,367 ' 1 $ 600,000 13 $ 335,761 75 $ 5,783,668 JOUETT 2 $ 700,000 15 $ 553,050 0 $ 2 $ 38,450 19 $ 1,291,500 RIVANNA 63 $ 9,234,007 28 $ 1,040,977 1 $ 15,000,000 8 $ 316,500 100 $ 25,591,484 S. MILLER 21 $ 4,863,300 34 $ 1,045,271 2 $ 105,945 7 $ 445,000 64 · $ 6,459,516 SCOTTSVILLE 38 $ 17,158,652 29 $ 805,520 7 $ 78,000 7 $ 61,000 81 $ 18,103,172 WHITE HALL 48 $ 10,862,005 44 $ 1,770,287 2 $ 140,000 3 $ 133,000 97 $ 12,905,292 I TOTAL 205 $ 46,689,504 178 $ 6,191,472 13 $ 15,923,945 40 $ 1,329,711 436 $ 70,134,632 * Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category. Prepared by the Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Services COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2004 Budget and CIP Events Calendar SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Calendar of the FY 2004 Operating Budget and FY 04-08 CIP/FY 09-13 Capital Needs Assessment events is provided for information. STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Hildebeidel AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ REVIEWED BY: /~~'~' BACKGROUND: The process of developing the County's Operating Budget for FY 2004 and the Capital Improvements Plan for FY 2004- 2008/Capital Needs Assessment for FY 2009 - 2013 is underway. The proposed schedule of the upcoming budget process events is sent to the Board of Supervisors to establish firm dates for Board meetings and public hearings on the budget and ClP, and to provide the public with as much notice as possible for planned community meetings, public hearings, and work sessions related to the budget and the CIP. Anticipated actions by the Planning Commission on the Recommended FY 04-08 CIP are also identified. DISCUSSION: A copy of the FY 2004 Operating Budget and FY 2004-2008 CIP/FY 2009-2013 Capital Needs Assessment Events Calendar is attached. Please note those dates identified in March and April, 2003, for Public Hearings on the budget, Board work sessions, and adoption of the FY 2004 Budget, CIP, and 2003 calendar year tax rate. The two identified "Community Meetings" on the Calendar in March are tentative at this time and are there as placeholders for outreach efforts to be conducted by staffto inform members of the public and interested groups about the proposals in the County Executive's Recommended Budget. The exact number and form of the outreach meetings and the specific community groups to be contacted are undetermined at this time, however, it is not anticipated that Board members .will be required to participate in these meetings. RECOMMENDATION: No Board action is required at this time. The attached calendar is provided for information purposes only. 10-30-02P01:02 RCVD 02.169 FY 2004 Operating Budget and FY 04-08 CIP/FY 09-13-Needs Assessment September 02 S MT WT F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1l 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 September 1.3 Budget Preparation Instruction Packets Distributed OCtober 1. 5 Initital FY 04 Baseline Requests due from Depts. February 1:4 Annual Report to Community 18 Planning Commission Public Hear- ing on FY 04-08 CIP/09-13 Capital Needs Assessment (tentative) March 03 S MT WT F S ! 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 3l October 02 I S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 November 02 S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 December 02 S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 January 03 S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 February 03 S MT WT F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 New/Expanded Forms Distributed November Baseline Budget Request for Speci- al Revenue Funds/Non-General Fund Programs Due 6 Revenue Projections/Budget Guid- ance Recommendations to BOS; Staff Recommendation of Compen- sation to BOS/School Board 15 City/County Joint Agency Applica- tions Distributed December 2 New/Expanded Requests for All Funds Due to OMB 10 City/County Joint Agency Applica- tions Due to City; Regional Agency Budget Work- sheets Due to City/County 20 FY 04-08 CIP/09-13 CapitalNeeds Assessment Document Prepared by County Exec. Ofc. January 14 Recommended FY 04-08 CIP/ 09-13 Capital Needs Assess- ment Document Sent to Plan- ning Commission 22 Updated Revenue Projections to Co .Exec. 27 Final Review of Baseline & New/ Expanded Requests 31 GeneralFund & Special Revenue Funds Balanced February 4 Planning Commission Work Sessi- ion on FY 04-08 CIP/09-13 Capital Needs Assessment Rec- ommendations (tentative) 5 Updated Revenue Projections and Budget Guidance Recommen- dations to the BOS 19 School Board's Recommended Budget to Co.Exec. 26 Recommended Budget Document Finalized March 5 Co.Exec.'s Recommended FY 04 Budget & FY 04-08 CIP/09-13 Capital Needs Assessment to BOS; 6 Community Meeting (tentative) Community Meeting (tentative) 12 Public Hearing on Co.Exec.'s Recom- mended Budget & CIP 17 BOS Budget Worksession - Gener- al Gov't. Budget 19 BOS Budget Work Session - School Budget/CIP 24 BOS Budget Work Session 26 BOS Budget Work Session - Set Tax Rate/Proposed Budget Finalized April 9 Public Hearing on BOS Proposed Budget & 2003 Calendar Year Tax Rate ~6 BOS Adopts FY 04 Budget & FY 04-08 CIP/09-13 Capital Needs Assessment April 03 S MT WT F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 May 03 S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 June 03 i S MT WT F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 July 03 S MT WT F S ---~ ¥ X 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 August 03 S MT WT F S I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .9 I0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Printed by Calendar Creator Plus on 10/29/2002 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Public Meeting Schedule for Rural Area Review Process SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of the Rural Area Review Process Public Meeting Purpose, Outcome and Schedule STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Ms. Catlin, McDowell AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Following the direction of the Planning Commission, staff in the Planning and Community Development Department have established a public meeting format and schedule to provide broad public awareness of and participation in the Rural Area Review Process. DISCUSSION: The meetings are planned to help attendees learn about and get involved in the County's Comprehensive Plan Review process, to diScuss trends in development and population that impact the rural area, and to receive feedback from citizens about what elements are critical to our rural areas. Information generated by the meet ngs will be included in a report to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to be presented in February, 2003, and will be used in the drafting of the Rural Area Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan. November '13, 2002 November 20, 2002 December 4, 2002 December 11, 2002 Meetinq Schedule: (all meetings will be held from 7:00 - 9:00 pm) Wednesday Broadus Wood Elementary 185 Buck Mountain Road Wednesday Red Hill Elementary 3901 Red Hill School Road in North Garden Wednesday Stony Point Elementary 3893 Stony Point Road Wednesday Scottsville Elementary 7868 Scottsville Road RECOMMENDATION: This item is for information only - no action is required by the Board 02.175 70-30-02P03:77 FAX I434) 972-4126 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 October 8, 2002 Michael T. Boggs Haley, Chisolm & Morris P.O. Box 550 Earlysville, VA 22936 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax Map 18, Parcel 27 (Property of Haley, Chisholm & Morris, inc.) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Boggs: 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 18, Parcel 27 consists of three separate parcels. Tract 1:17.295 acres by survey, described as 20 acres in Deed Book 146, page 171. Tract 2:64.9007 acres by survey, described as 63 acres, 1 rod and 36 poles in Deed Book 155, page 340. Tract 3:21.0255 acres by survey, described as 23 acres in Deed Book 197, page 216. (Since this deed was recorded, 2 acres were off-conveyed.) Each of these separate parcels contains five (5) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 18, Parcel 27 contains 102 acres and 1 dwelling. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 2168, page 202. The most recent deed for Tract 1 and Tract 2 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 255, page 23. This deed, dated July 18, 1942, conveyed 106 acres from W. J. Morris & Mary J. Morris to Claude Shiflett. The property is described as follows: I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\18-27 HCM.doc Michael T. Boggs October 8, 2002 Page 2 That certain tract or parcel of land supposed to contain 20 acres, more or less, and described in a deed of trust of record in Deed Book 146, page 171; (The 1911 deed refers to this tract as part of land which was assigned by Mrs. Leah Cox to M.E. Via, and purchased by Jno F. Cox, and is on the west side of that place and adjoins the lands of Jno. Cox and Laura Marshall, which line has been established and a woven wire fence put up which will indicate the exact location of the line) This parcel is designated as Tract I on the attached sketch. All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 63 acres, 1 rod and 36 poles, more or less, and described in Deed Book 155, page 340; (The 1914 deed describes this tract as 63 acres, 1 rod and 36 poles) This parcel is designated as Tract 2 on the attached sketch. That certain other tract or parcel of land containing 23 acres, more or less, and described in Deed Book 197, page 216. (The 1923 deed describes this tract as a portion of a tract of 86 acres conveyed to J. F. Cox in 1886) This parcel minus 2 acres described in the following deed is designated as Tract 3 on the attached sketch. On the basis of this deed, the property conveyed in Deed Book 146, page 171 (Tract 1) and the property conveyed in Deed Book 155, page 340 (Tract 2) are each determined to be separate parcels of record as defined in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. The most recent deed for Tract 3 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 478, page 512. This deed, dated October 20, 1970, conveyed 2.00 acres from Claude S. Shiflett & Georgia M. Shiflett to Billy Randolph Shiflett & Hasleteen M. Shiflett. The property is described as being a portion of property conveyed to Claude Shiflett by deed of W. J. Morris & Mary J. Morris dated July 18, 1942 and recorded in Deed Book 255, page 23. The property is shown on a plat by R. O. Snow dated May 1, 1970 recorded just prior to this deed. On the basis of this deed, Tract 3, shown by survey to contain 21.0255 acres, is determined to be a parcel of record as defined in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. Deed Book 2168, page 202, dated March 7, 2002 conveyed 106 acres from Billy R. Shifflett and Wilbur D. Shifflett to Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc. The description of the property is the same as that in Deed Book 255, page 23, LESS AND EXCEPT the 2 acres conveyed in Deed Book 478, page 512. This transaction had no effect on the development rights of Parcel 37B. I:\DEPT~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\18-27 HCM.doc 2 Michael T. Boggs October 8, 2002 Page 3 Based on this history, Parcel 27 is determined to be comprised of three (3) separate parcels. Each of these parcels contain five (5) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots Containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, two parcels of at least 21 acres may potentially be created from the 63 acre parcel if all other applicable regulations can be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Reading Files Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Cary, Clerk for Board of Supervisors I:\DEP'P, Building& Zoning\Determin of Parcel\18-27 HCM.doc 3 I FAX (434) 9724126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 ]0-]8-02P02:56 RC¥O TTD (434) 9724012 October 16, 2002 Tara Rowan Boyd Leclair Ryan, A Professional Corporation 123 East Main Street 8th Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 18, Parcel 17E (Property of Jeffrey F. and Corinne S. Buckalew) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ms. Boyd: 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 18, Parcel 17E is comprised of two separate parcels. One parcel contains 10.476 acres as shown on a plat recorded in Deed Book 655, page 237. The other parcel contains 124.51 +/- acres and is the residue of the parcel shown on this same plat. Each of these parcels has five (5) development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 18, Parcel 17E contains 134.987 acres and two dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The tax map indicates the location of the 10.476 acre parcel but does not identify it by number. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1882, page 586. Deed Book 655, page 239, dated August 25, 1978 conveyed 10.476 acres from Salem Corporation to Cornelia M. Brooks. The property is shown on a plat by R. O. Snow and Associates, dated May 22, 1978 that is attached to a road maintenance agreement recorded prior to this deed on page 237. The residue was shown to contain 124.51 +/- acres. The most recent deed for the 10.476 acre parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 679, page 769. This deed, dated August 28, 1979, conveyed 10.476 acres from Cornelia M. Brooks & James Hall Brooks to James Hall Brooks & Cornelia M. Brooks as tenants by the entirety and not as tenants in common. This is the same property in all respects as was conveyed by. Deed Book 655, page 239. On the basis of this deed the I:\DEP'l%Building & ZoninCDetermin of Parcel\l 8-17EBuckalew.doc Jeffrey F. and Corinne S. Buckalew October 16, 2002 Page 2 10.476-acre portion of Parcel 17E on Tax Map 18 is determined to be a parcel of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. The most recent deed for the 124.51 acre parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is recorded in Deed Book 679, page 771. This deed, dated August 28, 1979, conveyed 124.51 acres from Salem Corporation to James Hall Brooks & Cornelia M. Brooks. This is the same property identified as the residue on a plat by R. O. Snow and Associates dated May 22, 1978 that was conveyed by Deed Book 655, page 237. On the basis of this deed the 124.51- acre portion of Parcel 17E on Tax Map 18 is determined to be a parcel of record as provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance. On September 17, 1979 the owner requested that the County's Supervisor of Assessments tax the two parcels as a single property since they were under common ownership. This request was granted and parcels were combined on the tax map. This action neither recombined the two separate legal parcels nor extinguished any rights attached to either of them. Deed Book 1723, page 639, dated June 17, 1998 conveyed an undivided 50% interest in two certain pieces of property from Cornelia M. Brooks & James Hall Brooks to James Hall Brooks and an undivided 50% interest in two certain pieces of property from Cornelia M. Brooks & James Hall Brooks to Cornelia M. Brooks as tenants in common. The two parcels are described in Exhibit A as being the same parcels conveyed in Deed Book 679, page 769 and page 771. This transaction had no effect on the development rights associated with the parcels. Deed Book 1844, page 493, dated July 30, 1999 conveyed two parcels from James Hall Brooks & Cornelia M. Brooks to Herbert Zeltner & Morissa C. Zeltner. The two parcels are described separately. These are further described as being the same parcels that were conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 1723, page 639. This transaction had no effect on the development rights associated with the parcels. Deed Book 1882, page 586, dated December 13, 1999 conveyed two parcels from Herbert Zeltner & Morissa C. Zeltner to Jeffrey F. Buckalew & Corinne S. Buckalew. The two parcels are described separately. These are further described as being the same parcels that were conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 1844, page 493. This transaction had no effect on the development rights associated with the parcels. County records indicate there have been no off-conveyances since this transaction. I:~DEP'l'~Building & Zoning~)etermin of Parcel18-17EBuckalew.doc Jeffrey F. and Corinne S. Buckalew October 16, 2002 Page 3 Based on this history, each of these two parcels is determined to contain five (5) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres may be created from the 124.51-acre parcel as it will allow, if all other applicable regulations can be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: Jeffrey F. or Corinne S. Buckalew 125 West 76th Street, Apt. 5B New York, NY 10023 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department, Ella Cary Reading Files I:~DEP'r~Building & Zoning\Determin of Parcel\18-17EBuckalew.doc 10-22-02704:24 ~CVB Albemarle County Planning Commission September 24, 2002 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, 401 Mctntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; William Finley; Tracey Hopper; Pete Craddock and William Rieley, Vice-Chairman. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Michael Barnes, Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Building Code & Zoning Services/Zoning Administrator; Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration; Mark Graham, County Engineer; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Loewenstein invited public comment on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Williamson ,Building Site Waiver - Request for a building site waiver, pursuant to Section 4.2.5, to allow encroachment into the one hundred foot buffer of a tributary stream to a public drinking water impoundment. (Margaret Doherty) (Tax Map 060C, Parcel E8) Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. (7:0) Mr. Loewenstein stated that the agenda has been changed to move the Parking ZTA up to be heard after Albemarle Place. Item Requesting Deferral: CPA -01- 04 Albemarle Place - Change the land use designation in County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan from Industrial Service to Regional Service for Parcels 19A and 19B of Tax Map 61W, Section 3 to support an eventual rezoning from LI, Light Industrial to PUD, Planned Unit Development, for the purposes of creating a mixed residential, office, and commercial development. (Michael Barnes) DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 6, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Mr. Loewenstein stated that the public hearing would not be opened for public comment. He noted that previously they had received public comment and held several work sessions. He asked if staff had additional information that they are going to provide. He stated that if there were questions for staff, then they could get those answered. He stated that if there were questions other that, then they would decide what they wanted to do. Michael Barnes stated that staff has provided an executive summary. He summarized the major four points covered as follows: 1. Response to the concerns about the Department of Environmental Quality pump comments related to the streams on the site. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 2. MPO study that is being contemplated for this area. 3. The revisions requested by Mr. Edgerton have been incorporated into the staff report. He noted that in Attachment B7 were the two points that he asked to be included which were underlined. 4. A letter came from the City updating their most recent position on the Albemarle Place project. He stated that the basis issues that were raised during the review of the CPA have been addressed with the propoSed text amendment in front of you. Therefore, staff recommends approval of ZTA-01-04 with the attached text and map. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were any questions for staff. Mr. Rieley stated that he would like to ask Mr. Rue a question concerning the traffic.study. Mr. Loewenstein noted that they do have a status report in the staff report. Mr. Rieley stated that he had a cou pie of (:uestions that went beyond that. Mr. Loewenstein asked when they get to the rezoning stage how closely does the language in that section tie us to the specific submission, master plan or the existing document that they have seen from the Albemarle Place applicant so far. Mr. Barnes stated that what staff was trying to get there is in the key words are generally articulated. He noted that thiS was to allow some flexibility, but yet capture the essence of what is in this picture. He stated that the intent is that if this development went away and we had to get. another one that they would be able to say that this is what they were looking for. He noted that a picture was worth a' thousand words. He noted that there was definitely some flexibility there. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they want to make sure that they did not put the cart before the home. He noted that some of the things that are generally articulated are things that might not be taken up in detail before they get to a rezon~ng application. He questioned if they were boxing themselves in by using this language in a CPA. Mr. Kamptner stated that this is part of the Comprehensive Plan, which is a policy document to guide the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it would not be considered in isolation of all of the other recommendations here, particularly Section C and what it covers is going to have to be looked at in combination. More specific development proposals would be reconsidered during the rezoning process. Mr. Loewenstein suggested that they change the word desired to the word possible on page 12, top paragraph, and number 4. He stated that they have not determined the desired form, character, etc. officially. Mr. Rieley stated that he had a long list of items to review and this was on the list. He asked that they go through this from the beginning. He stated that his concern about B4 is more fundamental and really goes back to the second work session. He stated that it was apparent that they had a diagram fro. m the staff and an illustration from the applicant that were fundamentally at odds with each other. In addition, there are lots of details on that plan that they have called into question from time to time. There are some that they would talk about later on tonight. He questioned the wisdom of inclusion in reference to that plan. He felt that they were skating on pretty thin ice when they put two documents in that are directly contradictory to each other and then endorse both of them. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 M r. Rieley stated that the principle that Ms. Ho pper raised in trying to identify pieces that we can endorse as examples that not necessarily adhere to a specific location as a specific proposal on this piece of property is a tenable one for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. That seems to fit better than a specific proposal if it was the spirit of the B4 language. He noted his difficulty with F7 was that it incorporates one of the areas that he has the most difficulty with. For the last several weeks they have been discussing relegated parking. He stated that they have right along Hydraulic Road two surface parking lots right in front of the buildings. He supported the general idea of picking out a piece that they like to incorporate as an example without relativity to a specific location, but that particular one bothers him. He suggested that they cut the line more narrowly. Mr. Finley suggested that they say articulate character and distribution rather than the desired form. He suggested leaving out the two words. Mr. Rieley stated that if these drawings are included the way they are, there is not much in the way of language change that you can put in that would prevent people from saying here is what you have passed. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they have three alternatives in leaving it the way it is, changing the language in some way and perhaps 'changing some of the graphics or taking out B4, E7 and D7 altogether and maybe F7 as well. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Barnes how much square feet the D3 anchor retail represents on attachment F7. Mr. Barnes stated it was about 140,000 square feet on two stories with 70,000 square feet per floor. Mr. Rieley stated that it was just over the 65,000 square feet. Mr. Edgerton stated that he had great difficulty in trying to figure out what great value they had in including these drawings. He stated that they have a good document without them. Ms. Hopper noted that particularly with the second bullet. Mr. Edgerton suggested that they include C4, which describes our willingness to be flexible with the magical 65,000 square foot footprint. He proposed taking out paragraph four entirely and with that taking out the three attachments that reference the specific plan that they have some conflict with. Mr. Loewenstein added that the last bullet under C4 also references attachment F7, which would be deleted as well. Mr. Edgerton summarized the proposed changes as follows: Delete D7, E7 and F7. Then under General Recommendations, on page 10, first paragraph, last sentence would state D7 and not G7. · On page 12, delete paragraph z~ at the top of the page. Then renumber the remaining to 4) and 5). · On the last bullet on C4, delete the reference to F7 and cross out the last sentence and leave the first sentence in.- · On page 16, top right hand corner where it says attachment G7, change it to B7. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 4 He stated that he did not think that this limits their ability to work with the developer to go ahead with the project as discussed. He felt it was consistent to what they have agreed to. Mr. Rieley stated that there are a few more issues here. He made the following suggestion: On page 10, this relates to the traffic study that should be underway. He noted that he was struck that this whole issue of transportation does not have the word interchange in it anywhere. This is something that has been looked at over a twenty year period and he did not think any study has been done on this area that suggests that this intersection can be raised to an acceptable level of surface without some kind of interchange. He noted that it was absent from this COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT. He felt that they need to deal with it forth rightly and should say that it is one of the alternatives for the eventua disposition of this intersection. Any development of this property should allow for such a resolution both in terms of its initial planning and at the rezoning stage dedication of sufficient property to allow it to happen. Now is the time to address it. There is no value to ignoring something so fundamental at this stage of the process. Mr. Thomas asked if he was just saying that it is just an alternative to look at it. Mr. Rieley agreed. He stated that they have enthusiastically endorsed the idea of this study to help it get going and all of the preliminary indications that have been done up to this time, including VDOT's analysis, have shown the most likely scenario as some kind of a grade separated traffic interchange. If they approve a Comprehension Plan land use change for this property without acknowledging that and building that in to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment in some way, he felt it was ultimately irresponsible. Mr. Edgerton suggested the following: · On page 11, paragraph, after the word improvements on the third line, add a comma and possibly including a grade separated interchange, and setting aside sufficient right-of-way.. Mr. Cilimberg stated that there was actually some language in there that got cut off when the document was copied. Mr. Barnes stated that the last time they considered this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, if you will go to the top of page 11 in your document, you will notice that the previous two lines above the Hydraulic/Route 250 were mistakenly left off which should be added back in as follows, "As part of an integrated system, improvements in this area may use urban grade separated interchanges as warranted to facilitate the movement of traffic. In particular.." Mr. Rieley stated that was an important item and agreed with the suggested language change in item 4 since it mentions setting aside sufficient right-of-way. Mr. Edgerton stated that would send an important signal to the City concerning this issue. Mr. Rieley stated that on Page 11, the last sentence in 3 says that this crossover should be closed upon the creation of the ultimate connection at Seminole Square/Sperry Marine/Route 29 intersection. He noted that he agreed with that, but wondered what the mechanism was to assure that. He asked if there was a way in which that kind of thing was enforced. Mr. Barnes stated that it would be in the VDOT right-of-way. He pointed out that they I~ulled this language from the Hollymead Comprehensive Plan Amendment that was adopted. That was based on the same type of premise because they needed to have a crossover and could have it, but it may be closed at such time the grade separator interchange happens. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22,02 Mr. Rieley asked if it was clear that there would be some sequencing of events as implication for the development on this site. If expensive improvements and the whole plan were built around this interchange, it will be very difficult to get that changed in the future. He felt that the acknowledgment that is a temporary connection should have implications and should be reflected in the site plan itself. He asked if they could say that in the site plan proposals under the rezoning. He stated that the site plan was not an acknowledgement in this plan as he reads it. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that this was ultimately a VDOT call. He stated that he did not disagree with him in principle, but he was just wondering how best to accomplish it. Mr. Cilimberg stated that what this paragraph intends to say is that there is one intersection that is considered to be the desirable one. There may be this new crossover established, but that should not continue to exist when we are able to utilize the Seminole/Sperry. crossover for the access to the western side of Route 29. Mr. Rieley stated that he was going for essentially the same point that he was getting about planning around interchanges in place. We should acknowledge what the long-term vision is and stipulate that the short-term development has to be subordinate to that long-term vision. He noted that he would like to state that explicitly. Mr. Citimberg stated that if they get Sperry in for redevelopment, they have something that was specifically saying how that should happen. He noted that was where it would occur. Mr. Rieley pointed out not only on Sperry, but there were implications on this project for connections and the way that development should anticipate the long-term connections. The danger is if they approve it without the interchanges in anticipation of this connection, but it does not happen now. Then it develops in such a way that there is a built in resistance to changing it later if we don't insist that we are planning on it now. He stated that you would not want to build a commercial building in the path of the anticipated roadway that is going to go to the new location because that would be one more obstacle to overcome when you are trying to do the right thing 'in the long term. Mr. Barnes stated that in our opinion to see this work, the post office entrance would become a right in right out entrance. In taking his point, whatever happens as far as site development on either the Sperry site and/or the Albemarle Place site could not preClude the possibility that would then become the main entrance or the focal point. Mr. Rieley stated that by stating it explicitly they were giving everybody a heads up that this is the plan and this is what you work to. Mr. Finley asked which pages that were proposing to leave. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they were proposing to leave C7 that was the transportation grid. He asked to hear the rest of the possible changes. Mr. Rieley felt that it was best for the group to discuss the changes rather than just mailing them in. On number 3C, he suggested, "Projects should orient buildings to major roads, with priority to the existing street network, both interior and exterior to the super block to the maximum extent possible in order to create the appropriate streetscape." · Certainly correct number 1, compatibility with adjoining uses across'th e road. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 Regarding C4, Mr. Rieley stated that it seems kind of fluffy. He stated that it seems to talk about making a big building something that it was not. He suggested that they be more demanding on the issue of large scaled buildings in these development areas. He disagreed with dressing up the facade of a big box deal with .the fundamental problem. When we cross the 65,000 square feet threshold, they should be establishing an expectation that they go to multi-level stores. He noted that this language was far weaker than the language that they passed for the Fifth Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that they were quite explicit about an expectation that buildings in the excess of 65,000 square feet would be multi-story. He noted that not only would they get buildings to look like what they actually were, but in fact they would be getting the substantive benefits of multi-story building which was one-half the roof or one- half the imperious parking, if they combine that with more of a demand for structured parking and be more demanding on storm water issues, then they begin to make a substantial change in the pattern. He stated that this was a big issue. He suggested that staff pull out the language used for the Fifth Street project and email it to the Commissioners for review for use in this project. He stated that he did not object [o the language if it was supplemented with substantive language. Mr. Loewenstein noted that they might be able to work with the language that they already have. He questioned whether the two-story mandatory approach is always necessary to achieve the kind of result that they wanted to achieve. Mr. Rieley stated that he felt that they needed language in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment that creates the expectation that when one exceed the 65,000 square foot threshold that we are then looking at multi-story buildings. He stated that the language in the Fifth 'Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment was'balanced and reasonable. Continuing the model of the conventional big box with the sea of parking is not healthy for our community, and they need to try to break that model. He pointed out that they have the Neighborhood Model, which was an excellent tool to use to do that. Mr. Thomas stated that he did not think it should be limited to 65,000 square feet. Mr. Rieley suggested that uses be added to number five. Mr. Loewenstein disagreed with adding uses since he preferred that they not box themselves in. Mr. Rieley stated that the uses should be compatible with the adjacent property uses. Mr. Edgerton suggested that the buildings along the street exteriors should be compatible with the existing development opposite' the proposal. This would display their desire to try to be respectful of the value that is already there which they would want to maintain. Mr. Loewenstein stated that they need to try to decide how to proceed. Mr. Rieley asked that the Commission receive a fresh copy of this without the illustrations to review. Mr. Edgerton asked that a marked up copy be provided. Mr. Rieley stated that they need to review the Brass, Inc. language. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that staff emajl the Brass, Inc. language to the Commission and forward the additional information for discussion at next week's meeting. Mr. Craddock asked where the water issue comes into play in this project. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the water resources and capacity would have to be reviewed under the Com. prehensive Plan. He pointed out that he could not answer the question on how the drought would affect this particular request. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 Mr. Loewenstein stated that the choice was whether they would defer this to next week or the week after since the City was scheduled to vote on the traffic issue. Mr. Rieley suggested that they wait until the City votes on the traffic study concerning grade separated interchanges if it means that they delay this discussion for one week. Mr. Loewenstein asked how many Commissioners would like to defer action on this until next week. He stated that it appears that the majority of the members wanted to hear this next week. He stated that they would not take action on this request tonight and review the proposed changed at next week's meeting. In consensus, the Commission asked staff to provide information from the Fifth Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment and a listing of their recommended changes to the conditions. Mr. Loewenstein stated that the Commission did not take any formal action tonight. The Planning Commission took a ten minutes recess at 8:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 p.m. Ms. Hopper stated that since no formal action was taken on Albemarle Place, that she would like to make an argument that they defer action until October 8th instead of October 1st for the benefit of cooperation with the City. She asked that the Commission reconsider that and take another formal action to continue it to October 8th. J The Commission discussed the pros and cons of waiting until after the City votes on the traffic study. Ms. Hopper moved to defer CPA-01-04, Albemarle Place, to the October 8th meeting. Mr. Rieley seconded the motion, which carried (4:3). (Thomas, Finley, Craddock - Nay) Work Session: ZTA-01-09 Parking - Repeal Section 4.12, Off-street parking and loading requirements, and all of its subparts; repeal Section 4.13, Parking and storage of certain vehicles, and all of its subparts; add new Section 4.12, Parking, stacking and loading, including subparts; and amend Section 3.1, Definitions, Section 15.2.2, By special use permit, Section 16.2.2, By special use permit, Section 17.2.2, By special use permit, Section 18.2.1, By right, Section 18.2.2, By special use permit, Section 19.3.2, By special use permit, Section 20.3.2, By special use permit, Section 20.4.2, By special use permit, Section 20.5.2, By special use permit, Section 22.2.1, By right, Section 22.2.2, By special use permit, Section 23.2.1, By right, Section 23.2.2, By special use permit, Section 24.2.1, By dght, Section 24.2.2, By special use permit, Section 27.2.1, By right, ahd Section 28.2.1, By right; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would establish new parking, stacking and loading regulations applicable to new uses, structures and parking areas, redeveloped sites, and preexisting and approved parking, stacking and loading areas; define Certain terms used in new Section 4.12; and delineate in which zoning districts parking may be a primary use by right'or by special use permit. (Jan Sprinkle/Elaine Echols) Ms. Sprinkle stated that this was the third work session on parking. She presented the staff report. She noted that one change had been made in staff's recommendations regarding parking structures in the PRD and PUD. Staff suggests that parking structures be by right in the PRD and PUD zones. She noted that if the Commission agrees with that change, then staff would change the text language. She stated that a letter from Al Reaser, of the Albemarle County Schools, had been received requesting that the schools be exempted from a number of the parking regulations. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 8 Mr. Rieley stated that he had received several emails from,Marcia Joseph asking for some additional consideration for parking for rural area churches. Ms. Sprinkle stated that they could put in the parking schedule that churches would either meet the 1 to 3 for the larger churChes or the 1 to 4 for the smaller churCh OR the church bdng us a parking study that shows what their real need is. She stated that it would not have to be done by'a traffic engineer. She stated that they could bring us that they have and then staff would consider the proposal. Mr. Loewenstein stated that flexibility for that kind of use in the Rural Areas makes a lot of sense. Ms. Sprinkle stated that keeping it confined to the Rural Areas would really help. Ms. McCulley, Director of Building Code & Zoning Services/Zoning Administrator, was present. The Commission held discussion on the proposed parking zoning text amendment. Ms. Hopper moved to approve ZTA-01-09, Parking, with the following changes: 1. Maximum allowable percentage above the minimum required parking be changed to 15 perCent. (Section 4.12.4.a) On relegated parking, looking at subsection C on page 2 of the packet, Orientation to buildings, that language be adopted but it be specified that it does not apply to areas that are designated Rural Areas in the Comp Plan. (Section 4.12.5.c Orientation to buildings located in designated -Development Areas) 3. Parking lots as primary uses and Parking Structures by-right in PRD and PUD. (Section 19.3.1 and 20.3.1 ) Churches would be allowed to reduce the parking based on a study that they would provide to the Zoning Administrator. The study does not have to be done by a traffic engineer. Delete parking as special use under 19.3.2 and 20.3.2. Amendments to 19.3.1 and 20.3.1 to allow parking structures by right. Mr. Kamptner stated that when you delete parking .by special use permit under Sections 19.3.2 and 20.3.2 and amend Sections 19.3.1 and 20.3.1 to allow parking structures by-right, there is going to be a time period where parking is a stand alone use allowed for those two districts until the amendment is approved. He noted that this would need to be advertised. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Mr. Loewenstein stated that no date has been set for the Board of Supervisors hearing. Ms. Sprinkle stated that November 6th has been reserved for a work session with Supervisors. the Board of Public Hearing Item: ZTA 02-003 - Uses - Amend Sections 2.1.1, Use, Occupancy and Construction, and 3.1, Definitions (definition of "accessory use, buildings or structure"), of Chapter 18, Zoning of the Albemarle County Code, to restate and continue the existing rule that a lawful accessory use must be located on land zoned to allow the primary use and must comply with the zoning regulations applicable to the land on which the accessory use is located. (Amelia McCulley) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 ZTA 02-004- Stormwater Mana.qement Facilities -Amend Sections 10.2.1, By right, 12.2.1, By right, 13.2.1, By right, 14.2.1, By right, 15.2.1, By right, 16,2.1, By right, 17.2.1, By right, 18.2.1, By right, 19:3.1, By right, 20.3.1, By right, 22.2.1, By right, 23.2.1, By right, 24.2.1, By right, 27.2A, By right, and 28.2.1, By right, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, to authorize stormwater management facilities that are shown on approved final Site plans or subdivision plats as a by right use of a pamel. (Amelia McCulley) Mr. Loewenstein stated that they had two zoning text amendments to consider together. Ms. McCulley presented the staff report. (See the attached staff report.) She stated that ZTA-02-003 Uses, was a housekeeping item which was to further clarify an existing rule that a lawful accessory use must comply with the Zoning regulations applicable to the land upon which it is located. The most substantive change relates to ZTA-02-004, Stormwater Management Facilities, which relates to the location of stormwater facilities and essentially it is to list it as a use and allow it by right in every district and by special use permit in the Rural Areas district. The reason listed underthpublic purpose to be served has already been discussed with the adoption of the resolution on August 26 . At that time one of the comments was that we should be mindful of policy implementations in terms of the impact of the rural areas. A staff work team of Engineering, Planning and Zoning met to discuss it. Their conclusion was that there really are not significant concerns or issues related to the location of stormwater facilities in the development areas, but there may be some in the Rural Areas. It may not be appropriate to have it by right in the rural areas ~ecause not every rural area property would be appropriate for just any stormwater facility, which in some :cases could really could be an industrial type of facility visually and in terms of scale and so forth. To better administer it, staff recommends that it be by special use permit in the rural areas. That will allow a couple of things. They hope that it will limit the proliferation that the use of rural areas property for this type of facility. It will allow us to evaluate any impact on the agricultural use of that property where it is being located or on adjacent properties. Secondly, it gives you the discretion to include any approval conditions, which could dictate the location, size, design and screening of that use. After going through all of the criteria that they have to review for all zoning text amendments, she finds that the impact was really limited. There was really none in terms of the accessory use zoning text amendment because it was a housekeeping amendment to an existing regulation. In terms of the stormwater facility, the impact is really on one hand it should really clarify things because it has been inconsistent in the past and will make for a more even interpretation and application of the regulations. The special use permit requirement, which may not arise very often, is one which will involve more Staff time than a by-right use that does not go through the public hearings. Therefore, there are those implications. Staff is recommending that the Commission approve the text. She asked to delete alternative one since alternative two covers everything. In terms of Section 2.1.1 alternative two, nonconforming uses in structures as provided 'in this chapter is what staff recommends that the Commission adopt. Mr. Loewenstein asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Thomas asked if on the resolution of intent, they had approved the stormwater management by right and staff has changed it to be by special use permit. Ms. McCulley stated that was correct. At the time of the resolution of intent, the staff work team had not yet met to discuss the policy implications and formulate a recommendation. She noted that it was written as you said at that time that it be allowed as a by-right use in every district. This is probably one of the fastest zoning text amendments that they have ever done. She noted that there was no legal defect in this and they had the staff work team assess it to come up with that recommendation. Mr. Cilimberg stated that it was advertised by right and could go more restrictive legally without readvertising. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 l0 Mr. Thomas asked if there were any activities going on right now that would be affected by this. Ms. McCulley stated that the two cases that are pending include the Shadwell Market rezoning. This zoning text amendment would not resolve their issue in that they have more than stormwater facilities. If they get the rezoning approval, then it would allow them to do what they are proposing. The other case is the Blue Ridge Site Plan Amendment to expand the stormwater facility, which is approved in the RA property under a prior approval many years ago. At this point, staff recognized that approval was an error and they need to allow to remain, but they could not allow another error to expand the stormwater pond. Therefore, they would either have to rezone, scale back the stormwater pond to the eXisting approved size or apply for a special use permit for the stormwater facility in the rural areas. Mr. Thomas asked if it would be a regional type of stormwater facility. Ms. McCulley stated that it would serve more than the Blue Ridge HC, but Mr. Graham's staff has analyzed this pretty extensively. They have discussed the idea of that being a County owned facility because a public use is allowed in every district. Mr. Graham can certainly answer any questions. Mark Graham, County Engineer, stated that the proposed facility is actually an expanded facility that came in with the intent to serve both the Clover Lawn and Blue Ridge developments. It also addresses a stream buffer mitigation that is required by them. The Blue Ridge site plan is impacting the stream buffer, and as allowed under the Water Protection Ordinance, you can have that encroachment if there is an acceptable mitigation to the engineering. They have worked through that arrangement with them. Beyond that it could potentially provide some benefit for the area outside of that area, but it was not that significant. In looking at it they did not identify any downstream issues or any overriding any existing uses out there where this would provide a significant public benefit. As such, they could not recommend that it be a County owned and maintained facility. Mr. Cilimberg Stated that this was for freestanding stormwater facilities on separate parcels. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing and asked for public input. There being none, he closed the public hearing and brought the matter before the Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of ZTA-02-003, Uses, with the one change on page one of the Ordinance draft. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Ms. Hopper moved for approval of ZTA-02-O04, Stormwater Management Facilities, as presented. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). Mr. Loewenstein stated that these two items would go before the Board of Supervisors on October 9th. OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Loewenstein stated that they needed to confirm the two (2) members of the Planning Commission who will meet regularly with staff to. provide input on the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there were two volunteers at the last meeting which were Ms. Hopper and he. He asked if there was anybody else who was interested. Mr. Finley stated that he would like to serve on this committee. Mr. Edgerton moved to appoint Mr. Finley and Ms. Hopper as the two members who will meet regularly with staff to provide input on the Rural Area section of the Corn p Plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION- SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22-02 Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). OLD BUSINESS: Mr. Loewenstein stated that they needed to confirm the two (2) members of the Planning Commission who will meet regularly with staff to provide input on the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that there were two volunteers at the last meeting which were Ms. Hopper and he. He asked if there was anybody else who was interested. Mr. Finley stated that he would like to serve on this committee. Mr. Edgerton moved to appoint Mr. Finley and Ms. Hopper as the two members who will meet regularly with staff to provide input on the Rural Area section of the Comp Plan. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (7:0). NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Loewenstein asked if there was any one else present to speak concerning new business. In consensus, the Planning Commission agreed to meet at 4:00 p.m. on October Ist for a work session. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business, the meeting adj.ourned at 10:15 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Recording Secretary. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED 10-22.02 ~ 0-30-02P05:12 RCVD Albemarle County Planning Commission The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a worksession on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 235, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rietey, Vice-Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; and Pete Craddock. Absent from the meeting were William Finley; Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; and Tracey Hopper. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; and Elaine Echols, Principal Planner. 4:00 P.M. MEETING ROOM # 235: Worksession: ZTA-01-08 Neiqhborhood Model - Request to amen d the Zoning Ordinance to modify Section 8 Planned Districts - Generally and to add Section 20A Neighborhood Model Zoning District. (Elaine Echots) The Planning Commission held a worksess~on on ZTA-01-08. Ms. Echols made a presentation to review the issues of intensity and to come to an agreement on what, if any, measures of intensity should be included in the Neighborhood Model District. She reviewed the suggested ranges of FARS (Floor Area Ratios) provided by the Cox Company to decide if FAR's should be added to the Ordinance and provide guidance on what those FAR's should be. The Planning Commission had a full discussion of FARS and suggested the Ordinance not address FARS for now. The Planning Commission did not take a formal action. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. for a dinner break. The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m. for the regular meeting. The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Vice-Chairman; Rodney Thomas; Bill Edgerton; William Finley and Pete Craddock. Absent from the meeting were Tracey Hopper and Jared Loewenstein, Chairman. Mr. Finley arrived at 6:00 p.m. Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Yadira Amarante, Planner; Scott Clark, Planner; Joan McDowell, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Planner; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Rieley called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Rieley invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Consent Agenda: Approval of Planning Commission Minutes -August 13, 2002. Mr. Rieley noted that he had a few changes to be made to the minutes. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the consent agenda as presented. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1,2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried unanimously (5:0). Public Hearing Items: SP-2002-041 Mountainwood Executive Center (Si.qn #34) - Request for special use permit to allow operation of Mountainwood Executive Center in an existing building, to consist of commercial office space and up to 49 executive apartments in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential, uses in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F, contains 8.98 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rt. 631 (Old Lynchburg Road) approximately 1/4 mile from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street Extended. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office and designated for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan, in Urban Neighborhood Five. (Margaret Doherty) Ms. Doherty presented the staff report. Staff finds that the request for cooperative parking is appropriate for this mixed-use concept as described in the staff report. She noted that an additional request was being made to allow the parking for the residential use to be located more than 100 feet from the entrance. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit to allow the residential use, the cooperative parking arrangement and the waiver of the residential parking within 100 feet of the entrance as shown on the site plan. She pointed out that the site plan could be administratively approved after the Board approves the special use permit. She pointed out that the applicant was present if the Commission had any questions. Mr. Thomas asked that a correction be made to change "while bring" to ''will bring" in the staff report on page 3, fifth paragraph. Ms. Doherty agreed to use the word "will" instead of "while". Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Since the applicant did not want to address the Commission, Mr. Rieley asked if any member of the public would like to speak. There being none, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and the matter placed before the Planning Commission for discussion and action. Mr. Rieley noted that there are three separate actions that the Commission needs to make. This includes action on the special use permit, the waiver for cooperative parking and the waiver for the 100-foot distance from the entrance. Mr. Kamptner asked if there were any conditions needed to assure that there is permanent availability for the dual uses for the parking. Ms. Doherty stated that the cooperative parking arrangement as approved by the Zoning Department was shown on the site plan. Therefore, development according to the site plan would take care of it. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2002-041, Mountainwood Executive Center for up to 49 residential units with the following condition recommended by staff as follows: 1. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried (5:0). Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2002-041 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 2 Mr. Thomas moved for approval of the cooperative parking. Mr. Finley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the waiver for the excess of the 100-foot distance of the parking from the residential units. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which Carried un animously. Mr. Rieley stated that the two waivers passed. SP-02-34 Robert V. Finley - Gilliums Mountain PWSF (Sign # 93, 94) - Request to amend an approved special use permit for a personal wireless service facility by amending a condition to eliminate a requirement for the applicant to obtain a tree conservation easement on adjacent property under different ownership. The property, described as Tax Map 73 Parcel 31~;, contains 39.5 acres, is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on the east side of State Route 708 approximately 1/2 mile north of the intersection of Rt. 708 (Dry Bddge Road) and Rt. 637 (Dick Woods Road). The property is zoned PA, Rural Areas, and the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Rural Area 3. (Margaret Doherty) Mr. Rieley stated that the applicant withdrew SP-02-34. SP-2002-038 Lone Oak LLC - Helicopter Landinq (Sign #35, 36, 52) - Request for special use permit to allow a private heliport in accordance with Section 10.2.2.19 and Section 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private airports helistops, heliports, and flight strips. The property, described as Tax Map 134, Parcel 03, contains 1,330.490 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on the north side of Rt. 626 (James River Road) approximately 3,600 feet from its intersection with Rt. 723 (Chestnut Grove Road). The property is zoned PA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. It is within the Totier Creek Agricultural & Forestal District. (Joan McDowell) Joan McDowell presented the staff report. (See the attached copy of the staff report.) She noted that the applicant's concern had been addressed in that the requests have not been deferred. She stated that the applicant requests a helicopter landing pad under Lone Oak LLC. The applicant has requested a special use permit to have a helistop for private use on an over 1,000 acre parcel on the north side of Route 626, approximately 600 feet from its intersection with Route 723. It is within an Agricultural and Forestal District and the Agricultural/Forestal Committee has voted to approve this application. The original application requested up to to 6 landings per year, and the applicant has changed that to 3 to 4 per year. In the recommended conditions of approval, staff limits it to a maximum of 4 landings per year. She noted that there is a difference between a heliport and a helistop. A helistop is for a private restricted use with no hangers, no fueling at the site and no maintenance. This comes under the classification of helistop. It is a rural area surrounded by a mixture of farmlands, forest and scattered residential. It is within the rural area land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has recommended approval of this application subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. Mr. Thomas asked how would the County know if the landings would exceed four per year and how would this be monitored. Ms. McDowell stated that the Zoning Department would monitor this only if they received a call from someone complaining that they were exceeding that number. The County would have to rely on the public for notification in this instance. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 Mr. Rieley asked if our ordinance prevents any landing of any helicopter anywhere unless there is specifically a special use permit on the piece of property on which it lands. He asked if it was a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if a helicopter lands. Mr. Benish stated that it would be a violation of the Zoning Ordinance if they landed a helicopter more than once. Mr. Kamptner stated that the irregular or infrequent landing of a helicopter may .not in and of itself be a land use. He noted that it was the existence of the helistop and the effects of the landing that we are looking at. Mr. Rieley stated that it was the pattern. Mr. Finley asked if any of the neighbors had complained due to their cattle. He pointed out that in the committee meeting someone stated that cattle are very frightened by helicopters. He stated that actually cattle stampede. Ms. McDowell stated that actually some of the neighbors have complained. Staff presented the Commission with copies of some of the letters that have been received. She stated that people have called and they have sent some letters in because they could not always be here. She stated that there is some neighbor concerns about horses, cattle and goats. Mr. Rieley asked how many similar facilities have been approved in the rural area in the County in the past. Ms. McDowell stated that she looked and could not find any with this particular limitation. She noted that there was one request that she found that had been turned down. She stated that there was one located in Keswick. Mr. Benish stated that the heliport in Keswick delivered people and was approved so that the helicopter could be there overnight. Mr. Rieley stated that there was one located at Morven Farm. Mr. Benish stated that there was one other approved helistop in the western part of the County a number of years ago. Mr. Rieley asked if they had many problems with the heliport. Mr. Benish stated that he was not aware of any complaints that we have heard Ms. McDowell noted that the Zoning staff did not make any notes on any of these applications. Mr. Rieiey opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. Forbes Reback, Attorney representing the applicant, Loan Oak LLC, stated that the questions concerning scaring the horses and the cattle did come up at the Agricultural/Forestal Board Committee meeting. Lone Oak is basically a cattle farm. The cattle are over one mile away from the proposed landing site. He noted in the past that you have been asked four times to approve heliports. In the Albemarle Bank and Trust case, the Kluge case and the Keswick case, all of them were in the Rural Areas and were approved. The one that was denied was Worrell Land and Cattle Company because it was in the wrong zoning district, not Rural Areas. Mr. Rieley asked if there was anyone else present to speak for the request. He noted that there were several persons signed up to speak for the other case, but none for this one. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 4 William Abbott, resident of Millington Road, stated that he was a pilot who lives in the residential area of which staff calls Rural Areas. He opposed the granting of the special use permit because the airport was only 15 minutes from the property. The applicant could land the helicopter at the airport and drive to the property. He stated that he was addressing the wrong application because he lived near Millington Road. Mr. Rieley invited further public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing and placed the request before the Commission for action. Mr. Craddock asked if a helicopter has to stay at a certain height before it is allowed to come down to minimize the disturbance of the farm animals. He opposed the helicopter flying in at tree top level before it gets to the Lone Oak property. Mr. Reback stated that had not been addressed. Ms. McDowell stated that would be difficult to regulate. Mr. Benish noted that staff has not received any regulations to which they would have to comply. Mr. Edgerton stated that the general concern expressed by the neighbors was the scaring of the farm animals. He asked how close the neighbors were to the previously approved heliports. He stated that Mr. Reback indicated that the Agricultural/Forestal Committee had addressed the concern about scaring cattle. He noted that he did not see how they resolved that in the notes. Mr. Reback stated that David Van Royen said that when he was farming in Warrington and a helicopter would come over or lands near by, his cattle would scatter. He stated that in this particular case, the cattle are kept over a mile away from the landing site. They are not at the landing site. He stated that Frank Coyies was the closest neighbor to this property and he was not sure where his cattle were. Mr. Edgerton asked how far Mr. Coyles cattle were from this site. Mr. Reback stated that it was over 1,000 feet, but he did not know specifically. Mr. Finley asked if the owner was the pilot of the helicopter. Mr. Reback stated that he was not the owner. This helicopter was like a time-share since his client had the use of it about one-third of the time. It is operated by a professional and was called Heliflight Services who used a L 430 executive helicopter. Heliflight Services has experienced pilots and they want to make sure that they are com plying with all local zoning ordinances before they get involved. That is why we are here. Mr. Rieley stated that notwithstanding previous approvals, their benchmark for this should be compatibility of this land use with what one would normally expect in the rural areas. In addition, the issue of the impact on the peace and quiet of the neighborhood should be considered as welt as the impact on the wildlife and livestock. Mr. Finley stated that the animals would stampede, go wild and go through fences. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-02-38 with the conditions. Mr. Kamptner asked to make one suggestion because item c at the top of page 5 does not refer to helistops. He suggested that they state that section 5.1.01.cl shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate to heliports as well. Mr. Rieley stated that the motion died for the lack of a second. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 Mr. Edgerton moved for denial of SP-02-38. Mr. Kamptner stated that anyone could second the motion in order to open the discussion. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion in order to get the matter on the floor for discussion and a vote. The motion for denial was approved (3:2) (Thomas - No, Finley - No) Mr. Rieley stated that the next item was SP-2002-039, John A. Griffin. SP-2002-039 John A. Griffin (Sign #53 and 82) - Request for special use permit to allow a private heliport in accordance with Section 10.2.2.19 and Section 5.1.01 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private airports helistops, heliports, and flight strips. The property, described as Tax Map 28 Parcel 12, contains 153.120 acres, and is located in the White Hall Magisterial District at 3332 Millington Road on the north side of Rt. 665 (Millington Road) and east of Rt. 671 (Ballards Mill Road). The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive F lan designates this property as Rural Area. It is within the Moormans River Agricultural & Forestal District. (Joan McDowell) Ms. McDowell presented the staff report. She noted that this is a very similar application to the previous request including the owner of the property and the proposed use of a helistop. The applicant has requested 3 or 4 landings per year with the maximum of 4 landings per year. The major difference is the location. The property is located at 3332 Millington Road. The Agricultural/Forestal Committee voted for approval for this application subject to conditions. Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Mr. Forbes Reback, Attorney for the applicant, stated that this request is very similar except the property is smaller and located in a more inhabited area. He noted that he lived in this area even closer than Mr. Abbott who is prepared to address you in opposition to this. He noted that his beegles dislike the big balloons, but they have gotten use them. The landing approach to this property comes over another 1,000 acre farm called Chapel Springs which use to be Burning Daylight Farm. The landing approach also comes over property that his wife owns as well as Mr. Birdsall's property. He noted that Mr. Birdsall and his wife and himself were all happy about it. Four times per year was not a lot of traffic. He asked that the Commission recommend approval. They would be coming from New York, but they know how they would make the approach. The only thing they need is a little windsock so they can see which way the wind is blowing. Mr. Rietey opened the public hearing. He noted that two people have signed up and Denise Zecol is first. Denise Zecol, an adjacent property owner, noted her dismay that the flight path would bring the helicopter right over her pasture and her milk cows. She voiced concern over the possibility of having to keep a record of the number of flights. She voiced opposition to the request since she would be right behind the helistop as shown on the map. William Abbott, an adjacent property owner, stated that he lived on the same road. He pointed out that he spends a lot of time at the airport since he was a pilot. When Pegasus lands it is very noisy and creates a tremendous amount of wind. He felt that this could be dangerous to animals because Mr. Finley was correct that it could make animals very nervous. He stated that they have horses on their properties that have been scared by airplanes. He pointed out that 500 feet is the minimum that you can fly over rural area as per the FAA regulations and 1,000 feet over a congested area. Walking the road every day, he sees people from the riding stable riding along the side of the road. He felt that it would a danger to those people if a helicopter came in Iow ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 1,2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 enough to land. He expressed concern about the fueling of the helicopter and the possible leaking of oil. Since he liVes about 15 minutes from the airport, he felt that the helistop was unnecessary because the applicant could land there and drive to the property. Jeff Wemer, of Piedmont Environmental Council, voiced opposition to the request. He cautioned the Commission to stop and think about the potential problems associated with approving the request since he did not know what was Mr. Gdffin's intent. Robert Strutton, of 3624 Millington Road, spoke in opposition to the request due to the noise inconvenience. Cecilia Hurt, 4110 Ballards Mill Road, spoke in opposition to the request because the flight approach would be right over their house. She stated that the property was zoned rural areas and they were trying to raise some animals. Since they were so close to the airport, she did not understand why they need another place to land. Monya Van Dyke, neighbor of Cecilia Hunt, stated that a lot of Free Union is getting into the nature conservancy. She understands that Chapel Spring Farm, which use to be Burning Daylight Farm, is a nature conservancy. A helicopter for normal transport reasons does not fit in that program. There is no comparison with Pegasus. Pegasus is to save lives. She stated that she would not complain if someone were trying to save lives. If it is just for transport and convenience, then she did have a complaint because they were really near an airport. There is not reason for a helicopter pad in this area. She stated that the wonderful characteristic for living in the country is the privacy. Having a helicopter fly over the land would have an impact on the privacy. She stated that she was strongly in opposition. Mr. Reback pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has a category in the rural areas to allow a helistop by special use permit. There have been three applications in the rural areas for helicopters. The only one that was disapproved was the one in the rural area. There is plenty of precedent to permit this use of this man's land. He asked that the Commission approve the request Mr. Finley stated that this would cross both of his farms. Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for action. Mr. Finley voiced concern that they would start building helistops or helipads everywhere they have large tracts of land. Mr. Thomas stated that it was at the discretion of the Commission whether to approve this or not. He moved for approval due to the precedent of the others that have been allowed. Mr. Craddock opposed this one request for the same reasons that he opposed the prior one. Mr. Edgerton stated that their responsibility was to be concerned about the County's interest and not an individual's interest. He noted that it was more appropriate for the individual to land at the Charlottesville Airport and travel to his farm by car. He noted that he would vote against this one as well. Mr. Rieley agreed with Mr. Finley that just because they had approved a few of these in the past did not mean that they have to approve this one and lots more in the future. He stated that the close proximity to the airport makes this one overwhelming. Mr. Kamptner stated that if the recommendation goes to the Board and they decide to approve it, Mr. Thomas asked to add a condition under the previous application that Section 5.1.01.cl shall apply and any other sections of th e ordin ance that relate to heliports as well. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 7 Mr. Rietey stated that there was consensus among the Commissioners that they would like to add condition 7, as Mr. Kamptner outlined it, to be passed on to the BOard of Supervisors in case they don't agree with our assessment of this situation. Mr. Edgerton asked that it be retroactive for the prior case. He moved to deny SP-2002-039 for John A. Griffin. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which carried (4:1), for denial. (Thomas - No) Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2002-039 would ,~o to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for denial on November 6 . He stated that if the Board chose to approve the Mr. Rieley noted that they approved a zoning text amendment last week that allowed stormwater drainage facilities in the Rural Areas as a by-right use. As he understands it, that would satisfy the stormwater component of this application, but not the septic field component. Mr. Thomas stated that the stormwater facility is not a by-right use in the Rural Areas, but by special use permit. Then the septic would also have to have a special use permit. Mr. Rieley asked that they receive clarification on that. He noted that his understanding was that it did not apply to the septic field. Mr. Benish stated that was correct. Mr. Kamptner stated that the ZTA does not apply to the septic field. Mr. Benish stated that the ZTA has not been acted on by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rieley stated that would allow another option for this stormwater facility to be handled. Mr. Edgerton asked if any other commercial use could be placed on the southern parcel. Mr. Kamptner stated that the southern parcel could only be used for the septic and stormwater facility. Joe Wright, representative for the applicant L. F. Wood, Jr., stated that Mr. Wood's property, tax Map 079, parcel 9 is currently bifurcated by Route 250. One portion of that parcel of property is located north of Route 250 and is .6 of an acre where the existing Shadwell Market is located. He handed out photographs for the Commission's review. The portion of that property north of Route 250 has been zoned C-1 and B-1 for many years. The parcel south of Route 250 is one- half an acre and is the subject of the rezoning request. In 1980, this parcel was rezoned to RA. Despite the property being separated by Route 250, the property has always been treated by Albemarle County as one parcel of real property. It is assigned one tax map identification number and has been for years. It has been taxed as one parcel almost consistently since 1939. It has been taxed as if the entire parcel was zoned C-1 for all of those years. The zoning request is straight forward. Mr. Wood filed some months ago a preliminary site plan application requesting approval to construct a replacement for the existing Shadwell Store on the northern C-1 portion of the property. He stated that Bill Atwood's rendering showed what the newly constructed store and canopy would look like. He is going to build a 3,200 square foot replacement store after tearing down the old Rock Store. This is an effort to update the store that"is better positioned to serve the market in 2002. The County staff has approved the site plan for reconstructing the store with the exception of two details. The first is the stormwater detention facility, and the second is septic drainfields. The site plan showed both of those details on the portion of the property zoned RA. Back in early June, Ms. McCulley the Zoning Administrator, issued, a determination which basically concluded that you cannot have a use on a parcel that is zoned RA which is accessory to a primary use that is located on a commercially zoned property. First, stormwater detention on this parcel attracts the natural ground water flows that h ad been in place for a number of years. The stormwater that is generated on this parcel now crosses Route 250 and goes under Route The distribution lines are the only things that will be located on this portion of the property for the septic treatment for the property. He concurred with the staff report that this small parcel has little signifiCance for other agricultural or conservation uses. Mr. Wood has agreed to proffer all other development rights of this parcel south of Route 250. The only thing he is going to be doing to this parcel is placing the stormwater detention facility and the septic lines. The Board of Zoning Appeals lent its unanimous endorsement to the rezoning. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 Steve Edwards, of McKee Carson, stated that the only grading on the southern parcel would be for the berming for the dam for the stormwater detention facility. Mr. Craddock noted that the eastbound and westbound photographs should be reversed. Mr. Edgerton asked if the majority of the vegetation on the site would disappear. Mr. Edwards stated that was correct, but pointed out that the majority of the parcel is 30 feet below the road level. Mr. Rieley asked if any one else wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Finley stated that it was a wise use for this piece of property. Mr. Craddock stated that the store really needs upgrading and will be an access to the community, particularly with the improved access to the property. Mr. Thomas stated that the piece of property is about 20 feet below the highway level. He noted that it was adjacent to the railroad tracks and the quarry property. There being no further public comment, Mr. Rieley closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Commission for action. Mr. Edgerton supported this use on the property noting that he hated that all of those trees have to be cut down. He asked that the erosion be kept to a minimum. Mr. Rieley stated that he hated that the store had to be torn down because it was one of his favorites. He supported the request. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of ZMA-2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. with the proffers as listed in the staff report as follows: 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by right under Section 22.2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b)(19) (temporary construction uses) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BoS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BoS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the portion of the property south of .Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion, which carried (5:0). Mr. Rieley stated that ZMA-2002-009 would be heard by the Board of Supervisors on November 6~h with a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission. SUB 01-201 Chimney Rock Farm Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for plat approval to create 4 lots averaging 4.77 acres and an 82.02 acre residue. All of these lots will be served by an internal private road. The property is located on approximately 105.849 acres zoned RA (Rural Area). It is described as Tax Map 18-Parcel 21 and is located west of an extension of State Route 1573 (Windrift Drive) west of the Windrift Subdivision. This property is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is designated for Rural Area uses in Rural Area I of the Comprehensive Plan. (Yadira Amarante) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 10 Ms. Amarante presented the staff report. She stated that this request was before the Commission on December 4th of 2001 and at that time the Planning Commission asked the applicant to defer action until staff was able to get more information on different issues that arose during the time of review. Several things have changed since then. The applicant has reclassified this application as a preliminary, whereas before they were requesting final plat approval. This relieves the applicant from having to provide the technical plans such as the erosion and sediment control plans and the road plans before they know if the concept will be approved by the Planning Commission. Basically the plat is exactly the same as it was except now it is just called a preliminary. They are also requesting that a private road be approved to serve the subdivision. Last time staff had recommended approval because the private road had met that 30-foot differential from a public road alignment. She noted that staff was keeping that same recommendation and also recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions as stated in this most recent staff report. On page 2, under dam resizing and repair which was one of the issues that had come up, she had stated in the staff report that the improvements would have to be built or bonded within a year. She noted that was a mistake and should read that these improvements must be bonded prior to final plat approval and then the improvements must be constructed within a year. Basically they would only hold the bond for one year of the dam improvements. Mr. Rieley asked what happens to the dam if the improvements have not been made. Ms. Amarante stated that they would be in violation of the subdivision. She stated that she was not sure what these improvements consist of, but noted that the Division of Dam Safety would bring the dam into compliance and it will be part of final plat approval that those conditions will be done before the final plat ~s signed. Mr. Rieley asked what role the Engineering Department has played in the evaluation of the dam. Ms. Amarante stated that Jeff Thomas of the Engineering Department is here and can elaborate. Jeff Thomas, of the Albemarle County Engineering Department, stated that they were deferring in some measure to DCR and John Phillips as the dam safety engineer because of his expertise in this field. However, they have been reviewing the plans concurrently with them and have been monitoring the progress that the applicant is making in coming into compliance with VCR. Mr. Finley asked if he had been in contact with Mr. Phillips, the Director of Dam Safety. Mr. Thomas stated that he had spoken with him, but not recently. It was his understanding that it was before the Soil and Water Conservation Board for approval and they have not received any confirmation of an action letter of any kind. He noted that was a condition of the final plat approval that they would require. Mr. Thomas asked if they could elaborate on the punch list on the private road. Mr. Thomas stated that since this was an unusual circumstance as the private road was built before hand, they sent their road inspector out. Normally what he would do in a regular instance he would have an approved set of plans and he would go out and compare the as-built condition of the road with the plans and generate a punch list. That is a list of items that need to be done to bring them in to compliance with our road standards and if it is a public road to prepare it for conveyance to the state for maintenance. In this case, there is an as-built set of plans and he went out and did a punch list of what needs to be done to bring the road up to standards. Mr. Thomas asked if that was something that the Commission would see again under the final site plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 11 Mr. Rieley stated that they would only see that if they called the plan up for review and tonight was their opportunity to do that. Mr. Thomas stated that they did the punch list at the request of the Commission from the last meeting. Mr. Rieley asked if the standards called for the 14-foot width since they were in the 3 to 5 private lot category. Mr. Thomas stated that was correct, except in some areas the grade exceeds 7 percent and would need to be paved for traction purposes. Mr. Thomas stated that some of the trees had been pushed into the stream. He asked if that matter has been taken care of. Mr. Thomas stated that the stream buffer mitigation plan is being taken care of right now. He noted that Stephen Bowler, our Watershed Manager, has been working with the applicants. The mitigation plan consists of putting together an easement and basically extending an easement from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authorities, the Buck Mountain easement, from a stream that adjoins the property and putting together deed language to restrict the activities within that easement. Mr. Thomas asked if that would take care of the silt going down the stream. Mr. Thomas stated that it depends on which stream he was talking about since there were two. There is the one that the dam is actually built on. Then there is another stream to the south that has some silt. The idea was to protect the area and to let it heal naturally. Ms. Amarante stated that staff recommends approval of the request subject to the conditions as noted in the staff report of both the private road request and the preliminary subdivision plat. There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Rieley opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. The applicant asked to reserve time at the end to address the Commission. Mr. Rieley stated that was fine. He asked if there was anyone else present to speak on this matter. Patty Swaggart, a neighboring landowner, stated that she shared about one-half a mile of land boundary with the Brills. She stated that there were actually three streams, two of them that use to run on her property. She was told that the dam was to be lowered to the 25-foot standard. She stated that she could still not find out what was going to happen with the dam. She noted that she did not know how the dam was built and it was 5 feet from her property line. She voiced concern about the private road. While the road does not cross her property, it did impact her property in the way the road was built. She noted particular concern with the mitigation plan that has been submitted to mitigate the stream buffer violations that took place. In her conversations with Stephen Bowler, he stated that he did not write a stronger letter originally because the land was considered to be an agricultural use. Then the subdivision paperwork came through and it was determined not to be an agricultural use, but another letter was not written. She pointed out that it was her trees that had been pushed from that stream buffer into the stream. There is a 30- foot path that comes down along that little stream. It certainly does not meet what the Ordinance says. That actually took place in the Rivanna easement area. The easement runs off her little stream and continues on into theirs. By extending the easement of the Rivanna Water and Sewer folks to include more land on the Brills does not make any sense. They violated it when it had an easement there before and why wouldn't they violate it again? There are still no teeth in ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 12 that. She noted that the mitigation plan was inadequate and needs to be addressed and taken into consideration that the violation is there. She noted concern that as a preliminary plan this gets approved and basically rubber-stamped administratively and nobody looks at it again. She asked that the Commission continue to stay involved in this whatever the decision is tonight so that each aspect of this very complicated aggressive set of violations here that have never been met are taken into consideration. Nick Strolloft stated that he has worked at Albemarle High School for nine years and plans to build a home on one of these lots. He stated that they sold their home about one year ago and currently were renting. They hope to start building soon. He asked that the Commission approve this request since it would be a real benefit to the County. Klm Grille, one of the applicants, stated that it had been ten months since they first came before the Commission. She noted that they have been working towards full compliance with the County on both the road and the dam concerns. A number of studies have been done on the dam that the VCR is working on. Mr. Thomas did not note it, but they have received unofficial approval of all of these studies. Mr. Phillpa did not write the official letter until his Board met in September. He noted that he was going to wait until the Board met, but he was recommending approval for our dam. The study showed complete compliance of all the safety measures. They were recommending for the dam that a second emergency spillway be built that could withstand 17 inches of rain within 24 hours with a completely clogged riser. The spillway would have to be constructed within a year. Therefore, they would put up the bond money for that for a year. He had no other concerns about the safety of the dam as it is built. As far as the road, they have been working to make sure that they were in compliance with the standards of the County as far as the private road goes. It is my understanding that they do approve the private road with some minor things to be done to it. One of them is the paving and there might be a few minor grading issues. She asked that the Commission allow the approval of the preliminary plat with the noted conditions and not prolong the process. There being no further comment, Mr: Rieley closed the public hearing and brought the matter back before the Commission for action. Mr. Rieley asked to have the final plat and the buffer mitigation plan brought back at the final review of the plat. He noted that this was an official request for the final plat to come back with the topography. He stated that they wanted to see the actual stream mitigation plan. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the preliminary plat with the con ditions as previously stated. Mr. Thomas asked if there was any mechanism that can control that? Mr. Rieley asked staff if there were any regulations against grading within five feet of a property line in this type of instance. Ms. Amarante stated that she did not. Mr. Kamptner stated that it was not an interzoning district issue. Typically they see this when it is a C-1 zone backing up against residential. Mr. Craddock stated if they approve this preliminary does that still give us plenty of change to look at different aspects prior to final approval. He asked if this would just advance this along. Mr. Rieley stated that if they have fundamental disagreement with lot layout or something of that nature, now would be a good time to raise that concern and not at the final plat level. One concern that he has is the relationship between the bonding, the length of the bond and the relationship of the bonding and the signing of the plat. It seems that the bond should certainly run until the plat is signed and the plat should not be signed until all of the conditions are actually met. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 13 Ms, Amarante noted that bonding was discretionary. Mr. Rieley asked that in lieu of bonding could something require that everything be done before the final plat can be signed. Ms. Amarante stated that it could. Mr. Rieley stated that in lieu of the history of this property, that would be the best thing to be done for this project. Mr. Finley stated that these improvements must be built or bonded within one year of the final plat approval. He noted that was on the dam. Mr, Rieley suggested that the plat not be signed until the improvements are actually completed. Basically this would remove bonding as an option. He stated that his concern was that the bonding has a one-year limitation on it. He stated that he would hate to have a signed plat that was under way and then have lingering issues relative to this project. In light of its history, he felt that the responsible thing was to make sure that all of these things are done prior to the plat being signed. Mr. Edgerton noted that he did not see this project the last time that it came in. He asked if the lot configuration was consistent with what was submitted before. He asked if there was logic in the separation between lots 3 and 4. Mr. Rieley stated that has not changed and the lot configuration was not the focus of their discussion. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that without the topo it was very hard to understand this. He presumed that the road and the lake has been built in the noted locations. Mr. Rieley stated that on the other hand, neither one of them was built within the guidelines of the existing regulations. He noted that there was a motion on the floor that had not been seconded. Mr. Thomas asked if they would see the plat configuration and layout again with topos. He asked if it was too late to voice their opinions on the configurations of the lots at that point. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner's opinion about that if they approve this as a preliminary plat in absence of the topography and with concerns about the lot layout that can't be answered without the topography, is that something they can address at the final plat. Mr. Kampnter stated that if you determine that the lot configuration dimensions don't comply with the lot requirements of the subdivision ordinance, that is a basis to deny the final plat. He noted that he has always heard that between the preliminary and final is when all of the engineering work is done so to bring it into compliance. He stated if they could identify their concerns now, then that would be preferable. Mr. Finley stated that the configuration of the dam may change and that might affect the lot layout. He pointed out that they would see that when they get the final plat back. Mr. Rieley stated that the major adjustment of the dam itself was going to be the construction of the emergency spillway that may not affect the lot layout at all. He felt initially that these lots are large enough so that an eccentric arrangement of lots did not have a substantial public issue as long as it met the subdivision requirements. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 14 Mr. Finley stated that the dam and the lake was to become a stormwater management facility and would have to go through the same process and time just like any other facility. Mr. Rieley stated that all of that would definitely be reviewed. He asked Mr. Finley if he would accept a friendly amendment in lieu of bonding that all of the improvements that are called for within this will be completed before the final plat is signed. Mr. Finley agreed to the amendment to the motion. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried Mr. Edgerton stated that it was his understanding that Mr. Finley's motion includes reconsideration by the Planning Commission before the final plat is signed. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct because any Commissioner can call the final plat back, and two have so far. He noted that they were covered on that aspect. Mr. Finley stated that he understood that when he made the motion. Mr. Rieley asked if there was any other discussion. Mr. Craddock asked if you could build a dam 5 feet from an adjoining property owner. He noted that the dam was agriculture when it started out, and now it is a subdivision dam. He stated that something did not cook just right. He stated that to build something illegal and then ask for forgiveness later did not seem appropriate. Mr. Rieley stated that was very much the issue the last time this came before them. Mr. Edgerton asked if the dam was on lot 4. He pointed out that without the topo it was very hard to know for sure. Ms. Amarante stated that it was on the residue parcel of 82 acres. Mr. Edgerton stated that it looked like the stream coming in was coming off the adjoining property. Mr. Rieiey stated that he assumed that the dam was in this area and this was the spillway. Mr. Finley stated that it was going to be a stormwater management pond so it would have to accept the flow coming off the development from where ever. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct, but was hard to figure out without the topography. He asked if there was any other discussion. Mr. Kamptner asked if the approval of the private road was included in your motion. Mr. Rieley stated that was a separate issue. He noted that he was planning on dealing with that separately. Mr. Kamptner stated that was fine. The motion carried (4:1). (Craddock - No) Mr. Rieley stated that this would come back before the Commission at the final site plan level since they were very interested in it and wanted to see some topography at that level. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 15 Mr. Thomas stated that it was a real shame that things are started that way. He pointed out that it makes it hard on the whole process~ Mr. Rieley asked that they deal with the private road request to serve this. The road will have to be brought up to the standards of the 3 to 5 lot subdivision standards and with some additional areas of pavement as Mr. Thomas said. Mr. Thomas asked if that would be included in the punch list that was discussed. Mr. Rieley stated that was correct. Mr. Thomas asked if there was anything else that they needed to ask for. Mr. Rieley stated no because the final plat would come back and the plat drawings would include the geometry of the private roads. Ms. Amarante stated that they have the road plans already in house and are waiting for the authorization of the private road to be able to review them. Mr. Rieley asked to be clear that they also include that the improvements to meet the private road standards be met before the final plat is signed. Mr. Thomas agreed. Mr. Finley moved for approval of the plan for private road with the stipulations that will be in the minutes. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion, which carried (4:1). (Craddock- No) The Planning Commission approved the Chimney Rock Farm Preliminary Plat, SUB-01-201, with the following conditions: The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: Engineering Department approval of: (1) If the Commission grants the private road waiver, the improvements noted during our inspection, plus any other items deemed necessary during Engineering Department review must be built prior to final plat approval. (2) We must receive official notification from DCR that the dam and spillway improvement plans have been approved. These ~mprovements must be completed prior to final plat approval. (3) An erosion and sediment control plan for the dam and spillway improvements was received on August 26, 2002. We cannot review this plan until the preliminary plat is approved. The E&SC plan must be approved prior to final plat approval. [14-311, 17-203] (4) The deed language for the proposed Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority easement must be finalized and recorded. This deed constitutes the stream buffer mitigation plan. (5) A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality and detention routings for the 2yr and 10yr storms. [17-304] (6) A completed stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17,323] Building Codes and Zoning Services Department approval of: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 16 (1) [4.2.2] When certifying legal building sites on the plat, please revise to the following: Lots 1 through 4 each contain a building site of at least 30,000 sf of contiguous area of less than 25% slopes and each building site has adequate area for locating 2 septic drain fields approved by the Virginia Department of Health. Department of Planning and Community Development approval of: (1) A road maintenance agreement subject to County Attomey review and approval. [14-313] d. The final plat will be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant shall provide a copy of the stream buffer mitigation plan and topography maps. Mr. Rieley stated that since this is a subdivision, it will not go before the Board but will come back before the Planning Commission as a final plat. Old Business: Mr. Kampnter stated that he would present the new affordable housing legislation at next week's meeting. He asked if the Commission wanted Mr. White, the Chief of Housing, to come or did they just want to understand the new legislation. Mr. Rieley stated that they just wanted to understand the new legislation, its impact and potential opportunities. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 17 Mr. Rietey stated that there was consensus among the Commissioners that they would like to add condition 7, as Mr. Kamptner outlined it, to be passed on to the Board of Supervisors in case they don't agree with our assessment of this situation. Mr. Edgerton asked that it be retroactive for the prior case. He moved to deny SP-2002-039 for John A. Griffin. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion, which Carried (4:1), for denial. (Thomas - No) Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2002-039 would ,.~o to the Board of Supervisors with the recommendation for denial on November 6 . He stated that if the Board chose to approve the request, the Commission supported staff's recommended conditions with the addition of condition 7 as follows: 1. The location of the helistop shall be located as shown on Attachment A, titled SP 02-39 John Griffin Helistop and dated September 2002. 2. The maximum.number of landings per calendar year shall be four (4). 3. No helicopter maintenance, other than emergency maintenance, shall be allowed to occur on the property. 4. Other than a windsock on a maximum 12-foot high pole, no improvements or construction will be permitted. 5. No other airbome vehicle, other than helicopters, shall be permitted to use this facility. 6. No lighting for the helicopter-landing site will be permitted. 7. Section 5.1.01 .cl shall apply and any other sections of the ordinance that relate to heliports as well. ZMA-2002-009 Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. (Sign#90) - Request to rezone 0.5 acres from RA Rural Areas to Cl Commercial to allow installation of a stormwater detention/quality facility and a septic drainfield for the commercial use located across US 250 on the same property. The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 9, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rt. 250, (Richmond Road) at the intersection of Rt. 250 and Rt. 22 (Louisa Road). The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. (Scott Clark) Scott Clark presented the staff report. He stated that the proposal was for the rezoning of an one-half acre section of a parcel at the Shadwell Market. The parcel up until 1980 was zoned commercial on both the north and south sides of Route 250. During the 1980 rezon~ng it was split so that the northern portion reflected the commercial use C-1 and the southern portion being rezoned to RA. Recently the applicant came in with the preliminary site plan application and was informed that the design proposed, which included septic and stormwater facilities on the RA portion, could not have those facilities in the RA District. The site plan has been deferred until this has been resolved. The applicant also appealed the Zoning Administrator's determination on that subject and went to the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals upheld the Zoning Administrator's determination as to the septic system. Given that, the rezoning would still be necessary In order for that site plan to go forward. The applicant has submitted this rezoning proposal with the three proffers that you see at the beginning of the staff report. The proffers limits the parcel to the commercial uses already going on there, limits this to the northern half of the parcel where the market currently exists, provides that only the southern portion can be used for stormwater and septic, and that the property cannot be divided in the future. Normally staff would recommend denial of a rezoning from RA to C-1. But, given the history of the use and the surroundings of this parcel, staff felt that they needed to give this a more detailed look. The factors considered includes the fact that this was commercial for a very long time, that it is only one-half an acre, it is very difficult to access and is entirely surrounded by more intense uses. This proposal has a fairly limited impact and is pretty unique given the combination of factors. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning with the three proffers as submitted by the applicant. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 1, 2002 DRAFT MINUTES- SUBMITTED OCTOBER 29, 2002 W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr. Secretary of Natural Resources COMMONWEALTH o[ VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Valley Regional Office Street address: 4411 Early Road, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801 Mailing address: P.O. Box 3000, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22801-9519 Telephone (540)574-7800 Fax (540)574-7878 www.deq.state.va, us October 16, 2002 Robert G. Bumley Director R. Bradley Chewning, P.E. Valley Regional Director Ms. Sally Thomas, Chairman Albemarle Co. Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Ioint Permit Application (JPA) Number 02-0410 Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, Albemarle County, Virginia Locality Notification of Public Notice Dear Ms. Thomas: The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has received an application for a Virginia Water Protection (VWP) individual permit for the above-referenced project. Enclosed is a copy of the Public Notice for the proposed permit action for your review pursuant to Section 62.1-44.15:01 of the Code of Virginia. Notice of the proposed action will be published in the Daily Progress within the next week. This publication establishes a 30-calendar day public comment period for this proposal. If you wish to comment on this proposed action, please respond to DEQ at the above address. If no response is received within the 30-day public comment period, DEQ wi!! assvxne that you have no objections to the proposed action. If you have any questions, please contact me at 540-574- 7802 or ncjob@deq, state.va.us. Sincerely, Norma C. Job Regional VWP Engineer Enclosure: Public Notice cc: VWP permit file 10-17-02A10:i9 RCVD PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUANCE OF A VIRGINIA WATER PROTECTION INDWIDUAL PERMIT AND STATE CERTIFICATION UNDER THE STATE WATER CONTROL LAW The State Water Control Board (board) has the following Virginia Water Protection (VWP) individual permit under consideration for issuance: VWP Individual Permit Number: Name of Permittee: Permittee Address: Project Location: 02-0410 Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport 100 Bowen Loop, Suite 100 Charlottesville, VA 22911 Located northwest of Charlottesville on Route 743 and Route 606 in Albemarle County, Virginia. Waterbody: Basin: Subbasin: Section: Class: Special Standards: Unnamed tributaries of Powells Creek James River Middle James River/Appomattox River 10f III None DescriPtion of VWP individual permit activities: The permittee proposes to relocate a road and extend the runway to provide a runway safety area as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. Proposed activities will impact approximately 0.39 acre ofpalustrine emergent wetlands, and 3.02 acres ofpalustrine forested wetlands. Permanent palustrine emergent wetlands and palustrine forested wetlands impacts will be compensated by a monetary contribution to the Virginia Wetland Restoration Trust Fund. Impacts will be compensated at a replacement to loss ratio of 1:1 for permanent PEM wetland impacts and 2:1 ratio for permanent PFO wetland impacts. On the basis of staff review and application of lawful standards and regulations, the board tentatively proposes to issue the VWP individual permit subject to certain conditions. Persons may comment in writing to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) on this proposed Virginia Water Protection (VWP) individual permit within 30 calendar days from the date of the notice. Address comments to the contact person listed below. Comments shall include the name, address, and telephone number of the writer and shall contain a complete, concise statement of the factual basis for the comments. Only those comments received within this period will be considered. The Director of the DEQ may decide to hold a public hearing if public response is significant. Requests for public hearings shall state the reason why a hearing is requested, the nature of the issues proposed to be raised in the public hearing, and a brief explanation of how the requester's interests would be directly and adversely affected by the proposed permit action. All pertinent information is on file and may be inspected by contacting Norma C. Job at: DEQ, VWP Permit Program, PO Box 3000, Harrisonburg, VA 22801; (540) 574-7802; or by e-mail at ncjob~deq.state.va.us. Following the comment period, the board will make a determination regarding the proposed permit. This determination will become effective, unless the Director grants a public hearing. Due notice of any public hearing will be given. October 18, 2002 A Caring Retirement Community 0 t :~0~0-c3~-0 1. Walter Perkins, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 Dear Mr. Perkins: O~' Lady of 'Peace-is pleased to report that it has exceeded the requirements of the agreement dated November 24, 1992, by and between Our Lady of Peace, Inc., a Virginia non-profit corporation, and the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Our Lady of Peace now has in residence within its Assisted Living Facility eighteen indigent Albemarle County older adults. In addition, there are ten other limited income Albemarle county elderly residents in our thirty bed Nursing Center. The Board of Directors of Our Lady of Peace would like to convey our deepest and most sincere appreciation to you and the members of the Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support of the indigent elderly. We invite you and the other members of the Board of Supervisors to risk Our Lady of Peace at your convenience to see first hand the quality care all of the residents at Our Lady of Peace receive. Thank you again for your continued hard work on behalf of the elderly poor of Albemarle County. Sincerely, Rose M. Chioni President RMCAth pc: Robert McNichols Management Agent 751 Hillsdale Drive Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 804/973-1155 MONTHLY REPORT NOVEMBER 2O02 [] Mission [] Essential Tasks Assessment [] Construction & Maintenance · Planning & · Issues Traffic Engineering 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 o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, signs, patrols signs, patrols ASSESSMENT (see legend below) ~!~ (A) REMARKS - Secondary & primary mowing objectives met; dust control o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES Legend: 0 MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT G'~e~: 90-100% Excellent : 80-90% Good ~'d: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards - Paved Rt 600 from Rt 700 to .5 M N of 700; machined gravel roads - Rt 626 bridge, 35% complete - Rt 33, Greene Co, bridge, 100% complete - Rt 250, Alb. Co, repaired guardrail & post - Preventive maintenance items completed for 2002 snow readiness ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o PE Activities ASSESSMENT (see legend below) ~ (G) o Project Construction REMARKS - Secondary Six Year Plan under review at district Legend: Gree~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good ~ed: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards 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 o Inspect and monitor subdivisions Legend: ~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good ~(~'~: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards - 35 land use permits issued Revised plans reviewed & comments provided as needed - 14 new site plans reviewed - 8 Special Use Permits reviewed & comments provided - 8 developments in planning stages - 4 subdivision plan reviews - 3 subdivisions inspected for acceptance 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 - 30 Traffic issues submitted - 11 Traffic issues outstanding Legend: Gr~:~,~: 90-100% Excellent 80-90% Good ~4ed: 70-80% Needs improvement Black: Below minimum standards PRELIMINARY ENGINEE~NG PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING jam~GappA , n I'¢bt.~ailMstaRd Rot~6to 12ME Rte. 6 vak4sh2 ~2sotoo.4~N~2so .... !64t 56085 1641412-269,I'~1 Trend~ 2, mpiace Pipe &y, erlay ~ N~A 12.62 PRELIMINARY ENGINEE NG Field Field .~ute PPtvlS Besif~er Project DescfilXbn Scope Survey Rex~w PJ-I hSl~ R/W Adv. Comments n wP-oad str en road y 627 51022 RDL 06274)39-195,C501 Fr. Rte. glS to Rte 632 ~~~~ 14)3 649 12-05 (Ul:Xhted1042) ~ R~)ad Viien a, xl ~ tmigh~en 2~~te m adv~y Mas° Road ~den and Staface Trem - O~avel road 650 57314 06504B9-P56,N501 FnRte. 810toRte. 615 NVA N/A N/A N/A NTA 12412 (_Ul~_._.t_ed7412) 0351~ K Rte 619 9vlden and Surface Treat - Cra,del mM 618 06184/E-P ,N Oat~Co.~e ~ N/^ N/^ lVA l~m IffA 114)3 (updated 7-02) '~tsonRoad Xltden aixt Surlhce ~lkat - Cravel road 640 2515 06404B9-137~1501Fr. Rte.633tol~,.atEnd 064B N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 11-05 (utxhted94)2) CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 1¸0 PATC~NG MAINTENANCE YANCEY MILLS HEADQUARTERS OCTOBER Rts 691,690,692,689,635,693,635,710,694 Rts 693,708,682,690 NOVENI~ER Last maw ing cycles to be corrpleted Rts 637,708,738,682,738 Pot holes as needed GRADE~IVlAQ-IINB ADD STONE Rts 633, 634,637,758,824,683,682,611,811,689,707, 797,636,684,736,751 As needed per rain. DITCH/FIFE GUA~IL E~dlP BVERGENCY OPS OTHER Open drains Rt 64, 811,611; Repair pipe 690 Rts 240,635,690,691,684,637,250 Per schedule & preparation for 2002 snow readiness inspections Rerroved dead trees Rts 825,637,791 All secondary roads received application of calcium chloride Rpe repair Rt 240 Rts 708,710,682, 693,634,1170,1620, F175 Pepare for 2002 w inter season objectives Cut lirrbs Rt 250 from689 to 690 for safety & irrprove sight distance; cut lirrbs Rt 240 from 751 to 691 for safety & improve sight distance 11 MOWING MAINTENANCE UNION HEADQUARTERS OCTOBER NOVEMBER Monitoring contract m ow lng Primary, Interstate & secondary corn pleted Rte. 29 and 250 Mowing objectives to be completed on primaries & secondaries; secondary m ow lng Rts 601,654,743 PATCHING GRADEIMACHINEIADD STONE DITCH/PIPE GUARDRAIL EQUIP MAINT Rts 601, 643, 667, 666, 671 Spot Patching Rts 606, 643, 666, 668, 671, 673, 677, 678, 687 Cleaned drains, Rts 29, 661, 668 Route 29 - Corn plete Per schedule & Equipment Readiness for snow rem oval inspections Rts 671, 678 , Bridge Approaches Add Stone Rts 606, 643, 666, 671 Install drop inlet-Rte. 29 ~[~ Airport Motors Pipe replacement Ets 663, 671,764 Rt250 west from Charlottesville CL to Route 240 Prepare for 2002 winter season objectives EMERGENCY OPS OTHER Tree Rte. 676 (Woodlands) Tree Rte. 671 (Wesley Chapel) Traffic Control for: Bridge Inspection-Rte 614; Airport Road for drill crew ; dead tree removal -Rte. 29;tree cleanup Rt 676;tree and brush removal Rts 29, 676; Dust Control - 30 routes 12 MAINTENANCE BOYD TAVERN HEADQUARTERS MOWING PATCHING GRADEIMACHINEI ADD STONE DITCH/PIPE GUARDRAIL OCTOBER Second cycle completed Rts 600-1055-631-780 Rts 784-641-746-600-640-747 Rts 769.762.640-600 Corn plete NOVEMBER 164 by contract forces Rts 631-64-784 Rts 640-600.784-769-641 Rts 640-600.784 Rt 631 EQUIP MAINT EMERGENCY OPS Per schedule & preparation for 2002 snow readiness inspections Review and assure compliance in 2002~2003 season objectives; schedule preventive maintenance GRADFJ'MACHINE/ADD STONE DITCH/PIPE G UARDRAI L EQUIP MAINT EMERGENCY OPS OTHER MAINTENANCE KEENE HEADQUARTERS Rts 711-712-633-708-699-795-722-723-627-805 Clean pipe Rt. 795-735-737-715 Replace pipe Rt 795 Mowing for Free Union 29-250 Per schedule & in preparation for 2002 snow readiness inspections Rts 712-761-728-708-795-707-627-630- 631-722-723-617.725-735 Rts 708-795-712-715-734 Rts. 737-715-774 Prepare for 2002 winter season objectives Preparing for Hatton Ferry boat Emergency Patching on 708 (call from 911); Dust landing improvements pending control applied to 51 roads environmental approval MOWING PATCHING GRADEIMACHINEIADD STONE DITCH/PIPE GUARDRAIL EQUIP MAINT EMERGENCY OPS OTHER MAINTENANCE STANARDSVILLE HEADQUARTERS OCTOBER Long arm mower on Rt. 33 mountain area Contract mowing on Rt. 29 None Contract liquid calcium dust control on 30 secondary Rts. Mach. Rts. 637,618,640,630,603,650,629,642, 805,816 & 606 Installed pipe Rt 629; cleaned pipes Rts 629,637, 632, 637 Complete Rt.29 Per schedule in preparation for 2002 snow readiness inspections Traffic control on Rt.33east/Tractor trailer overturned. Rt. 33 bridge project/replace fence & clean up NOVEMBER Trim/remove trees on Rt.29 Weed eating guardrail Rt 667 As needed Mach. Rta. 676,601,628,614,627, 646,624,&674 Mach.shoulders on Rt.29 Rts 626, 629, 605 Prepare for 2002 winter season objectives 15 A R E A H (3 E Q U IP M E N T ITEM A N C ElfM ILLS rad e ' 2 Equipment P O S$ B L E ~ OF # D A Y S IN TH E DA Y $ $ H O P O P ER ~ T tONA L # DA Y S O P ER ATtO N A L 3 0 3 ' 262 7 ' 0g ~ 6928 62 0 62 3 ' 0 §8 ~ 00°4 E ~ c e fen I 00 -90 % G o o ~ , roo rn fo r Im o ro ye m e ~ t 70-80% N e e c s m 3 -o ye m e n~ % R A T IN G (CO L O R ) 96 37% G 'ean ~00 00% G -een 93 55% G -een ~ 0000% G reen 1 0000% G ree~ 85 25% Am O e - CO 00% G"e e n 00 00% G reeq 00 00% G ree3 00 00% G reen 00 00% G ree3 74 65% Red 00 00% G 'een 00 00% G -een 00 00% G reen 00 00% G reen 91 24% G reen ~00 00% G reen "00 00% G reen 130 00% G reen 94 93 ~ G reen ' 0000% G reen 100 0 3 ~G reen 69 35% B ack 100 0 ~ % G re e p 100 00% G re e n I00 00% G 16 TRAFFIC ENGEr'4EER1NG Traffic Engineering Issues Under Review: Albemarle Route Location Issue Type Received various locations in Forest Lakes Pavement Markings 10/7/02 20 South of 649 Signage 8/12/02 20 At View mont Farm Drive Signage 8121t02 20 20 & 250 Signage 8/26/02 29 29 & 641 Signal Warrant 5/17/02 29 Monacan Trail Rd. Signage 8121/02 53 Intersection of Routes 53 and 729 Signage 9/3/02 64 Ramp from SB 29 to EB 64 Signage 8/28/02 618 Black Branch Farm On Jefferson Mill Rd Signage 9/27/02 631 Guardrail 9tl 2/02 631 At intersection with East Rio Court Signal Warrant 10t15/02 643 1/4 mieast of Route 29 Signage 8/9/02 643 At the R/R underpass Other 10/28/02 880 Between Routes 240 and 810 Signage 9/12/02 691 WB 691 at240 Signage 10/18/02 712 Box 3364 Plank Road Signage 9/27/02 743 Iht of Hydraulic Rd and Georgetown Rd Other 10/3/02 795 Routes 795 and 620 Other 10/3/02 848 Iht of Scarlet Oak and Woodcreek Dr Signage 9/27/02 Traffic Engineering Issues Under Review: Greene 33 MP 50,t2 to MP 53.12 Signage 8/22/02 33 intersection of 33 Bus. and 33 bypass Signage 8/29/02 630 1/2 mile w est of Rt 810 Signage 8/13/02 D escription Would like to have pedestrian crosswalks installed Guardrail requested Bus stop requested Turn lanes at Route 250 Warrant analysis requested Bus Stop Requested Signal Request A dditional signage School Bus Stop A head sign Request for Guardrail Signal Warrants Guardrail needed Sight distance Traffic Study inadequate sight distance School Bus Stop A head Sign Pedestrian Crossing Signal timing Poor sight distance looking east School Bus Stop A head sign Speed study requested A dditional sig nage Road Safety 18 ISSUES 19 Proposed Roundabout at 649 and 606. · A roundabout with one entry lane on each leg would accommodate growth in traffic volumes up to the year 2025. The configuration could then be changed to a two lane roundabout, with all modifications occumng within the right-of-way. · Studies indicate roundabouts can reduce crashes by up to 38%, with a 76% reduction in injuries and 90% reduction in fatalities and incapacitating injuries. · The proposed roundabout could serve 20,000 vehicles per day; cra'rent average daily traffic volume is 15,000 vehicles per day. · The proposed roundabout at 606 and 649 will not affect the project ad date. Roundabout characteristics compared to: All Way Stop Signal Safety Fewer crashes, less severe Capacity Significantly Higher Comparable Delay Substantially lower, especially during off peak periods. Peds. and Cyclists More islands for shelter. Capital Cost ~Higher Comparable Life Cycle Cost Higher SUbstantially lower Prepared by MCG, VDOT Charlottesville Residency; 2002-11-03. Roundabout Schematic by Draper Aden and Associates. Page 1 of 1 file://C:~ocuments and Settings\...\Ourston Roundabout interchanges -- 1-70 Ramps WB.jp 11/5/2002 October 17, 2002 CHAR MARLE Close · Convenient · Connected OCT 21 2002 County of AIIsemade Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Bob: I am writing today to confirm that the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority Board, during its October 16, 2002 meeting, endorsed a proposal to construct a traffic roundabout at the intersection of State Routes 606, 649 and Bower~ Loop Road in Albemarle County. The Airport Authority Board respectfully requests that the County of Albemarle likewise endorse this concept and submit to The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) the following for direction and guidance related to the design and construction of this intersection: ao That VDOT utilize the October 2002 conceptual design prepared by Draper Aden Associates, Inc., attached hereto, as the basis for the layout and functionality of this intersection. That VDOT grant to the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority a permanent easement/right-of-entry, at no cost to the Authority, granting this body the right to install landscaping material, signage in the interior-island of the roundabout and any/all splitter islands constructed at each leg of this intersection as well as the right to continually maintain these areas. Co That VDOT construct this intersection, along with the planned improvements between this intersection and the eastern-most boundary of Airport Authority property, by 2004 utilizing Airport Access Funds dedicated to the State Route 649 project by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB). Under separate cover, the Airport Authority is providing ten (10) copies of presentation materials by Draper Aden Associates for your use in discussing this matter with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. ~ 0-2't-02P05:27 RCVD Charlotfesville-AlJ:)emarl e Airport Authorif7 100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200 · Charlottesville, VA 22911 · 434-973-8342 · Fax 434-974-7476 · www. gocho.com Mr. Tucker October 17, 2002 Page 2 Representatives of Draper Aden Associates and the Airport Authority staff will be present at the November 6, 2002 meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to present these materials. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions to the County of Albemarle on this important matter. Please let me know if you should require additional information or material on the Airport Authority's recommendation. Sincerely yours, ~ AMatth~ Chairman Pc.' Gary B. O'Connell, City of Charlottesville Representative, Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority Board Bryan O. Elliott, Executive Director Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission Members John J. Davies, III, Commonwealth Transportation Board The Honorable MitCh Van Yahres, Virginia House of Delegates The Honorable Rob Bell, Virginia House of Delegates The Honorable Creigh Deeds, Senate of Virginia James L. Bryan, Virginia Department of Transportation Harrison Rue, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Glenn Custis, Draper Aden Associates 100 / / / / / , %"- n Associates ROUTES 649~606 INTERSECTION PLAN Date: Oct-2002 Job#: CV02141-01 Scale: 1''=100' TEF/SRS JOHN J. DAVIES, III CULPEPER COMMONWEALTH of V RCflN A COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD 1401 EAST BROAD STREET ,RICHMOND, ViRGiNIA 23219-200(3 October 23, 2002 OCT 2 8 2002 County of Al~made Donald R. Askew, Administrator Culpeper District Office Department of Transportation 1601 Orange Road Culpeper, Virginia 22701-3819 Writer's E-mail Address: jdavies@dbwle, com Dear Don: Charlottesville-AlbemarleEnCl°sed is a recentAirport.letter to Bob Tucker which I received from the President of the In a meeting several months ago with an individual from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it was suggested that a roundabout at this location would be Of significant benefit to safety and would provide for a more appropriate entrance to the Charlottesville- Albemarle Airport. The concept developed by Draper Aden appears to address some of the concerns raised in my earlier discussion with those who have advocated the roundabout. It appears to be attractive and the Charlottesville Airport Authority has indicated that it would like to utilize airport access funds in order to develop this project. JJDIII/chm I would like to review the various funding possibilities which exist. This is a regional airport whose use is accelerating. The 29 Corridor is becoming more reliant on regional transportation hubs to a large extent because of the accelerating traffic congestion in Northern Virginia and the construction underway at Dutles Airport. I wanted to share this letter with you and would appreciate your comments. VirginiaDOTorg WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Donald R. Askew, Administrator October 23, 2002 Page Two Enclosure cc (w/eric): The Honorable Whittington W. Clement The Honorable Philip A. Shucet Mr. Michael R. Matthews, Jr. Mr. Robert W. Tucker Mr. Gary B. O'Connell Mr. Bryan O. Elliott The Honorable Mitchell Van Yahres The Honorable Rob B. Bell, III The Honorable R. Creigh Deeds Mr. James L. Bryan Mr. Harrison B. Rue Mr. Julius Morris Ms. Brenda Garton Bailey Mr. C. Lee Lintecum Mr. Steve Carter Mr. Frank T. Bossio \CTB\VDOT Kotmdabouts (27722.035)\AskewD LTR 10.23.02.doc The Basics... ~AA BEM&RLE CO F~ ~r~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ offS, C~ of ~t up ~ a ~~ C~ ~ ~. ~ by a~ 1~, ~ by~ ~t ~ ~e ~~ ~ ~ ~ H~y 20, (~ ~ ~ ~VB ~ ~) ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and W~ S~L M~ ~g ~ ~ ~ ~n~ a~ ~, ~ ~at~ ~a~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ot ~. n~:C=l ¢~:D AT BOS MEETING Date: Agenda ~em #:_ Clerk's Initials:. Mission Statement: To build awareness of our meeting & tourism assets and provide world class service for the maximum economic benefit to Charlottesville and Albemarle County. CHAR1 DTFF~SVILLE What we do We market our community's tourism assets to: - Motorcoach Group Tours - Individual Travelers - Meeting Planners - Affinity Markets · (Golf, Wineries, African-American, Heritage & Students) Some specifics We work with Meeting and Group Tour Planners to bdng their groups to town and coordinate their visits. We place advertisments in trade, toudsm, meeting and consumer publications and newspapers. We welcome more than 190,000 walk-in visitors annually in our two visitor centers where we up-sell the visitor experience. We coordinate tours of the area for media in hopes of gaining positive free press reaching potential visitors. We operate www SoVeryVirgin a~com which had more than 270,000 unique visits and 14.4 million hits last year. We produce and distribute 200,000 V~sitor Guides annually to crose-sell our area and encourage spending in our community. We create se-operative programs to promote the area jointly with our hotels, restaurants and attractions. Measuring Success -Return On investment · Impressions · Meeting leads - Group tour bookings · Presidents' Pass Sales · Story placements · Call-in & Wdte-in requests Reader Response Cards ;'~'~' ¢~-~'~ ' Walk-in traffic & up sales Measuring Success Goal: Create a comprehensive V'~itors Guide - 200,000 copies, 48-pages · Goal: Five "out-visit~ FAM tours - 5 FAM tours visited 27 local, state and regional visP~r centers Goal: Re-engineer Visitor Information Services - Ongoing Customer Service Training Ch(trlo#es~vtlle ~ilbemt~rle clil~o~'l (ontmts,~to~, Thoma# E. 1 ~qnn, i ./g., / 70E Draper Aden Associates Applications of - Intersection g nomlc - Accident reduction ';'~le ~destrim~ confli 24 Veht¢ m 8 Vehici to vd~icie pedes~imn 8 VeN¢le to C~ "Rounda be generall3: :s than inte An Federal Highway Ad Conclu Brian O'Neill, , Highway Safety, - "Replacing signals or reduce the number of crashes and same t~me ~_mprov~ng traffic flow. Institute findings where installed' - Overall decrease in crashes 9% - Decrease in injuries 76% - Decrease in fatal/incapacitating ~njur~es - 90% - Decrease in delay up to - 75 % Concl July, 2002 "Deadly Crossings: Peak Hour Volume - AM = 1,174 Date of Complet~o December, 1998 .More " RN MODE Rom~adabot~s "MODERN RO BOUT Rotmdabm~ts Amherst, VA .~, ' ~ 60 and IJS Route 29 Business Intcxsccuo~ of IJS Route ConlacB: Jack Hobbs Town Manager 434-946-7885 q'rov Cash Amhcrst Chambcr of Commerce 434-929-3912 Year 2025 YEAR 202,5 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS AM PEAK HOUR 3/~62 L~O 6__~' L1£7 78 -..~ .+-17o 28~ 77 188 816 PP1 PEAK HOUR 10 197 119 ,Sj L7o 181 -.~ ,,-70 66_i, 31 62 57/-, ~ Dra~r Aden es ROU~ES 6491606 INTERSECTION PLAN WITH TRUCK TURNING TEMPLATES Aden Associates ROUTES ~916~ INTERSECTION P~ David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Scottsville Charles S. Martin Rivanna COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 IV[clnfire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 November 14, 2002 Walter E Perkins White Hall Dennis $. Rooker Jack Jouet! Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller Mr. David Blount Legislative Liaison Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission PO Box 1505 Charlottesville, VA 22902-1505 Dear Mr~:l~ At its meting on November 6, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved the Draft 2003 TJPDC Legislative Program, as recommended, with the understanding that suggested changes from the Board and other localities will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program. lerk EWC cc: Loft AIIshouse Printed on recycled paper AGENDA TITLE: TJPDC Legislative Program November 6, 2002 Page 2 Passenger Rail Service - The County supports and endorses the provision of passenger rail service from Bristol, VA to the Richmond, VA and Washington, DC areas with links to communities along the way. Virginia Department Of Transportation (VDOT) standards - Request legislation that would direct VDOT to work with urbanizing counties to create separate and distinct classifications and standards for urban streets in the secondary road system, as well as standards associated with amenities such as the location of utilities, sidewalks, bike lanes, and street trees. Local Departments of Social Services - Request that the state doesn't force consolidation of local governments' Department of Social Services for budget reasons if it reduces the.ability of the locality to deliver services to its constituents. Substitution of Temporary Assistance for Needy Family (TANF) funds for qeneral funds - Request that the state does not continue to fund the Healthy Family Program, Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), and the CSA Trust Fund Program with federal TANF funds which can not be used by a locality as match for federally-funded prevention programs. The state's continual use of TANF funding for these purposes reduces or eliminates a Iocality's ability to obtain certain federally-funded prevention services and could further erode the state's TANF emergency reserve fund. We request that the state continues to support these programs with general funds. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends: 1) 2) The Board approve the attached Draft 2003 TJPDC Legislative Program, with the understanding that suggested changes from the Board will be reflected in the final version of the regional legislative program. The Board consider what specific legislative-related sponsorship requests they would like to request during the December meeting with our local legislators. 02.171 DRAFT 2003 Thomas Jefferson Planning District Legislative Program Representing the Local Governments of: Albemarle County City of Charlottesville Fluvanna County Louisa County Nelson County October 2002 Walter F. Perkins, Chairman Harrison B. Rue, Executive Director David C. Blount, Legislative Liaison ISTANDARDS OF QUALITY FUNDING Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should fund its share of the realistic costs of meeting the Standards of Quality (SOQ). While the education budget for 2002-2004 was touted as being $200 million higher than the FY02 appropriation, the state shifted to localities $36 million in costs for the retired teacher health insurance credit program and buffered the budget with nearly $77 million in new federal funding. The budget also depleted more than a quarter billion dollars fi:om the Literary Fund, historically is used to provide low interest loans for school construction, to pay for teacher retirement. Recall that the recent JLARC study of education fimding stated that the way the state has recently estimated SOQ costs is not up-to-date, and that an additional $1 billion was needed (above current SOQ funding levels) in the current biennium to pay for a more accurate estimate of SOQ costs and to keep funding current with expected SOQ costs. Virginia localities spend approximately $1.8 billion in local funds on education above the state-required amount. Our localities followed suit in FY03 with increased operational dollars for schools, as well as locally-funded teacher pay raises. As our school divisions continue to work toward the state's accountability goals for both schools and students, continued state funding cutbacks are likely to hinder the progress being made. COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities support full funding of the state pool for the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), with allocations based on realistic anticipated levels of need, and a cap on local expenditures for serving a child through CSA. Since the inception of the Comprehensive Services Act, there has been state pressure to hold down costs, to cap state costs for serving mandated children, to increase local match levels and to make the program more uniform by attempting to control how localities run their programs. State and local costs of residential and non-residential mandated services have steadily increased, and initial state appropriations for CSA have fallen short each year (and will do so again this year), forcing the state to search for its share of funding and localities to request supplemental state appropriations. In fact, many localities exhaust their base allocation for the year in only a few months, thereby necessitating the supplemental requests. We believe localities should be given more flexibility to serve children when state CSA funding is reduced. ~Albemarle's school budget includes $400,000 more for CSA in FY03. ~Nelson reports a $139,000 drop in state CSA funding this year. ~Fluvanna's local CSA costs doubled over the past four years. ~Louisa's local CSA costs jumped over 15% last year. ~Charlottesville spent $1.1 million in FY01. Increased caseloads and costs for serving mandated children with the most challenging service needs puts perhaps the greatest strain on local CSA budgets, thus necessitating the need for a cap on local expenditures. I PUBLIC SAFETY Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities encourage state cooperation, assistance and support for law enforcement, criminal justice activities, emergency medical care and fire services responsibilities that rest primarily at the local level. We encourage the state to make Compensation Board funding a top priority. Albemarle, Fluvanna and Nelson replaced lost state funding with general fund dollars this year. Charlottesville lost nearly $160,000 and instituted a court fee to be dedicated to the sheriff's office. Constitutional offices in Louisa saw 5 ½% to 9 ½% reductions. We urge the state to continue funding the HB 599 law enforcement program. Charlottesville used local funds to absorb an $81,000 loss of liB 599 revenue this year. We support continued state funding of drug courts. Local funding this year bolstered this court-supervised alternative to jail or probation that has proven it saves dollars (cost is $3,000-$5,000/year compared with $19,000/year for adult incarceration) and lowers recidivism (rate was only 4.3% in the first three years of the local drug court and program graduates were employed 76% of the time). In addition, we support the following: · Shared funding by the state of the costs to construct and operate regional jails. Further, the state should not adopt language that would disallow exemptions fi.om the federal prisoner offset and should maintain the per diem payment to localities for housing state-responsible prisoners. · Continued funding for services under the Pre-Release and Post-Incarceration Services (PAPIS), Community Corrections and Pretrial Services Acts. · Legislation that will enable additional localities to install and operate traffic light signal photo-monitoring systems. We oppose the following: · Legislation that reduces or removes local government authority to limit the carrying of weapons in public buildings and other public facilities. · State operation of local and regional jails. I TRANSPORTATION I Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities urge the state to fund existing transportation obligations, programs and plans, without creating competition for dollars among different transportation modes, and without incurring increased or unjustifiable debt. The Commonwealth Transportation Board cut $2.9 billion and over 170 projects in approving a new $7.3 billion, six-year road plan. Allocations for each construction district are reduced by about 30%. Local governments find themselves investing increasingly more in transportation funding including public transportation, construction, operations, and planning and maintenance, in an attempt to react to local and regional congestion and economic development issues, and due to continued failure of the state to meet transportation demands. Accordingly, we support ongoing restructuring efforts at the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) and six-year plan program alignment of expenditures with available revenue. We believe that funding shortfalls for priority projects at the state level should not shortchange funding for secondary roads or needed street maintenance funding. We believe state transportation planning must be better coordinated and conform to local land use planning, especially in rapidly growing areas. We support the creation of a new funding classification (e.g. for secondary roads with an urban fimction) and the relaxing of street standards to give localities more flexibility regarding road construction in neighborhoods and traffic calming measures. We encourage the State to examine the use of modern roundabouts in lieu of conventional intersection design and allowance of signal replacement funding for construction of roundabouts. Finally, we support funding of the TransDominion Express with stops at Oak Ridge and Charlottesville. TAX STRUCTURE AND REFORM Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities believe the state should broaden the revenue sources available to local governments, rather than capping, removing or restricting any local revenue sources, taxing authority or user fees. We recognize that financing government projects and programs should be a partnership between the state and localities. However, with our limited ability to raise funds and our sometimes-stagnant revenue streams, we strain to meet services demanded 4 by residents and those mandated by the state and federal governments. Accordingly, we oppose cost-shifting that has occurred when the state fails to fund mandates or reduces or eliminates funding for state-supported programs. This cost-shifting reduces the ability of local governments to meet local needs and forces local citizens to bear tax and fee increases (which our localities have implemented) to pay for such programs and services. We support the work of the Joint Subcommittee to Study and Revise Virginia's State Tax Code, which will meet an additional year to examine significant tax reform issues, We encourage the Subcommittee to recommend changes that would enable the state to meets its financial obligations to localities and that would equalize the revenue- raising authority of counties with that of cities. We do not believe the state should enact changes, particularly in examining telecommunications tax reforms, which reduce local government revenues. ILAND USE AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT Legislative Position of TJPDC, Charlottesville, and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson The Planning District and its member localities oppose any preemption or circumvention of existing local authority to regulate land use, as has been done in recent years through legislative action. Local governments have been limited in their efforts to manage growth by various legislative actions over the past decade which reduced local authority to enforce the comprehensive plan or to regulate land use. We believe that balanced, sustainable growth, guided by local governments, is essential to maintaining quality of life. Further, infrastructure costs associated with new developments are borne by all taxpayers, rather than by those bringing about the need for the expenditure, thus straining our ability to pay for these costs of growth in a time of declining revenues. Specific Recommendations: · The General Assembly should preserve existing authority for localities to regulate land use. · We support enabling legislation that would provide local governments with various additional tools (such as impact fees, adequate public facilities ordinances and transfer and purchase of development rights) to manage growth. · We support dedicated state funding to acquire, preserve and maintain open space and recreation lands, including directing available federal funds to localities. · We endorse legislation to enable localities to enact scenic protection and tourist enhancement districts. · We oppose changes to the Uniform Statewide Building Code that hinder the implementation of local ordinances. ECONOMIC DE VEL OPMENT The Planning District and its member localities recognize economic development and workforce training as essential to the continued viability of the Commonwealth. We support policies that closely link the goals of economic development and workforce development and that result in an increased standard of living for all residents. · ~e suppo~ ~ Economic Development S~ateg~c PI~ for the Co~on~eaRh more clearly defines respons~bflR~es of tools for local gove~ents to use in a~act~g economic developmem oppo~6es. · The state should recog~ze the ~sp~ty in rew~ds of economic development be~een ~e state ~d locMifies, as well as be~een host locality ~d s~o~ng areas. suppo~ ..... cnal restored ~ng for ~e Re~onal Competitiveness Act to pm~Sdc continue mea~ng~l oppo~mties for regional projects._ ~ ...... ,~, ~ .~r ......, ~.~ Fair IENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY The Planning District and its member localities are committed to the protection and enhancement of the environment. This commitment recognizes, however, the need to achieve a proper balance between environmental regulation and the socio-economic health of our communities. Environmental quality should be promoted through a comprehensive approach and address issues of air and water quality, solid waste management, protection of sensitive lands and sound land use policies. Such an approach requires regional cooperation due to the interjurisdicational nature of many environmental resources and adequate funding to match local efforts. · The state should be a partner and advocate for localities in water supply development:, and should work with and assist localities in addressing water supply issues resulting from the ongoing drought conditions The state should undertake water supply planning which encompasses water conservation, a determination of needs and how they can be met, inclUding emerging technologies. · We oppose legislation that would mandate expansion of the area covered under the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. The state should ro ' ---:~*-^ - p vide ...... ut legal, financial and technical support ~^-- '*' ..... .............. c to localities that wish to comply with any new requirements of the Act's provisions, r~..~.,t.^~ ,^~,:,:^~ ~,.~..,a 1`^ ~,, ..... ~ ....... , ........................ ~ and allow localities to use other practices to achieve objectives towed improv~g water quality. The stae shoed ensue the clos~e schedules for l~dfills pe~it facilities deemed to pose no ~eat to prope~ or ~e public to continue to operate t~ough their localiW. It also shoed provide adequate ~ng for l~dfill closure ~d post-clos~e costs. (Fluv~a hces $1.2 million ~ costs). The state should work with local gove~ents to establish a comprehensive waste reduction seategy, rather ~ ~ requiring a state, de tipping fee or ~creas~g required recycl~g rates. Recent proposals to t~k a state s~ch~ge onto a local user (tipping) fee set a disturbing precedent ~d have provided no gum~tee that ~nds would flow to their stated p~oses. The state should appropriate adequate f~d~g to implement s~ategies for resto~g impaired waters ~d for the Water Quality ~provement Fund. We suppo~ state action to clari~ ~at a locality has ~11 authofi~ regarding ~e l~d application of sewage sludge. HEAL TH AND HUMAN SER VICES The Planning District and its member localities recognize that special attention must be given to developing circumstances under which people, especially the disabled, the poor, the young and the elderly, can achieve their full potential. Reductions to community agencies are especially troublesome, as their activities often end up preventing more costly services later .............. a **':' ^-~ 1. ......... ,~^ ,_:,. ^,- ......... , .... , ,. .... ~ ....... The delivery of health and human services must be a collaborative effort from federal, state and local agencies. We urge the General Assembly to ensure funding is available to continue such valuable preventive services. · We oppose any changes in state funding or policies that result in an increase of the local share of costs for human services, including changes that would require additional local contributions for indigent care. · Our localities were hit hard by the 51% reduction in the Virginia Juvenile Communi _ty Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) program, which has pro~luced a statewida 25% drop in Department of Juvenile Justice commitments since 1998. There should be further reductions to this program and the state should maintain a formula-driven allocation process for VJCCCA funding. · Our communities will have a much weaker capaci _ty to generate new resources to serve young people because.of cuts to local Offices on Youth. Fluvanna and Louisa eliminated their offices; Charlottesville/Albemarle lost $91,000 (including VJCCCA money for the office) and 1.5 positions. · The state should provide sufficient funding to allow Communitw Services Board~ to meet the challenges of providing a community-based system of care. · We oppose new state or federal entitlement programs that require additional local funding. support .......... sufficient state funding for local social services facilities and for local departments to maintain adequate office space to deliver services. Local DSS offices should not be forced to consolidate if not in the best interest of the localities. · We support continued state funding for local Disability Services Boards. pra~m. We suppo~ the ~ ..... d continued operation ~d e~cement of e~ly inte~ention ~d prevention pro,ams that c~ make a difference in chl&en's lives, such as the Chid Health P~ership ~d Healey Families pro,ms. The state should not use Tempora~ Assist~ce to Needy Families (T~) monies to ~d such progrms, ~ localities c~ot use federal T~ ~ds ~ match for other federally-~ded prevemion progrms. To do so only se~es to shiR costs to localities seeking to leverage federal dollms for se~ices ~d administration. We suppo~ Vkginia's welf~e refo~ pro~ and enco~age effo~s to promote fmily prese~ation and work requirements. We suppo~ i~tiafives ~d ~ding to help foyer VIEW pa~icip~ts maint~n contin~W ~ childcare ~d oppose ~y initiatives to shi~ ~a~tional federal and state chldc~e a~is~ative responsibility ~d costs to local gove~ents. We support state efforts to exp~d access to education and ~aining needed by welfare recipients to become employed and self-suppo~g. We also support a T~ plan ~at takes ~to account ~d hlly ~ds state ~d local ~plementation ~d support se~ices costs. The state shoffid t~e adv~tage of T~ reau~ofization to s~eamline eli~bility requkements ~d provide m~imum flexibili~ to localities J HOUSING I The Planning District and its member localities believe that every citizen should have an opportunity to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. The State and local governments should work toward expanding and preserving the supply and improving the quality of affordable housing for the elderly, the disabled and low-income and moderate-income households. Regional housing solutions and planning should be implemented whenever possible. · We support incentives that encourage rehabilitation and preservation of historic structures. · In addressing the lack of input that local governments have concerning housing issues, we support local government notice provisions for all proposed low and moderate income housing projects seeking federal tax credits, including VHDA. · We support VHDA criteria for funding which encourages rehabilitation of existing housing and discourages new construction in close proximity to existing subsidized housing. · We support retaining local discretion to regulate the allowance of manufactured homes in zoning districts that permit single family dwellings. LOCAL GO VERNMENT STR UCTURE AND LA WS The Planning District and its member localities believe that since so many governmental actions take place at the local level, a strong local government system is essential. Local governments must have the freedom and tools to carry out their responsibilities. · We support legislation to enhance the ability of local governments to provide services required by citizens and to allow local governments to meet their responsibilities in state/local partnerships. Accordingly, we support a requirement for state agencies to notify localities of planned construction projects which may affect the locality's comprehensive an. ~ll,~ · We oppose intrusive legislation involving purchasing procedures, local government authority to establish hours of work, salaries and working conditions for local employees, matters that can be adopted by resolution or ordinance and procedures for adopting ordinances. · We oppose Virginia Freedom of Information Act provisions which further limit a local governing ody s ability to meet in closed session or to confer privately with its counsel on probable litigation. We also oppose limiting the list of records currently exempt from disclosure under FOIA and requiring creation of customized computer records for commercial and other uses· · We support enabling legislation that authorizes localities to require contractors, as a condition of public contracts awarded through the procurement process, to pay employees a living wage. · The state must ensure that implementation of electric utility restructuring is revenue neutral to localities and that any necessary stopgap appropriations to adversely affected localities are fully funded. · We support changes to the regional airport authorit¥'s charter to provide provisions needed to operate an existing, rather than new, m~thori _ty. · If safety oversight responsibility for municipally-owned gas utilities is transferred from the federal Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Virginia State Corporation Commission (SCC), we request that 1) the SCC undertake only safety inspection functions of DOT and not have authority to assess civil penalties; 2) the SCC be required to inspect based on Federal Pipeline Safety Standards only; and 3) existing laws concerning mandatory reporting for utilities (per the Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act) be preserved. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: TJPDC Legislative Program SUBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: Approval of the draft TJPDC Legislative Program STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Allshouse, Blount AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: iNFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission works with the County and other Planning District members each year to develop a legislative program for the General Assembly session. The attached draft of the 2003 TJPDC Legislative Program is before the Board for approval and will form the basis of the county's future discussions with our local legislators. DISCUSSION: The Draft 2003 Legislative Program follows the same format as in prior years, with priority "action items" and a section highlighting some of the most important ongoing concerns. The County's major issues are included in the draft program. (A copy of the County's VACO submittal is also attached for reference.) The approved TJPDC Legislative Program will be sent to our local legislators prior to the Board of Supervisors' meeting with them in December. At this meeting, the BOS will have the opportunity to request sponsorship and or support of specific legislation. Specific legislative items the Board may want to consider requesting legislators to support or sponsor during the 2003 session could include: Support for legislation that supports the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority's Board desire to amend its Charter to allow for recognition of its Police Department as a standalone entity and to make any other changes necessary to ensure it remains consistent with current practices and provisions. Taxing Structure - Request the state support recommended changes to the state's income tax provisions that Would enable the state to meet its financial obligations to localities; fully fund agencies such as constitutional officers, jails, juvenile detention centers; provide funding for any unfunded mandates and provide for equal taxing authority for Counties. · Education Technology Funding - Request the state does not reduce funding fo r educational technology replacement and renewal costs and in the future provide a dedicated funding stream for educational technology. · Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) - Request the state does not reduce its shsare of CSA mandates. Growth Management - Request legislation to provide high-growth jurisdictions with growth management tools and to provide statewide funding for the Purchase of Development Rights program for localities that establish and locally fund such a program. Scenic Protection and Tourist Enhance ment- Request enabling legislation to provide for a scenic protection and tourist enhancement overlay district. As the County pursues options to protect the visual quality of land as an aesthetic and economic resource, this legislation would provide localities with a method to ensure full consideration of visual resources and scenic areas when the County or State makes land use decisions in designated areas. I0-29-02P05:25 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IIReview of Human Resources/-~nnui~, r',~k,,~,, / ACTION: .. INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Human Resources has traditionally done an Annual Report for the School Board, and wishes to begin providing the Board of Supervisors annually with information about County employees and the Human Resources Department. DISCUSS ION: The Report provides pay information, demographic data and recruitment/selection/retention statistics. It provides information on the County's compensation and benefits strategy as well as employee reward and recognition efforts. In addition, it describes the new focus and efforts of the Human Resources Department over this past fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: The Report is presented to the Board solely for information and does not require Board action. ] 0-2c)-02 P02: Ol RCVD 02.170 County of Albemarle DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ANNUAL REPORT (July 1 FY 2001-2002 ,2001 ~ June 30, 2002) The Albemarle County Human Resources Department Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Annual Report The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources is pleased to provide the Board of Supervisors the first Local Government Human Resources Annual Report. The intention of this report is to provide information to be used in estab- lishing the overall strategic plan and to assist in setting initiatives for the coming year. This report will provide statistical information on the Local Government workforce as well as the Human Resource Department's accomplishments for fiscal year 2001-2002. Key Information Provided: FY01-02 realized a new direction in the Human Resources Department for the County. mented: Pay information - pay grades, average pay, pay by salary level Demographic data - age, EEO, geographic information Recruitment/Selection/Retention - FTE count, new hires, promotions, terminations, retirements, turnover, years of service, exit survey data Total Rewards - compensation, benefits, reward/recognition Several initiatives were imple- Development of an HR Mission "To be a premier customer service focused Human Resource Team dedicated to aggressively providing excellent human resource support to Albemarle County Public Schools and Local Govern- ment'' Re-design of the Human Resource Team to a client group focus with appropriate span of control and line of sight management Renovated and improved the office space environment Created strategic partnerships with all departments Developed a department strategic plan through needs, process, and gap analysis Conducted assessment of applicant management process Restructured the annual recognition program Conducted assessment of the workers compensation and safety programs The Human Resources Department has been instrumental in assisting with the recruitment, selection and internal promo- tion of several key positions in FY01-02. The team is in the process of creating and implementing a new and innovative competency- based interviewing system. This year they provided interview training, coordinated interviews, conducted pre-employment testing, and assisted with filling all vacant positions. The Albemarle County Department of Human Resources is determined to provide excellent human resource support to our customers through the implementation of our strategic plan. We will continue our efforts to focus on: competitive salaries/ benefits, recruitment/selection/retention, professional development, aging workforce/retirements, as well as assessment and improvement of our internal systems and processes. Kimberly L. Suyes, SPHR Director, Human Resources ®gg~~gggoo~o ggo ~00000000000 -1- The average regular Cotmty employee is 41 years of age with 8 years of service with Albemarle Comity. Exempt from overtime ................................................ 58 (13%) Non-exempt from overtime ....................................... 399 (87%) Total .................................................................................. 457 Min. Max. Paygrade t ..................... $14,011 .............. $22,419 .................. 1 Paygrade 2 .................... $15,033 .............. $24,054 .................. 0 Paygrade 3 .................... $ t6,130 .............. $25,808 .................. 8 Paygrade 4 .................. $17,306 ............ $27,688 ...............11 Paygrade 5 ................... $t8,568 .............. $29,709 ................. 7 Paygrade 6 .................... $19,921 .............. $31,873 .................. 9 Paygmde 7 ................... $21,373 .............. $34,198 ................ 21 Paygrade 8 .................... $22,931 .............. $36,692 ...............24 Paygrade 9 .................... $24,603 .............. $39,366 ................ 28 Paygrade 10 .................. $26,399 .............. $42,237 ...............23 Paygrade 1 t .................. $28,322 ............. $45,317 ................ 58 Paygrade t 2 ................ $30,387 .............. $48,621 ................ 81 Paygrade 13 .................. $32,604 ............ $52,164 ................ 16 Paygrade 14 .................. $34,980 .............. $55,967 ................ 54 Paygrade 15 .................. $37,530 .............. $60,050 ................ 35 Paygrade 16 ................. $40,267 ............. $64,428 ...............20 Paygrade 17 ................. $43~203 ............. $69, t 24 ................ 20 Paygrade 18 ................. $46,353 .............. $74,164 ................ 15 Paygrade 19 .................. $49~733 .............. $79,570 .................. 4 Pay-grade 20 .................. $53~359 .............. $85373 .................. 9 Paygrade 21 ................. $57,248 .............. $91~597 .................. 2 Paygrade 22 .................. $61,423 .............. $98~275 ................ 7 Paygmde 23 .................. $65,900 ......... $105~441 .................. 0 P~grade 24 .................$70,706 .......... $1 t 3,129 .................. 2 Paygrade 25 ................. $75,861 ...........$121,377 .................. Paygrade N/A ..................... N/A .................... N/A ............... 1 <1 ........................................................................................ 51 1 ~5 ................................................................................... 195 6-10 .................................................................................... 67 11-15 .................................................................................. 63 16-20 ................................................................................. 39 2D25 ................................................................................... 25 26-30 ................................................................................... 13 31-35 .................................................................................... 3 >36 ........................................................................................ t Full-time .................................................................. $18.6 l~r Part-time .................................................................. $14.97fhr <$16,000 .................................................................................. 0 $16,000-$20,999 .................................................................... 21 $2t,000-$25,999 .................................................................... 31 $26,000-$30,999 .................................................................... 87 $3t,000-$35,999 .................................................................... 80 $36~000-$40~999 .................................................................... 66 $41,000-$45,999 .................................................................... 58 $46,000-$50,999 .................................................................... 34 $51,000-$55,999 .................................................................... 23 $56,000-$60,999 .................................................................... 12 $61,000-$65,999 .................................................................... 10 $66,000-$70,999 ...................................................................... 6 $71,000-$75,999 ...................................................................... 4 $76,000-$80,999 ...................................................................... 3 $81,000-$99,999 ...................................................................... 5 >$t00,000 ................................................................................ 2 Residents of Charlottesville/Albemarle ............................... 333 Non-residents of Charlottes~511e/Albemarle .......................... 149 (represe.ting ]4 other Ioca/iti&~) (Numberx bcz~ed on those employees ernj~loyed am~time ~ring f~' 2001-2002 with the exception of those who have ,~nce moved,fi'om the arect.) Female ............................................................................ 209 Male ................................................................................... 248 Minority (non-white) ............................................................. 69 Non-minority. ..................................................................... 388 Regular full-time ................................................................. 442 Regular part-time .................................................................. 15 Boards & Comm/ssions .......................................................... 117 <21 ............... 0 21-30 ........ 85 ~1-4( 154 41-50 .................................................................................. 124 51-60 .................................................................................... 83 61-65 .............................................. 9 66-70 71+ ......................................................................................... I 5'tatistics as c!/¥/Une 30, 2002 -2- (See "County of Albemarle Department Statistics" sheet for list of departments included in the following data, unless otherwise noted.) New Hires The Human Resources Department supported the hiring of 58 new regular full and part-time employees during the fiscal year. Of these, 27 are female, 31 are male, 8 are minorities and 50 are non-minorities. The Human Resources Department assisted in staffing the new Blue Ridge Juvenile Detention facility this year. In addition to handling applicant data, we parmered closely with management to assist them in understand- ing and selecting policies that work best for the facility. Applicants predominately learned of job vacancies through the following sources: How Applicants Learned of Vacancies (AJ! Departments - Groups A & B) COLLEGE RECRUITMENT O% newspaper - 26% other sources - 26% (other sources likely include intemet postings, county web site, friend (non-county employee) and j ob-line) postings/mail-outs - 17% county employees - 15% POSTINGS OTHER 26% 17% NEWSPAPER ~% Current Employee EEO Data ................................... gt ............. As of June 30, 2002, there were 209 female and 248 male employees in the government operations. Of those, 69 were minorities and 388 were non-minority. WHERE OUR EMPLOYEES LIVE... MINORITY EMPLOYEE DISTRIBUTION Louisa 69% of our employees .~t,~ comtes live in either (8 rap .... 2% 2% Charlottesville or Albemarle A~u~t~w~,.s~,~o County. Greater than 40/° Orange 10% live in Fluvanna, 6% in c .... Greene, 5% in Asian African Orange, and 4% in 1% Hispanic American Augusta/ 1% 14% Waynesboro. Average Years of Service The County's 457 regular full-time and part-time employ- *Other Counties: Appomatox, Buckingham, Henry, Loudoun, ees represent an aggregate of over 3,872 years of service. Rockingham, Spotsylvania, Madison and Richmond The average age of County employees is 41 and the average years of service is 8. Promotions The County continues to celebrate the many accomplishments of its employees, including those who were successfully promoted. This year 11 employees were promoted within the county from within 5 different departments. -3- Turnover We are pleased to report that turnover is at a single-digit rate of 7.4%. Excluding retirements, the County's overall turn- over rate stands at 7.0%. Our low turnover rate and high average years of service are positive indicators of the strong stability and commitment of our workforce. Retirements In FY2001-2002 two (2) local government employees retired compared to seven (7) employees in the previous year. The graph on the right shows a steady increase in the number of employee retirements since 1998 then dropping to a low of two (2) for FY2001-2002. In spite of the decrease this year, a trend toward more retirees will undoubtedly be present as the organization's workforce ages. The graph below provides information on the age distribution of Albemarle County Local Gov- ernment employees. From this data, we can anticipate a steady retirement rate over the next 10 years, since nearly one-half of the work force is 41 years or older. General Government Retirees 1997-1998 1998-1999 ,999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Employees by AGe 2O As the graph on the right indicates, those employees eli- gible fbr full retirement and VERIP (Voluntary Early Re- tirement Incentive Program) will continue on an upward trend as follows: Employees Eligible for Full Retirement (65 years old or 30 years of service) 2003 2004 2005 9 14 18 Employees Eligible for VERIP (50 years old and ! 0 years of service with Albemarle County) 2003 2004 2005 64 78 88 (*Note: Some employees may be eligible for both Full Retirement & VERJP) -4- Surveys Exit surveys help confirm an organization's strengths and identify opportunities for improvement. Human Resources began gathering data from exit surveys beginning January 2001, believing that this data could be used to design training and other programs to increase retention of valuable employees. The data below reflects responses from Local Govern- ment Department employees who left voluntarily between July 1, 2001 and June 30, 2002. Of the 28 employees who voluntarily terminated employment, we received exit surveys from 12, a statistically signifi- cant percentage (43%). As we continue to collect exit data over a longer period of time, the data will increase in value. We learned the following from 12 employees, which includes 2 retirees: For non-retirees: e Of the 10 non-retirees, 4 were employed by the County for 0-3 years and 6 were employed 4-10 years. e The top 2 reasons for leaving for non-retirees were better pay (6) and better benefits (5). For all respondents: * Most were satisfied with their overall experience with the County (11). * Most were satisfied with the cooperation within their department (10), the quantity of training they received (11), and the quality of training (11 ). * Supervisors were mostly seen as fair (11), providing recognition (11), encouraging teamwork (11) and giving constructive feedback (11). ® Four (4) were not satisfied with the performance evaluation system, and three (3) were not satisfied with the po- tential for career growth. Strategic Plan for Total Compensation A planning team of representatives from the County, School Division, and the community worked with Palmer & Cay Consulting Group to develop a Compensation and Benefits strategy by analyzing information gathered from employees and other organizations. In November 2000, the Joint Boards adopted the Total Compensation strategy and later adopted a process by which to establish the annual merit pool increase and salary scale adjustment. The new process was used this past year in making recommendations on compensation and benefits to the Joint Boards that resulted in the Board of Supervisors and the School Board implementing a 3.0% salary scale adjustment and a 3.8% merit pool for FY 2002-2003. Compensation and Benefits Strategy Adopted by Joint Boards ~ Overall Goal: The overall goal of the County's Compensation and Benefits strategy is to provide competitive compensation opportunities that reinforce high performance from all employees and the achieve- ment of organizational goals. ~ Base Salary: Base salary range midpoints are targeted at approximately market levels (i.e, ~100th percentile). ~ Benefits: Benefits will be targeted slightly above the County's competitive market (i.e., ~105th percentile). -5- Competitive Market: The primary competitive market for all County positions is defined as: Counties and School systems of similar size within the State of Virginia; Counties and School systems located in the same geographic region of the State of Virginia; and, Local private employers within the Charlottesville area for positions that are not unique to govemment and/or education industry. Internal Equity: Our focus on establishing an equitable compensation program is reflected in our de, cation to con- sidermg internal equity and market compensation levels in establishing base salary ranges. Steps Taken to Achieve Strategy Compensation: The data from our competitive market indicated that salaries lagged the market on average 2.5% as of July 2001. To reach the objective of paying employees at market, two actions were taken effective July, 2002 as indicated below. Classified Scale and Employees' Increase: Our classified salary structure was increased by 3.0% to increase our competitiveness in the recruiting mar- ket for new employees. This did not impact current employees unless they were paid below the minimum of their paygrade. To reward current employees for their job perform- ance and maintain internal equity with the market, the merit pool amount was funded at 3.8%. This resulted in a range of increase amounts depending on perform- ance rating, salary/midpoint ratio and departmental pool amount. 2 1 Classified Salary Scale FY OOf01 FY 01/02 I[ Market []Albemarle ] FY Q2/03 The graph above indicates the progress we made in closing the gap between Albemarle County and our market. Benefits: In comparison with our competitive market, our current benefit programs were evaluated as above market. An assess- ment of our current benefit programs in terms of meeting our employees' needs and cost effectiveness will be con- ducted over the next year. Benefits Administration: The Human Resources staff strives to provide quality benefits in a cost-effective manner and communicate those benefits to Albemarle County employees, family members, applicants and retirees. The County continues to offer a wide variety of employee benefits to meet the needs of our workforce. These include employee healthcare, retiree healthcare, deferred compensation, dental, flexible spending accounts, optional life insurance, direct deposit, FMLA, annual leave, sick leave, etc. Pension and life insurance plans for full-time employees are offered through the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) and for part-time employees through a separate pension/life insurance plan. Of 457 employees, 150 contribute to deferred compensation. -6- Benefits are communicated through a variety of methods, some of which are limed below: Benefits Orientation sessions Benefits information on the County web site Pre-retirement seminars Monthly on-site ava/lability of our deferred compensation vendor (Nationwide) Training: Over the course of the year, the Human Resources Management Team has provided training to hundreds of employees in the following subject areas: New Supervisor Training, Veteran Supervisor Workshop, Interviewing (Legal Issues and Interview Skills), Retention Strategies for Managers and Supervisors, and Sexual Harassment Training. Addi- tionally, through the Albemarle Resource Center (ARC), employees were offered a variety of training opportumties. Some of the more popular ones included classes on quality improvement, time management, team leadership, meeting facilitation, and customer service. Rewards And Recognition: The County's employee recognition program was revamped and aligned to better meet the needs of the individual employees and provide more meaningful forums for providing recognition, instead of a centralized annual event, the recognition is provided in two ways. First, recognition is conducted within the employee's department as studies have indicated this form of recognition is more valued by employees. Second, all recipients will be recogrfized at one of our semi-annual picnics. In addition, the forms of recognition have been expanded: for 10 and 15 years, employees now receive a gift for 20+ years, employees choose from a selection of gifts that best suit their needs In October, 2002, 92 employees were recognized for their service milestones which occurred between January l, 2001 and June 30, 2002. The Albemarle County Local Govenm~ent's success in the coming years will depend on its ability to attract and main- tain a high quality and high performing workforce in an extremely competitive environment. The recruitment, selection, development and retention of a quality workforce is a function of the interaction of a number of factors, including, but not limited to: Compensation/Benefits, Performance Management, Organizational Develop- ment, and Quality of the Work Environment. The Human Resources Department is comrmtted to proactively providing the services and solutions to meet the County's needs. -7- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Resolution of Intent to Amend Comprehensive Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Affordable Housing Policy STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Roxanne White, Ron White AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes ~ BACKGROUND: The Albemarle County Housing Committee has been developing data and recommendations for an affordable housing policy during the past year with the assistance of the Office of Housing. The Committee supported the request presented in the last General Assembly session that would give Albemarle County flexibility in adopting an Affordable Dwelling Unit ordinance. The General Assembly approved this request and added Albemarle to three other jurisdictions having flexibility in developing ADUs. The Committee began developing elements to include in an ADU ordinance by reviewing such ordinances from other localities, particularly Loudoun County and Fairfax County. These jurisdictions have successfully developed affordable units through contracts with developers and builders who seek additional density. DISCUSSION: The first, and perhaps most important, aspect of the legislative authority to develop an ADU ordinance is that the ordinance may not be mandated. The County would contract with developers when they seek additional density and they voluntarily commit to producing affordable units. Based on this fact and the fact that developers do not currently use the County's existing density bonus, the Committee and staff agreed that the first step in developing any ordinance would be to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include an affordable housing policy. The process for developing this policy includes a review of objectives and strategies by the Housing Committee (attached) and adopting a resolution to support an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Upon approval of intent to amend the Comp Plan by the Board of Supervisors, the Housing Committee will conduct at least three focus groups sessions to receive further comment on the proposed elements of the housing policy. Early next year, the Housing Committee will provide a final draft of the proposed policy to the Planning Commission to begin the amendment process. The final draft will include any revisions related to comments received from the focus groups. Once adopted as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the Affordable Housing Policy will be used as a basis for future development of an Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Housing Committee recommend adoption of a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, as attached, setting forth an affordable housing policy as set forth in the proposed goal, objectives, and strategies statement. Furthermore, staff and the Housing Committee requests the Board of Supervisors to support the process and timeline as outlined. DRAFT AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Policy on Affordable Housing September 4, 2002 Revised September 30, 2002 Revised October 21, 2002 This document outlines the goal, objectives, and strategies developed by the Albemarle County Housing Committee in the development of an Affordable Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance. The Housing Committee has agreed with staff recommendations to develop a policy statement on affordable housing as an interim step to developing an ADU ordinance. This statement is proposed as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and, once adopted, would give the Planning Commission and Planning Department some guidelines in future rezoning and special use permit applications. The Housing Committee intends to continue discussion and development of a draft ADU ordinance for future adoption. The proposed timeline for this task follows: Finalize Housing Committee Recommendations Meet with Planning & County Attorney Revise HC Recommendations into Policy Statement Meet with HC Subcommittee (Eric, Karen) Present Revisions to HC Resolution of Intent to Revise Comp Plan (BOS) Focus Group/Input Completed by Final Policy Draft by HC - Comp Plan Amendment Final Draft to Planning Commission Planning Commission Public Hearing PC Recommendation to BOS - Comp Plan Amendment BOS Review BOS Public Hearing BOS Approval August 21, 2002 September 3, 2002 September 5, 2002 September 18, 2002 October 9, 2002 November 6, 2002 December 15, 2002 January 8, 2003 January 2003 The following definition and policy statement should be used as a preamble to the Goals, Objectives and Strategies. Affordable Housing means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants shall be tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for all residents and those who desire to be residents of the County. In particular, the County will work with the development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households earning below 80% of area median income. In order to achieve this objective, the County should provide resources and/or incentives to developers, non-profit housing organizations, and others to promote the preservation and creation of affordable housing for this substantial portion of our region's residents and workforce. GOAL: To promote safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate- income residents of Albemarle County and those who work in Albemarle County insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities; creating/preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods; understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations; and, directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the private sector alone. Objective 1: Clarify the County's regulatory and administrative functions in support of affordable housing. Strategy 1.1: Implement affordable housing strategies for all applicable rezoning and special use permit requests, including consideration of contracts with developers for any proffers or commitments for development of affordable units. Strategy 1.2: Update, at least annually, affordability figures for sales prices and rentals based on median income figures provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Strategy 1.3: Develop processes for prequalifying and certifying families for purchase or rental units produced including any special programs for certain populations. Strategy 1.4: Develop procedures for enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law and/or funding sources. Objective 2: Set specific requirements for the development of affordable units for low-and moderate-income families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development's size, location, timeline, and nature of surrounding area. Strategy 2.1: Develop affordable housing production goals based on documented'need/demand. Current data would indicate that a minimum of 15% of newly-created housing should be affordable to those families with incomes below 80% of the area median income. Strategy 2.2: Develop procedures to work with developers to phase in affordable units based on financial realities including the availability of monetary incentives available through the County or special programs. Strategy 2.3: Insure that affordable units in a development are scattered throughout the development, to the extent possible, and are architecturally compatible with other homes in the development. Affordable units should include both units for sale and units for rent. Stratgey 2.4; Support the purchase and management of rental units by local non-profit housing providers. Objective 3: Develop strategies and mechanisms for the initial sale of affordable units and for promoting long-term affordability. Strategy 3.1: Establish a priority marketing period for the sale or rental of affordable units with the County and/or its nonprofit partners having first right of refusal. Strategy 3.2: Study the use of deed restrictions to insure affordable units developed with County incentives remain affordable for a specific period of time (control period). Strategy 3.3: Develop security instruments to protect direct monetary investments used to develop affordable units. Objective 4: Expand existing and create new partnerships with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. Strategy 4.1: Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and set specific roles and responsibilities for each. Strategy 4.2: Develop formal and informal procedures for dialogue with the development community to increase production of affordable housing. Strategy 4.3: Promote affordable housing by actively participating with the real estate community including representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment council, and homebuilders). Objective 5: Seek additional resources for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. Strategy 5.1 ~ Support tax credit applications for properties that preserve or create affordable rental units. Strategy 5.2: Develop strategies for effectively leveraging public and private funds for affordable housing. Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, Whereas, RESOLUTION OF INTENT the Albemarle County Housing Committee, as an advisory committee to the Board of Supervisors, has identified a need for additional affordable housing opportunities available to Iow- and moderate-income families as evidenced by high median sales prices/rents and decreasing supplies; and addressing the affordable housing issues will require engaging the real estate development community in providing additional affordable housing opportunities; and existing partnerships with all housing providers, including those nonprofit agencies providing housing and housing services, should be expanded and new partnerships created; and the Board of Supervisors has indicated support for the development of affordable housing that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Model principles; and the Housing Committee will work with County staff and other agencies to seek and recommend incentives, financial and other, to promote the development of affordable housing; and the Housing Committee has drafted an affordable housing policy and recommends that the Board of Supervisors amend the Comprehensive Plan by adding the affordable housing policy statement; Now therefore be it resolved that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to define affordable housing and to outline objectives and strategies to promote development of safe, affordable housing for ali County residents and those who desire to reside in the County (draft amendment attached); and Further resolved, that the Housing Committee hold a series of focus group/public input meetings on the proposed draft amendment and forward its recommendation to the Planning Commission; and Further resolved, that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a regular meeting held on November 6, 2002. Clerk, Board of S1 )rs COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER- · 'ACTION INFORMATION: X SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA: Presentation of Year to Date Quarterly Financial Report for ACTION: - Three Months Ended September 30t~ -- INFORMATION: II ~STAFF CONTACT(SI: BACKGROUND: The attached quarterly financial report provides information on the county's general fund and the fund balance as of September 30, 2002. Also included is a bar-chart based report that compares this year's revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous year. DISCUSSION.._ (Sin millions) A. Attachment A: General Fund End-of-Year Financial Re ort: 1. Revenues: Th e Department of Finance is projecting that current year General Fund revenues will be lower than budgeted revenues by approximately $2.8 million (-2%), as a result of decreased local and state revenues, particularly in lower than anticipated personal property taxes Althou, to come in over budget, it is not eno~J,,h t'- ,-~, ,~-;- -,,- · . . .gh mai.estate revenues are expected u ,, ,,,,o~, u~u u~ner projecteo rea uctions. · Real estate taxes are projected to exceed budgeted revenues by $0.754 million mainly due to an 12% estimated reassessment rate used for budgeting last January compared to the most recent projection, which may average as high as 15%. ' · Personal Property revenues are expected to be below budget in the current year by approximately $2.7 million due the continuing decrease in used car values that was seen at th e end of last year, FY03as well as the cumulative effect of over projecting personal property revenues in both FY02 and Sales tax revenues are also expected to be below budgeted estimates by $0.050 million reflecting the continuing general economic slowdown at the national, state and local level. However, Business License collections are expected to more than offset this decrease by coming in at approximately $0.512 million over budget. ApublicPrOjectedservice$0.047tax collection.milli°n decrease in Other Local Taxes is due to an anticipated reduction in the Other Local Revenues show a $0.324 million decrease from budgeted, mainly due a $0.350 million projected decrease in in terest offset by other increased projections. Small decreases from budget are being seen in building related permits and fees and County fines. State revenues outside of PPTR are also anticipated to be less than budgeted by approximately $0.314 million due to the projected reduction in state reimbursement for constitutional offices, which includes reimbursement funds for our Department of Finance expenditures, leased vehicles 't 0-29-0 '"' p ~. 0.5:38 AGENDA TITLE_: Quarterly Financial Report November 6, 2002 Page 2 tax, 599 funds and recordation fees. These preliminary revenue decreases are based on the Governor's November 15th budget reductions, although it is unclear whether there will be additional FY03 reductions in the Governor's December 20· budget recommendation. Expenditures: Expenditures are within appropriate levels (20.2%) for the first quarter of the fiscal year. · Departmental expenditures are at 23.5% of current budget · Since the July 1 appropriation, the Board has approved additional appropriations in the amount of $0.512 million. These appropriations reflect the re-appropriation of FY02 purchase orders approved by the Board in September. Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures (yellow boxes in right hand corner): · Revised revenues less expenditures show a projected $2.803 million shortfall by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30, 2003) based on staff estimates as of September 30~. · Available Fund Balan ce as of 9/30/02 is $0.427 million as reported in the October 2"~ FY02 end- of- the-year financial report. The fund balance results from the less than anticipated FY02 revenue collection coupled with the use of $2 million in projected fund balance revenues for the approved FY03 budget (see the Fund Balance report for details). · If the available fund balance is added to the $2.8 million shortfall, the preliminary"Projectea' ' Unobligated Funds/Shortfall" is red uced to $2.376 million. Attachment B.' Annual Bud et Corn arison Re ort as of Se tember 30 2002 This bar-chart-based report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time: 1. Revenues: · Revenues from real estate property taxes are anticipated to increase over last year. The local share of personal property taxes is shown to remain fairly level at approximately $12 million. This reflects only the 30% share with the other ;'0% shown as part of the PPRT revenues in the state revenue category. · level.Revenues from sales taxes, utility taxes, meal taxes and other local taxes and revenues remain fairly · State budgeted revenues show an increase for FY03 over the prior year, although the revised state revenues have been reduced to FY02 actual levels due to the anticipated decrease in PPTR revenues. 2. Expenditures: This report shows increases in FY02/03 over FY01/02 in all functional areas, particularly public safety, public works and human development, although some of those increases reflect the addition of special revenue funds to the total budget, such as the E-911 fund, the CSA, Bright Stars, Family Support and the Landfill Reserve. The non-departmental increase reflects the increased transfers to the capital and debt service functions. _Attachment C: Fund Balance Repo, I This report indicates that the County: 1. Has a preliminary unaudited FY02 balance of $16.282 million; AGENDA_ TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report November 6, 2002 Page 2 2. Appropriated $2.03 million in approved projects for FY03 and $0.512 million for FY02 carryover purchase orders for a preliminary fund balance available of $13.740 million; 3. Has committed $0.313 million in appropriations approved by the Board in October. These appropriations consist of $0.244 million in FY02 uncompleted projects and $0.069 million in FY02 expenditure savings for FY03 requested projects in the operating and capital budgets. 4. Has committed to maintain a minimum fund balance of $13 million for cash liquidity purposes. The $13 million remains within the County's financial policy of maintaining a fund balance "equal to or no less than 8% of the County's General Fun d plus School Fund." Fiscal Impact Discussion 1. Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on an October 18th Department of Finan ce report, which looks at FY03 actual revenue collections, as well as any trend indicators gleaned from the first quarter collections. Current year revenue projections will again be updated in January based on the December tax collection. Due to the depressed economic forecasts at the national and state levels coupled with the impact of the state reductions on our local budget, the FY03 projected revenue shortfall is not surprising, albeit disturbing. However, this projected $2.4 million shortfall should always be viewed as subject to change as the fiscal year unfolds, part culady since the revenue revisions rely heavily on only three months of data from the first quarter of the current fiscal year and the full extent of the state reductions will not be known until after December 20th. Addressing the $2.8 million Shortfall in the Current Yea,: As indicated on Attachment A, the Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures show that the County may have a $2.8 million (excluding the available $0.427 million FY02 fund balance) shortfall at the end of the fiscal year unless revenues increase or expenditures are reduced. Considering the potential loss of additional state revenues, which won't be known until the middle of Decemoer, in addition to major anticipated costs this year in CSA ($0.500 million) and health insurance ($0.160 million), the prudent and necessary course is to reduce FY03 expenditures. Proposed FY03 Expenditure Reduction,-,: Attachment D shows a revised allocation of FY03 Ioca tax revenues, which have been reduced by $2.2 million, between the School Division and General Government based on the 60/40 revenue split agreement. The October 18th revised revenue estimate red uces the General Government transfer to the School Division by $1.3 million. The General Government share of the local tax revenue shortfall is $0.874 million, which is compounded by reductions in other local revenues and state revenues for a total revenue reduction in general government revenues of $1.513 million. To address the $1.513 million shortfall, plus the anticipated increases in current year CSA ($0.500 million) and health insurance ($0.160 million) costs (grand total of $2.173 million), staff is proposing to use $0.970 million in 800MHz debt service funds, which are not needed in the current year, $0.400 million in ACE funds ($0.600 million remains for ACE projects, $0.150 million in general funds and $0.450 million in tourism funds), $0.196 million in VRS life insurance funds, which were rescinded by the state for FY03, and a $0.628 million (2%) hold back in departmental budgets. Should the shortfall be greater than projected, other available funds would be the $0.427 m illion in fund balance revenues and the remaining Board Reserve, currently at $0.059 million after using $0.036 million for constitutional officer bonuses. The proposed budget reductions will be revisited in DecemberJanuary when full state budget cuts are known and general tax fund revenue projections are reevaluated after the collections. RECOMM EN DATION: Staff recommends acceptance of the First Quarter Financial Report for FY02/03 and ap proval of the proposed FY03 budget reductions of $1.3 million to the School Division and $1.5 million to General Governmen[. 02.172 County of Albemarle General Fund Quarterly Financial Report Year-to.Date (YTD) For Three Months Ended September 30th ($ in millions) Attachment A Full Year ~evenues: Actual Real Estate Taxes $53.510 Personal Property Taxes 12.166 Sales Taxes 9.836 Business Licenses 6.745 Utility Taxes 6.573 Meals Tax 3.686 Other Local Taxes 7.759 Other Local Revenue 3.886 State Revenue 20.141 Federal Revenue 3~926 Total Revenues 128.228 Prior Year - FY 01102 09130/01 YTD Actual $0.837 0.094 1.655 0,448 0.609 0.931 0,559 0.922 1.591 0,898 8.544 YTD Actual as % of Full Yea_.____~r 1.6% 0.8% 16,8% 6.6% 9.3% 25.3% 7.2% 23,7% 7.9% 22.9% Use of FY00/01 Fund Balance 5.442 I 0.000 0.0% Use of Other Funds 1'756 0.000 0~0% Total $~35,426= $8,54~4 6.3% Prior Year - FY 01/02 Full Year Expenditures: Actua Administration $7.026 Judicial 2.633 Public Safety 14.967 Public Works 2827 Human Development 10.618 Parks, Rec.& Culture 4.249 Community Development 3.878. Subtotal Operations 46198 Transfer to School Division 62.289 Non-Dept (revenue share; reserves; refunds) 6.594 Subtotal 115.081 Transfers to Capital Fund and Debt Service 17.570 Total Expenditures $~ 32.65~1 (~) JB y 1, 2002 Adopted General Fund FY02/03 Budget. (2) Finance Department Revised Revenue Estimate as of October 18, 2002 (2) Revised Expenditure Appropriations as of September 30, 2002 09/30/01 YTD Actual $1.701 0.687 3,630 0.910 2.668 1,251 1.27___~6 12.123 0.000 0.029 12.152 0.000 $12.15~2 YTD Actual as % of Full Year 24.2% 26.1% 24.3% 32,2% 25,1% 29.4% 32.9% 26,2% 0.0% 0,4% 10.6o/, 9.2% Current Year FY02/03 YTD Actual 07/01/02 09/30/02 as % of Appropriated (lJ ~TD Actual Appropriated $58116 $1.047 1,8% 11,711 /iO 076} -0.6% 10.100 1,661 16.4% 6.178 0.323 5.2% 6.868 %019 14.8% 3.800 0.985 25.9% 7.625 0.732 9.6% 4.121 1,041 25,3% 24.347 1.344 5.5% 3.653 0.656 18.0% 136.518 8.731 6.4% 2.030 0.000 0,0% 2,159 0,000 0.0% $1,40,70~7 $8.73___~I 6.2% Revised Revenue Estimate f2) $58.870 12,430 101050 6.690 6.871 3.850 7.578 3.797 19.906 ~652 133,694 2.543 2.179 *138.416~ Projected Revenue Variance $0.754 $0.719 ($ooso) $o.512 $o.oo3 $o,o5o ($0,047) ($4,441) ($2.824} $0.512 $0.021 ($2,29~1) Current Year FY 02103 YTD Actual 07/01102 09/30/02 as % of Appropriated (1) Y,TD Actual Appropriated $7,361 $1.681 22,7% 2,705 0,697 25,4% 16,943 3.816 22.4% 3,292 0.695 20,6% 11.513 2,758 23.9% 4.503 1.199 26~6% 4~ 176 1,126 25.2% 50,493 11.973 23.50/ 65,850 16,463 25,0 6.93_,__~7 0,03t 0,4% 123.281 28,466 23,0% 17.427 0.000 0.0% $!40.707= $28.466 20.2% lRevised Revenues less Revised EXpenditures Revised Projected Expenditure Expenditure Appropriations (3) Variance $7.399 0,038 2,741 0.036 17.016 0.073 3.369 0.077 11.526 0.012 4.5t7 0.014 4~474 0.298 51,042 0.548 65,850 0,000 6.901 f0036~ 123.793 0,5t2 17.427 ~,000 $]41.21~ $0.61~2 ~reliminary FUnd Balance Ava lable $0.427 J Projected Variance as % of Appropriated -2.1% -1.6% Projected Variance as % of Appropriated 0.4% preliminary ProjeCted End'of Year Ava lable County of Albemarle General Fund Annual Budget Comparison Report (as of September 30, 2002) ($ in millions) Attachment B 70.0 60,0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 Real Estate Personal Taxes Property Taxes Revenues Business Utility Tax Meals Tax Other Local Licenses Taxes Sales Taxes [] 01/02 Actual [] 02~03 Adopted [] 02~03 Appropriated [] 02~03 Revised Other Local State Revenue Federal Revenue Revenue 16,0 14.0 12,0 lO.O 8.0 6.0 Expenditures 4.0 ~,~ ~,~ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ 2,0 Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Parks, Rec & Community Non-departmental Development Culture Development [] 01/02 Actual [] 02/03 Adopted [] 02/03 Appropriated [] 02/03 Revised 670 65,9 65,9 65,9 660 65.0 640 630 620 61 0 600 Transfer to School Division County of Albemarle General Fund Quarterly Fund Balance Report Year-to-Date (YTD) For Three Months Ended September 30, 2002 ($ in millions) Preliminary Fund Balance, 06130102 ~16.282 Attachment C Less Appropriations Approved to Date: FY03 Budgeted General Government Initiatives FY03 Budgeted Additional School Division Transfer 1.905 O125 Specific Projects: FY 02 Carryover Purchase Orders Total Approved Appropriations to Date 0,512 2.542 Preliminary Current Fund Balance as of September 30, 2002 ~13.740 Less Proposed Funding to FY03 Budget: FY02 Projects not completed by 06/30/02 FY03 New Projects in the Operating Fund Total Proposed Appropriations 0~244 0,069 0.313 Preliminary Net Fund Balance Less Minimum Required Cash Flow Balance Preliminary Fund Balance Available 10101102 ,~13.427 t3.000 $0.427 Attachment D Preliminary Allocation of New Local Tax Revenue Between General Government & Schools Change to Local Tax Revenues Change in FY 03 Revenues over Appropriated General Property Taxes (incl. PPTR) Other Local Taxes Projected Revenue Increase Less: Revenue Sharing Net Projected Local Taxes Appropriated Revised Estimate Estimate FY 02~03 (2) FY 02~03 (2) $ Change Over $ Inc/Dec _Fy 03 Appropriated 90,393,849 87,568,377 (2,825,472) 30,834,869 31,475,670 640,801 121,228,718 119,044,047 (2,184,671) (6,692,811) (6,692,811) 114,535,907 112,351,236 (2,184,671) (2,184,671) Total Available FY03 Net Revised Local Tax Revenue Proposed Preliminary_ Distribution: Reduction to School Division Operations @ 60% of Net Revenues Reducton to General Government Operations @ 40% of Net Revenues Other Local Revenues State & Federal Revenues Total General Government GF Expenses Proposed Additions/Reductions Comprehensive Services Act Supplemental Request Health Insurance additional employer share @100% FY03 Debt Service - 800MHz system Reduction - ACE program VRS Life Insurance Departmental Reductions - 2% of total budget Total Proposed Reduction C:\WlNDOWS\Temporary Intemet Files\OLKC261\[FY03 Revised Revenue_Proposed Cutsrww,xls]FY03 bdgt guidance 10/29/02 11:21 65,725,202 64,414,399 35,203,775 34,329,907 4,121,395 3,797,422 11,168,242 10,852,940 50,493,412 48,980,269 (2,184,671) (1,310,803) (873,868) (323,973) (315,302) (1,513,143) -1.99% -2.48% -7.86% -2.82% -3.00% 500,000 160,000 (970,000) (400,000) (195,800) (628,000) (1,533,800) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMAR 0-30-0 _ RCVD · AGENDA TITLE: .FY 2003 Revised and FY 2004 Projected General Fund Revenues/FY 2004 Preliminary Budget Guidance SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST: FY 2003 & FY 2004 Revenue Discussion and Preliminary Distribution of FY 2004 Local Tax Revenues to General Government and School Division Operations AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden, Mr. Hildebeidel REVIEWED_ BY: BACKGROUND: Each October, the Department of Finance prepares updated current year revenue projections and preliminary revenue projections for upcoming fiscal year. These revenue estimates are the first step in the budget preparation process and form the basis of the recommended budget proposals to come before the Board of Supervisors next March. Based on these preliminary revenue estimates, the Board also approves a preliminary allocation of the projected revenue growth, first to committed expenditures, such as revenue sharing, capital outlay and debt service, and then between General Government and School Division operations. DISCUSSION: FY 2003 and FY 2004 REVENUE REVISIONS/PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES Attachment A provides both the revised projections for FY 2003 and the preliminary estimates for FY 2004 General Fund revenues. Overall, the latest estimates of FY 2003 current year General Fund revenues and transfers are expected to be $2.8 million below (-2.0%) the appropriated FY 2003 budget level, which reflects both an estimate of current economic activity, the presently known effects of the State's current budget cuts affecting localities, and the effects of greatly reduced Personal Property tax revenues largely due to severely depressed used car values. The preliminary estimate of total General Fund revenues and transfers for FY 2004 exceeds the FY 2003 appropriated budget level by $4.45 million (3.2%), largely derived from a steady growth in revenues from real estate taxes reflecting the effects of next January's re-assessments and increasing property values. Overall, General Fund revenues from all local taxes (including PPTR from the State) in FY 2004 are expected to increase by $5.46 million (+4.5%) over the same tax revenues in the FY 2003 Budget. However, projected revenues from Other Local Revenue sources, the State, and the Federal Government are expected to decrease by a total of $1.03 million (-6.8%) from the FY 2003 Budget level. Revenues from Transfers are expected to have only a slight increase (+1.0%). The individual revenue increases are described below, and an explanation of Attachment A is located at the end of the executive summary: REAL ESTATE TAX The FY 2004 revenue from real estate taxes is projected to increase by $6.7 million (+11.6%) over the FY 2003 budgeted revenue. The increase for the next reassessment (January, 2003) is currently anticipated to be in the range of 12% to 15%, due to very strong local real estate values For the FY 2003 budgeted revenue projection, the estimate of a 13% increase in assessment values was used, similar to the actual January, 2001 reassessment increase percentage of 12.59%. PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX, including PPTR For FY 2004, this revenue source is projected to decrease by $2.7 million (-9.5%) from the FY 2003 Initial Appropriated Budget revenue amount. This is the largest single tax source reduction projected for FY 2004. It results largely from the impact of severely reduced used car values which have been driven down by the availability of zero financing for new cars. AGENDA TITLE: FY 2003 Revised and FY 2004 Projected General Fund Revenues/FY 2004 Preliminary Budget Guidance November 6, 2002 Page 2 For this revenue analysis, staff has included Personal Property Tax Relief (PPTR) reimbursements from the Commonwealth in this line item along with the locally-collected portion of the personal property tax, to reflect the total revenue expected from this item; which is basically a local revenue source for which the Commonwealth provides the localities with a reimbursement of a portion of the tax on behalf of the individual taxpayers. PUBLIC SERVICE TAX The assessments of Public Service Corporations are performed by the Virginia Department of Taxation and the State Corporation Commission. Revenue is projected to decrease by $0.15 million (-7.2%), due to the effects of the timing and method used by the State to compute these assessments compared to the County's schedule for re-assessing local real estate. The county uses a two-year re-assessment cycle while the State assesses PSC properties on an annual cycle and uses the current year's sales to assessment value ratio. In non-reassessment years for the County (such as FY 2004), the sales to assessment ratio for the County decreases and causes a reduction in the amount received from the State from this source. MACHINERY AND TOOLS TAX Projected revenue is expected to increase in FY 2004 by $47 thousand (+5.3%) based on recent collection experience. PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS AND FEES Revenues are projected to increase as a result of current trends in delinquent payments reflecting economic conditions in 2001 and 2002. SALES TAX Local sales tax revenue for FY 2004 is projected to increase slightly, $0.15 million (+1.5%), compared to the FY 2003 appropriated budget revenue due to the anticipated effects of a beginning in improving economic conditions in late 2003 and early 2004. BUSINESS LICENSE FEES This revenue is primarily based on sales and other forms of gross receipts earned by local businesses. The projected increase to FY 04 is $0.6 million (+9.6%) largely reflecting growth in the retail merchants and home improvement/repair sectors of local business activity. OTHER LOCAL TAX SOURCES The remaining other local tax sources (i.e., vehicle decals, utility taxes, meals tax, transient occupancy and miscellaneous local taxes) are expected to show a net increase of about $0.6 million (+3.7%) over their FY 2003 budgeted revenues. OTHER LOCAL REVENUE The 5.9% decrease in the Other Local Revenue category reflects the net effects of several items, including a significant decrease (-$0.325 million) in interest earned on County funds deposited in banks because of lowered interest rates, offset by net increases from various recovered costs and service fees. STATE REVENUES (excluding PPTR) State Revenues (excluding PPTR) are projected to decline sharply by over $0.7 million (-9.4%) from the FY 2003 Initial Appropriated Budget levels. Reductions are anticipated in Leased Vehicle Tax revenue, Compensation Board reimbursements for constitutional officers' offices, and reductions in state support for local police departments (HB 599 funds). Other reductions are unknown at this time, but will probably be imposed during the upcoming State budget decisions. TRANSFERS This line reflects transfers from other funds where they were originally reported as revenues, such as the E-911 Fund, the Tourism Fund, and others, into the General Fund to support applicable general government program operations. PRELIMINARY BUDGET GUIDANCE: Based on the revenue estimates provided by the Department of Finance, the second step in the budget process is the preliminary allocation of new local tax revenues, first to committed expenditures, i.e., city-county revenue sharing, capital funds and debt service, and then to general government and school operations on a 40/60 basis. 2 AGENDA TITLE: FY 2003 Revised and FY 2004 Projected General Fund Revenues/FY 2004 Preliminary Budget Guidance November 6, 2002 Page 3 Attachment B shows a Preliminary Estimate of the FY 2004 local tax revenue increase as $5,462,898 over the FY 2003 Appropriated Budget amount, followed by the deduction of the increased payment to the City of $1,033,210 under th e City- County Revenue Sharing Agreement, for a Net Projected Local Tax revenue increase of $4,429,688. The second section of Attachment B shows the increase amount for committed new non-departmental expenditures. For capital outlay and debt service, the increase is $250,367, which is subtracted from the increase in local tax revenues. This amount reflects the assumption of an estimated overall growth rate of 1.5% in total county revenues for FY 2004. The preliminary increase for the transfers to debt service and to the ongoing capital projects is based on this 1.5% revenue growth factor. In addition, there is a capital reserve fund amount based on 1 cent of the projected real property tax revenue in FY 2004 ($874,270), and the one-half of a percentage point of the projected overall net revenue growth earmarked to be dedicated to capital projects ($491,585). This formula was proposed by the County's financial consultants and approved by the Board to fund the County's 10-year capital program. Note: The 1.5% growth over the current year reflects the projected overall County revenue growth on the total County Budget, which is lower than the general fund increase due to the assumption of a $1.0 million decrease in funding from the stat(~ for schools, and reductions in state revenues supporting special revenue fund programs. The percentage is derived from the projected increase in total County revenues over the FY 2003 Appropriated Budget revenue level of $190.2 million, which excludes transfers and uses of fund balances or borrowing. The next two committed expenditures subtracted from the increase in local tax revenues are to project an amount for the Board's Reserve at $200,000, and the $92,100 estimated for refunds. After making the above deductions, the remaining uncommitted local tax revenues are estimated to be $4,131,503. Of this net new local tax revenue available for operating programs, 60% ($2,478,902) is allocated to the School Division operations and 40% ($1,652,601) to General Government operations for FY 2004. However because of the effects of severe decreases projected in revenues from other sources, such as other local revenue (including interest on bank deposits), and revenues and reimbursements from the State, the projected total funding available to support local general government programs is expected to fall below the FY 2003 Budget level, even considering the above allocation. Also, since fund balances were used in the FY 2003 budget to fund certain one-time and non-recurring items, if there are similar needs identified for FY 2004, it may not be possible to fund them in the budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board approve the preliminary FY 2004 allocation of local revenues to the Capital Improvement Program, in accordance with the guidelines recommended by the financial advisors, and to the School Division and General Government areas for operating costs. 02.173 UNDERSTANDING ATTACHMENT A Attachment A provides both the revised General Fund revenue projections for FY 2003 and preliminary revenue estimates for FY 2004. Column A shows the initial current year appropriated budgeted revenues as of July 1,2002. Column B is the October, 2002 revised projection of FY 2003 revenues. Col umn B-A shows the difference between Column A (the original FY 200:~ budgeted revenues) and Column B (the October revised FY 2003 revenue projection). To determine the total change in estimated current year revenues, you will see that Column B-A shows the projected Total General Fund Revenues and Transfers amount to decrease by $2.803 million, which is a 2.0% decrease from the initial FY 2003 appropriated budget revenue amount (as of July 1, 2002). Column C shows the preliminary revenue estimates for FY 2004 at a total of $143.1 million. Column C-B is the difference between Column C (the preliminary FY 2004 estimate) and Column B (the FY 2003 revised revenue projection), and shows that total General Fund revenues and transfers are estimated to increase by $7.25 million or 5.3% (shown in Column C-B) over the FY 2003 revised projection in Column B. The comparison of the preliminary estimate of FY 2004 revenues to the initial FY 2003 appropriated budgeted revenues is shown in Column C-A. This column shows the difference (increase or decrease) between Column C (the preliminary estimated FY 2004 revenues) and Column A (the FY 2003 initial budgeted revenues). Column C-A shows that budget to budget total General Fund revenues and transfers are projected to increase by $4.45 million (+3.2%), which is a combination of the $2.8 million decrease (-2.0%) in current year revised revenues over appropriated revenues (Column B-A) and the $7.25 million (+5.3%) projected increase over the current year revised revenues (Column C-B). Each individual revenue source can be analyzed in this same manner as a way of understanding the basis of the projected budget to budget increase, however, individual percentage changes may not add to the total percentage change due to rounding of the percentage changes to one decimal point. For purposes of this revenue analysis, budgeted or estimated Fund Balance amounts and changes are NOT included, since they are not a factor in the allocation of new revenue dollars. cc: Dr. Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent of Schools Description property,Taxes Real Estate Personal Property (incl. PPTR) Public Se~Mce Mobile Home Machine~/& Tools Pdor Year Collections & Fees Subtotal, Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Sales Tax Business License Fees Motor Vehicle Ucenses Utility Tax~s (Consumer & Consumption) Meals Tax Tranaler~ Occupancy Tax Other Subtotal, Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenue Subtotal, Local Revenues (incl. PPTF) State Revenue (excluding PPTF) Federal Revenue Subtotal, State & Federal Revenues Total, General Fund Revenues Transfers TOTAL, GEN. FUND REVENUES & TRANS TOTAL, General Fund County of Albemarle Preliminary General Fund Revenue Projection (in dollars) (A) (B) (B) - (A) (C) Appropriated Revised Preliminary Budget Projection Projection less Budget Estimate ~ FY 02/03 2(~ ~ ~ Inc/(Dec) ~ 57,774,889 58,529,067 754,178 1.3% 28,351,200 24,919,821 (3,431,379) (12.1%) 2,017,600 t,658,666 (358,934) (17.8%) 70,500 70,131 (369) (0.5%) 893,000 918,745 25,745 2.9% 1,286,660 1,471,947 185,287 14.4% 90,393,849 87,568,377 (2,826,472) (3.1%) 10,100,000 10,050,000 (50,000) (0.5%) 6,100,229 6,610,200 509,971 8.4% 1,927,700 1,927,700 0.0% 6,867,840 6,871,170 3,330 0.0% 3,800,000 3,850,000 50,000 1.3% 575,000 550,000 (25,000) (4,3%) 1,464,100 1,616,600 152,500 10.4% 30,834,869 31,475,670 640,801 2,1% 4,121,395 3,797,422 (323,973) (7.9%) 125,350,113 122,841,489 (2,508,644) (2.0%) 7,515,401 7,201,290 (314,111) (4.2%) 3,652,841 3,651,650 . (1 ,]91) (0.0%) 11,168,242 10,852,940 (315,302) (2.8%) 136,518,355 133,694,409 (2,823,946) (2.1%) 2,158,578 2,179,372 20~94 1.0% 138,676,933 135,873,781 (2~803,!52) (2.0%) 2,030,339 2,542,559 512,220 25.2% 140,707,272 t38,416,340 (2,290,932) (1,6°/o) (c) - (B) Estimate less Projection ~ % Incl(Dec_} 54,500,548 5,971,581 10.2% 25,667,416 747,595 3.0% 1,871,976 213,310 12.9°/0 7t ,884 1,753 2.5% 940,381 21,636 2.4% 1,502,193 30,246 2.1% 94,554,498 6,986,121 8.0% 10,251,000 201,000 2.0% 6,685,831 75,631 1.1% 1,985,531 57,831 3.00/0 7,059,253 188,083 2.7% 4,021,532 171,532 4.5% 551,000 1,000 0.2% 1,582,971 (33,629) (2.1%) 32,137,118 66t,448 2.1% 3,876,479 79,057 2.1% 130,568,095 7,726,626 6.3% 6,806,745 (394,545) (5.5%) 3,572,556 (79,094) (2.2%) t0,379,301 (473,639) (4.4%) 140,947,396 7,252,987 2,179,372 143,126,768 7,252,987 (2,542,559) 143,126,768 4,710,428 5.4°/0 0.0% 5.3% _(100.0%) 3.4% (1) Reflects July 1, 2002 Appropriated General Fund FY02/03 BL~lget (2) Finance Dept. preliminary revenue projections as of Oct. 18, 2002 Attachment A (C)- (A) Estimate less Budget $ tnc~(Dec) ~ 6,725,759 t 1.6% (2,683,784) (9.5%) (145,624) (7.2%) 1,384 2.0% 47,381 5.3% 215,533 16.8% 4,160,649 4.6% 151,000 1.5% 585,602 9.6% 57,831 3.0% 191,413 2.8% 221,532 5.8% (24,000) (4.2%) 118,87t 8.1% 1,302,249 4,2% __(244,916) _(5.9%) 5,217,982 4.2% (708,656) (9.4%) (80,285) (2.2%) (788,94t) (7.1%) 4~429,041 3.2% 20,794 1.0% 4,449,83__5 3.2% (2,030,339) _(100.0%) 2,4t9,456 1.7% 11/1/029:04 AM 02-173.b.~sAttachment A Attachment B County of Albemarle Preliminary Allocation of New Local Tax Revenue Between General Government & Schools 1,5% Overall Revenue Growth Change in FY 04 Revenues over ADProPriated General Property Taxes (incl. PPTR) Other Local Taxes Projected Revenue Increase Less: Revenue Shadng Net Projected Local Taxes Appropriated October Budget Estimate FY 02/03 FY 03~04 ~ Inc/Dec 90,393,849 94,554,498 4,160,649 30,834,869 32,137,118 1,302,249 121,228,718 126,691,616 5,462,898 (6 692,811) (7 726,021_) (1,033,210) 114,535,907 118,965,595 4,429,688 $ Change Over FY 03 Bu~ 4,429,688 Committed New Non-Departmental Expenditures Debt Service @ 1.5% overall revenue growth Capital Outlay (without 1/2 point) @ 1.5% overall revenue growth Capital Reserve @ 1 cent of tax rate 1/2 Percentage Point of Net New Revenue Growth to Capital Budget Total Capital Fund Transfer Total Capital Outlay & Debt Service Board Reserve Fund Refunds Total Committed New Non-Departmental Exp. 10,881,475 11,044,697 t63,222 5,188,552 5,266,380 77,828 772,464 874,270 101,806 584,074 491,585 (92,490) 6,545,090 6,632,235 87,144 17,426,565 17,676,932 260,367 152,182 200,000 47,8t8 92,100 92,100 - 17,670,847 17,969,032 298,185 298,185 Total Available FY04 Net New Local Tax Revenue Proposed Preliminary Distribution: h 4,131,503 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ~/ork Session on Staff/Planning C~mmission Recommendations STAFF CONTACT(S): . ~Culley and MS. Sprinkle .- · CONSENT AGEND.~: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY': INFORMATION: Yes INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: Staff, working with the public and the Planning Commission, has undertaken extensive development and review of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking since the adoption of a resolution of intent by the Planning Commission in November of 1999. After two focused discussions with the public, one Planning Commission Public Hearing and several Planning Commission work sessions, the attached recommendations have Keen provided to the Board of Supervisors for its consideration. DISCUSSION: Attached are three sets of recommendations. Attachment I is the original recommendation of the Ptanning Commission approved on September 24, 2002 covering the bulk of the amendments recommended to the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment II is a subsequent recommendation of the Planning Commission approved on October 22, 2002 covering items not covered in the original set of recommendations and reflecting a change to the original y recommended design guidelines for parking structures. Attachment III is a recommendatiOn provided by the Department of Engineering and Public Works regarding angled parking standards. RECOMMENDATION: This is being provided for the information of the Board in holding an initial work session after which the Board is requested to schedule a subsequent public hearing on the recommended parking amendments. 70-29-02P05:25 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road~ Room 218 Charlotxesvillc, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 ATTACHMENT I MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development October I, 2002 UL J ZTA-01-09 Parking The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 24, 2002, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment, subject to the following changes: 1) Maximum allowable percentage above the minimum required parking be changed to 15 percent. (Section 4.12.4. a) 2) On relegated parking, looking at subsection C on page 2 of the packet, Orientation to buildings, that language be adopted but it be specified that it does not apply to areas that are designated Rural Areas in the Comp Plan. (Section 4.12.5.c Orientation to buildings located in designated Development Areas) 3)19.3.1ParkingandlOts20.3.1)as primary uses and Parking Structures_ by-right in PRD and PUD. (Section 4) Churches would be allowed to reduce the Parking based on a study that they would provide to the Zoning Administrator. The study does not have to be done by a traffic engineer. 5) Delete parking as special use under 19.3.2 and 20.3.2. Amendments to 19.3.1 and 20.3.1 to allow parking structures by-right. Attached please find a staff report, which outlines this amendment. A work session with the Board of Supervisors has been scheduled for November 6, 2002. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. VVVC/jcf ATTACHMENT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 01-09 Amendment of Chapter 18, of the Albemarle County Code, Zoning, as it relates to Off- street Parking and Loading Requirements, Section 4.12, Planning Commission Work Session (#3) SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to replace Section 4.12, Parking, with the proposed text. STAFF CONTACTS: Ms. Sprinkle; Mr. Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: September 24, 2002 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: ITEM NUMBERS: INFORMATION: No ATTACHMENTS: A- Comments and Responses from the July 23 public hearing with the Planning Commission; B - Draft text of Section 4.12; C - Additional regulations regarding standards for parking lots and parking structures adjacent to existing development. REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The original resolution of intent to amend Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance, Off-street Parking and Loading was adopted on November 23, 1999 by the Planning Commission.' Since that time, staff has developed a proposed ordinance and presented it to two focused discussions with the public, one public hearing and two work sessions with the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance in Attachment B reflects a final document that staff has modified with each set of comments from these meetings to try to balance: 1) the public input; 2) the desires of the Planning Cr~mmission and Board of Supervisors as represented in Comprehensive Plan documents recently adopted; and, 3) staff ~ / to enforce the regulations. At the PC work session on August 27th, additional public comment was taken and the ~mission deferred the main portion of their discussion to this meeting to include more of their members. The one ~,udition in this report is design regulation for new freestanding parking lots and parking structures. Since these are proposed as uses ,'l~y-right" ~!n many zoning districts, staff and the Commission found it appropriate to have additional regulations to control their impacts on existing development. These newly-drafted, proposed regulations, which include additions to Section 5 and to Section 32~ appear as Attachment C. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is a summary of the questions, comments, etc, received at both the Commission's July 23 public hearing and the August 19 focused public discussion. The concerns are grouped and 'include the staff response., either noting the ordinance change or stating staff's position. Attachment B is the draft text of Section 4.12. Attachment C contains the proposed additions to Section 5 and to Section 32 to mitigate the impacts of independent parking lots and parking structares. The main issues for Commission discussion and decision are:' 1. The maximum allowable percentage above the minimum required parking. [Section 4.12.4a.] Staff originally proposed adopting a 20% cap. The Planning Commission changed the reduction to 10%, as written in the current draft text. Staff's position is that the minimum required parking has been' increased in the proposed ordinance only where the previous required parking was insufficient by current standards and waS always exceeded with a more realistic number of spaces being provided. The larger retail parking (where we have often seen excessive parking provided) has been reduced. Adopting a 10% cap may be too restrictive initially without being able to gauge the potential negative im pact of this limitation. Staff finds that the minimum required parking spaces are proposed correctly, but some uses such as medical offices have a greater flux in the number of spaces needed depending on the type of doctor or services provided at a particular location. Staff would prefer adopting the 20% cap and assessing it in two to five years when we can determine if it functions well or should be reduced by further ordinance amendment. Relegated parking. [Section 4.12.5(c)] The Albemarle County Land Use Plan was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on July 10, 2002 with the following paragraphs on relegated parking: Relegated Parking - Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount of paved area; parking on the street will be the norm, and the preference will be for parking lots to be located to the rear and/or sides of buildings. Relegated Parking - Parking should be located to the side and rear of structures and generally should not be the dominant feature seen from the public road or other adjacent areas. 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. Avoidperking areas which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. For large retail developments, parking capacity needed only on a few peak shopping days of the year is amenable to design alternatives to fiat blacktop. At present the proposed wording in the draft ordinance is: c. Orientation to buildings. Parking should not be the dominant feature seen from the street or other adjacent areas. Parking areas shall be located to the rear or side of the principal building, unless the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of planning and community development that the proposed parking areas, in another location, would not be the dominant feature seen from the street or other adjacent areas. At the Commission's July public hearing some Commissioners felt strongly that relegated parking should not be optional in the Development Areas. For that reason, language was drafted reflecting a requirement for relegated parking. Exceptions could be granted by the Director of Planning and Community Development only if the parking "would not be the dominant feature seen f~om the street or other adjacent areas." If we want to continue with the proposed language, another consideration would be whether it should apply to the rural areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff opinion is that a Neighborhood Model design does not fit in the rural area. Therefore staff recommends adding language to the paragraph introduction as such: "c. Orientation to buildings located in designated Development Areas." Parking Lots as primary uses and Parking Structures. Staff recommends making a minor change to proposed districts allowing parking structures by-right. We now recommend that parking structures should be allowed by right in the R-15, the PRD (Planned Residential Development), and the PUD (Planned Unit Development), as well as all commercial and all industrial districts. That leaves only R4-, R-6 and R-10 districts in which a special use permit would be required for a parking structure. In the draft text, the PRD and PUD are both proposed to allow parking structures by special permit (SP). However, since a legislative act is already required for these districts to be established, we find there is no need for the additional application and separate review, if the Commission agrees, staff will have to schedule a separate public hearing since these ordinance sections have not been legally advertised to date. Staff recommends amending the {}19.3.1, PRD and {}20.3.1, PUD to allow parking structures by-right and amending {}19.3.2, PRD and 20.3.2, PUD to remove the SP use, "Parking structures located wholly or partly above grade." In addition, the proposed regulations for Sections 5.0 and 32.0 in Attachment C, regarding mitigating the impacts of parking structures, have not been legally advertised. If the Commission agrees with these regulations, staff will include these sections with the PRD and PUD as discussed in the preceding paragraph. Administration/Review Process: This amendment should not impact the review process. Housing affordability: The proposed amendment may cause a slight increase in housing costs. Developments of certain specific designs will be required to construct a few more parking spaces than under the current regulations. Since the costs of construction are generally passed on to the consumer, there may. be a slight increase in the per-unit cost of some townhouses and some student rentals. ~ Implications to Staffing and Staffing Costs: This amendment is not envisioned to have any effect on staffing and staffirig costs. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZTA 2001-09 with the draft text as found in Attachment B with any changes determined from the three discussion items above. Attachment.A Staff Response to Public and Commission Commentn from the Public Hearin.t'. This section summarizes the questions and comments from the public hearing on July 23 and groups them into similar categories. There is then a staff response to each issue raised. There is also a section regarding issues brought up at the focused discUSSion on August 19. Simple editing errors, explanations or additions: 1. Question: Why do drive-up ATM's require 5 parking spaces? Staff: It.should be and is now 5 ~"stacking', spaces. 2. Comment: Delete "and" from 4.12.2(c). Staff: Done. 3. Concern: Section 4.12.14(c) refers to section 6 without defining it. Staff: We added "... of this chapter.." 4. Staffiniiiated- In both 4.12.2 and4.12.14 references to site plans and subdivision plats have been modified to specify "valid" plans to insure that expired plans cannot b6 considered as permitting a prior standard to be used. 5. Question: Asked if a property owner can request that the new requirements be applied to developed property? Staff: This is standard procedure. Any developed property may be amended through the site plan amendment process. The new requirements will be applied to what is shown on the plan. 6. Question: Asked that 4.12.7 add consideration of parking studies submitted by the applicant. Staff added that the Zoning Administrator can consider parking studies from any source. 7. Question: Asked that 4.12.13(c) reduce the number of loading spaces required for retail, similar to the reductions proposed for offices and industrial. Staff: Done. Question: Is the zoning district of a use and a standalone parking lot serving the use required to be the same? Staff: No. Standalone parking lots are only permitted in certain districts and they may serve any zoning district. 9. Question: Does 4.12.15(f)3 defeat the principles of the Neighborhood Model regarding on- street parking? Staff finds this to be a safety issue. In most cases on-street parking will be encouraged, but there may be situations such as the primary ingress/egress where on-street parking would not be desirable, therefore, it may be prohibited by the County engineer. 10. Concern: In 4.12.15(h), the word "provide" should be "private". Sta~.: Done. 11. Question: Asked if 4.12.18(a) is redundant? Staff: Yes, so we removed a portion of 4.12.13. Comments on Dwellings: 12. Concern: Apartment parking does not need to increase - if anything, it needs to decrease. Apartment occupancy rates for one owner are getting lower: 1.9 person/bedroom in 1997 and 1.6 persons / bedroom now. Another owner asked us to review three specific townhouse developments and not increase parking. Another request was not to increase parking schedule for apartments - They would prefer to provide more green space. Owner stated that his developments have no parking problems having used our current standard. 13. Concern: Noted that if required parking is increased for apartments and townhouSes, it will be harder to meet the relegated parking of the Neighborhood Model - i.e., more parking will force developers to build fewer or smaller buildings with less density and/or have less area in which to construct the parking in the rear. 14. Concern: Asked that two garages spaces be counted for single-family detached dwellings. Staff Response: We have dropped the increase in the parking schedule for both 3 and 4 bedrooms. We also dropped the added guest spaces when any development provides parking in shared lots or bays. However, we maintained the requirement for 2 guest space per four units whenever parking is to be accomplished on the individual residential lots. This may be met by on-street parking or by small bays within common areas. We also added a new type of dwelling unit: student suites, which is defined as independently leased bedrooms which share common living, dining and/or kitchen areas whether leased by students or others. This unit type requires 1.25 parking spaces per bedroom. This student oriented housing, like any other type of dwelling, is eligible for a reduction in parking if the developer requests it under a Transportation Demand Management plan which couldprovide such amenities as a bus stop (with CTS or UTS available), bike racks and bike paths, or shuttle service. In single family detached dwellings, the enforcement issues of allowing garage spaces to count toward required parking far outweigh the benefits. (Example: Building permit issuance would be delayed while we verify that every "interior renovation" did not involve a garage that had been designated for parking.) 15. Question: Why is the County requiring 3 parking spaces for single family detached homes? Why are we enforcing VDOT's requirements when they do not meet the goals of the Neighborhood Model? Staff response: There has been some misunderstanding of VDOT' s regulation and we now find that 3 spaces are not needed in most instances. Therefore, single family detached dwellings will only require 2 spaces except in the cases where VDOT does require the 3rd space which is only on some urban roads. We do want to continue to cooperate with VDOT and hope they will reciprocate. Churches: 16. Concern: Requested consideration for rural and historic churches 17. Asked: Why have we increased church parking requirements by 25% and how does that increase relate to the Neighborhood Model. Staff Response: Although we understand that historic churches often want to protect their "site" to maintain the historic context, we can find no land-use-based reason for providing a separate category for parking. If the County adopts a historic ordinance or district, a parking reduction could be added to be subject to criteria related to its history. We did however find that the larger urban area churches are generally the more frequently used and due to concurrent usage have the greater parking needs. Therefore, we created a size-based distinction: churches that have fixed seats of 100 or less may continue the 1 parking space per 4 fixed seats and churches with greater than lOO fixed seats shall provide 1 parking space per 3fixed seats. Both still contain the phrase "or 1 space per 75 square feet of area of assembly, whichever is greater." Our experience is that the fixed seats in the sanctuary htDEPT~PlanningiPresentations~.an S~'1'A01-09 ParkingComments-ResponseAttA 8-27&9-24.doc usually generate the larger number, sev~?al bf b~!i~t~g~' Upb~ Churches have actually provided almost 1 space Per 2seats. Many City ordinances now requi)e 1/3 and that is where we settled. Although the Neighborhood Model wants~ less parking and more pedestrian usage, our existing churches draw from our whole community and find that they need parking relative to their size and activities. This additional size distinction should aid the small rural churches that do not need the increase. Applicability 18. Question: Could 4.12.2 be modified to only apply to "substantial" changes or intensification of any use. Staff finds that the wording is correct. All changes that necessitate additional parking should be subject to the new ordinance. The text was changed to: (2) each change or intensification of any use that necessitates additional parking but only to the extent of the additional parking. Other Issues Raised 19. Asked if the definition of shopping center could be expanded to include a "neighborhood- sized" complex. Staff opinion is that 25,000 square feet in a minimum of lO businesses as defined in the draft is the correct mixture to enjoy the sharedparking benefits. With a smaller sized building or fewer businesses there is less opportunity for clients/customers to want or need to go to more than one store or office from the same parking space. 20. Asked to add ,~minor" to section 4.12.3(a)2 so the owner/developer will know the level of amendment before submitting. Staff opinion is that we cannot determine the level of amendment prior to seeing the plan. There are currently three levels of amendments available and which applies to which plan is determined by the staff of Planning and Community Development at or after submittal. 21. QUestion: Could a r~odification of the 10% cap in section 4.12.4(a) be added for a shopping center that proposed a "park and ride"? Staff: 4.12.4(d) already allowed modification of subsection (a) if public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification, Staff finds that a "park and ride" lot would meet that requirement. The modification was moved and is now found in 4.12.2(c). 22. Concern: 4.12.3(b)4 will restrict construction'equipment for all new sites under construction as well as equipment kept on existing developed sites for general maintenance, snow removal and the like. Staff: Agreed that this section may cause more problems than it was proposed to address. This section has been removed 23. Concern: In shared parking, could the Planning Commission authorize more that the 35% reduction allowed under 4.12.10(d)? Staff opinion is that $5% is sufficient. Ifa greater reduction is needed, there must be a problem with our parking schedule and we would prefer a correction rather than a greater reduction. 24. Concern: Hotels andmotels have not appeared to need additional parking. I:lDEPT~lanninglPresentations~Jan StZTAO 1-09 ParkingComments-ResponseAttA 8-27&9-24.doc Staff: The increase was so minimal that we have simply dropped it. 25. Question: In the 4.12.6 schedule under Recreation~ could the reduction for distance to dwelling units be extended to commercial sites? Staff opinion is that this would not work. However, there are reductions available for shared parking when a commercial facility is proposed in a commercial arec~ There are also reductions available for Transportation Demand Management use. Design Issues: 26. Concern: The application and interpretation of thel00' sight distance in 4.12,15(d) may change with personnel in the Engineering Department. Noted that depending on how or who is applying this, any given shopping center or development may lose parking spaces, and therefore may be forced to create larger parking areas. Asked staff to either change or standardize the application so that designers can understand how it will be applied. A second speaker requested consistency in application. Staff: Engineering will go into detail in the Design Manual and cover all issues such as where the distance is measured from and to in different examples. They will also cover landscaping including ground shrubs and tree canopies within the sight distance view. The manual will have a 30-day:review period after it is distributed so that the engineering department can receive public comment. 27. Asked that the maximum grade in 4.12.15(c) be increased to 7%. Staff: The 5% in both directions that is proposed is already an increase from 5% and 2.5%. With the current requirement, we already get frequent requests for modifications to 7 and 8%. If the standard is raised, the modifications will most likely be raised also. We definitely do not want grades in parking areas to exceed what we already see. Therefore, staff finds that the overall increase to 5% is enough. Controversial Policy Issues: 28. Stated that the maximum 10% additional parking cap of 4.12.4(a) is too stringent and asked that we go back to the more flexible 20% originally proposed by staff. Staff prefers the 20% cap since this is the first maximum for parking. There are a lot of changes that we will be initiating and we wouId prefer to go slowly and have a little leeway to make certain that the number is correct and make additional changes later as needed. 29. Asked that the wording in 4.12.5(c) be changed from "To the extent possible," to the langt~age from the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Neighborhood Model, "It is preferred." 30. Concern for health, safety and welfare 'was also expressed in terms of hiding the parking where it is.not as easy to monitor, especially at a use such as our schools. Asked that safety issues be added as a consideration for modification. Staff opinion is that this section must be strongly stated or we will never accomplish the intent. Staff reviewed the language in the Comprehensive Plan regarding the Neighborhood Model. We restructured 4.12.5(c) so that the intent became the first sentence. The next sentence states the procedure by which an applicant may propose parking that is not relegated to the rear or side of the principal building. Safety should be a consideration in all parking lot construction. Visibility from a public street is not the only way to insure safety. I:lDEPT~Planning~Presentations~Jan S1ZTA01-09 ParkingComments-ResponseAttA 8-27&9-24.doc 31. Question: Are we requiring gutters for aegtheti~p~0ses:· ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 6 Staff: No. Section 4.12.15(g) has been changed to state that only "curbs shall be established"; gutters will be required only where needed for drainage. 32. Question: Why are we requiring 9' wide parallel spaces when ASHTO only requires 8'. To best reflect the, Neighborhood Model, spaces and roads should be as narrow as possible. Staff: ASHTO uses 8' only as a minimum for local, Iow volume roads, but states that 10' to Il' is preferred. Staff adopted 9' as the compromise for all situations. However, we have changed Section 4.12; 16 to address only parking spaces within parking lots. On-street parking will be addressed with street design standards. Staff n~tes also 'that the Angled parking tables in this section need to either add another table from the Minimum Standards Manual or be modified to a text version. We will have this accomplished before the Board of Supervisors' review of the ordinance. 33. Concern: Section 4.12.15(a) has changed the requirements for paving and surface treatment altogether. Why? Staff: Engineering has always had difficulty trying to interpret the 350 vehicle trips per week fairly and consistently for occasional uses and for other uses not identified in the ITE. We also wanted more flexibility in determining what surface material is required in different situations. Therefore, the vehicle trip threshold was eliminated; a standard was set; and, modifications and waivers are more widely available. r~ q hlDEP7~PlanninglPresentations~Jan StZTA01-09 ParkingComments-ResponseAttA 8-27&9-24.doc Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ORDINANCE NO. 02,18( ) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAFrER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLR II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE HI, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALI~EMARLF., VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article HI, District Regulations, are hereby amended and reordalned as follows: By Amending: Sec. 3.1 Sec. 15.2.2 Sec. 16.2.2 Sec. 17.2.2 Sec. 18.2.1 Sec. 18.2.2 Sec. 19.3.2 Sec. 20.3.2 Sec. 20.4.2 Sec. 20.5.2 Sec. 22.2.1 Sec. 22.2.2. Sec. 23.2.1 Sec. 23.2.2 Sec. 24.2.1 Sec. 24.2.2 Sec. 27.2.1 Sec. 28.2.1 Definitions By special use permit By special use permit By special use permit By right By special use permit By special use permit By special use permit By special use permit By special use permit By right By special use permit By right By special use permit By right By special use permit By right By right By Repealing: Sec. 4..12 Sec. 4.12.1 Sec. 4.12.2 Sec. 4.12.3 Sec. 4.12.4 Sec. 4.12.5 Sec. 4.12.6 Sec. 4.12.7 Sec. 4.13 Sec. 4.13.1 Sec. 4.13.2 Sec. 4.13.3 . Off-street parking and loading requirements Purpose -Application Location of parking Cooperative parking Availability of parking Parking area design Required off-street loading space Parking and storage of certain vehicles Parking, storage, or use of major recreational equipment in residential districts Limitation on parking/storage of inoperative motor vehicles Limitations on parking of trucks and certain recreational vehicles in residential districts Attachment B By Adding: Draft: 09/16/02 Sec. 4.12 Sec. 4.12.1 Sec. 4.12.2 Sec. 4. I2.3 Sec. 4.12.4 Sec. 4.12.5 Sec. 4.12.6 Sec. 4.12.7 Sec. 4.12.8 Sec. 4.12.9 Parking, stacking and loading Purpose and intent Apph'cability Prohibited activities Parking areas Location of parking areas Minimum number of requi/'ed parking spaces for scheduled uses' Minimum numberof required parking spaces for unscheduled uses Alternatives available to provide minimum number of parking spaces Street and alley parking Sec. 4.12.13 Sec. 4.12.14 Sec. 4.12.15~ Sec. 4.12.16 Sec. 4.12.17 Sec. 4.12.18 Sec. 4.12.19 Sec. 4.12.10 Shared parking Sec. 4.12.11' Stand alone parking Sec. 4.12.12 TranspOrtation demand management Loading areas Preexisting or approved parking, stacking and loading areas Minimum design requirements and improvements forparking areas Minimum design requirements and improvements for parking spaces within parking areas or parking bays Minimum design requirements and improvements for vehicle access aisles Minimum design requirements and improvements for loading areas Minimum design requirements and improvements for dumpster pads Chapter 18. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.1 Definitions ..Assisted living facilitY: A residential facility licensed by. the state deoaximent of social services where a level of service is -~:ovided b an adult care residence for adults who ma. have h siCal or mental im airments and re uire at least moderate assistance with the activities of dail' livin . Included in this level of service are individuals who are de endent in behavior attem i.e. abusive, aggressive, disruotive~ .as documented on the uniform assessment instrument. Automated teller machine (ATM): A machine that acts as a teller for standard bankin~ t_ransactions such as cash withdrawals, deoosits, and checkin~ account balances, regardless 0f .where it is located ' Congregate care facility: A residential facility for oersons who are elderly or of iraoaire~, functional ability. Such facilities are characterized by a variety of elements that include commo,, dining, social and recreational features, soecial safety and convenience features designed for th,, needs of the elderly, such as emergency call systems, grab bars and handrails, soecial don, hardware, cabinets, anoliances, nas.qagewavs, and doors designed to accommodate wheelchairs. A congregate care facility must orovide on an aoorooriate, regular basis at least two of th,', / / Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 following to oualifv for the oarking standard: meal services, transoortation, housekeeoing or organized social activities. Facility vehicle: A van. t~ickuo truck, car or other oassenger vehicle licensed for street use. intended for daily business use bva contractor in the ooeration of a contracting business, and stored at the contractor's yard overnight. Loaders. backhoes, bulldozers, du.rn. ~ tracks and similar construction eauioment are not facility vehicles. Parkine structure: A multi-storied structure located whollv or nartlv above made and desimaed for the tmmose of ~,aragin~, vehicles. A harking structure may be incomorated into one or more structures containing commercial or residential uses. - Personal service shoo: Shoos and offices whose orimarv business relies on customers comin~ and ~,oing on a reeular basis including, but not limited to. offices for some doctors, chirooractors and massage theraoists, and barber/beauty shoos, shoe reoair shops, and dry cleaners. Service industry: A business where multirfle emolovees r~erform their work primarily through telephones and comouters, in large communal areas or in small cubicles, rather than in individual offices Shoooine center. For oumoses of section 4.12. one or more buildings containing a minimum of twenty-five thousand (25.000~ souare feet of moss leasable area and ten (10) or-more retail stores, oersonal service shot~s or restaurants under the same management or association for the oumose of r~roviding t~rooertv management, oarking, site coverage, advertising, promotion and other similar benefits. In addition, the buildin ~ or buildings shall have one or more of the following characteristics: (D the stores, nersonal service shoos or restaurants are connected by party walls, partitions, canooies or similar features: or. (2) some or all of the stores, personal service shoos or restaurants are located in seoarate buildings that are designed as a single commercial ~-oup sharing common oarking areas and vehicular travel.ways and are connected by walkways and accesswavs designed to encourage customer interchan ~e between the buildings and otherwise present the appearance of a continuous commercial area without re~ard to ownershio. Any site within a ~ouo of ~uses or seoarate parcel involving the sale of gasoline shall be excluded from this definition of shoorfing center. Stacking: An area for temporary aueuing of vehicles while awaitine entry for service. Stand alone parking: A oarkin~ area. including a oarking structure, located on a lot other than the lot on which the use served bv the oarkin~ areas, is located, that is the orimarv use for that lot. Student suites: Units with a common tivin~,, dining and kitchen area shared bv individually leased bedrooms, whether leased bv students or other oersons. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.12 Parking. st_:~ckino and Ioadin. Sec. 4.12.1 Purnose and inten! Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 These oarkinE, stacking and loudln~ re,lotions establish minimum standards a~,ulicable to ne~.v uses. structUres or hark!ne areas, or redeveloned sites, for the oumoses of: (l'}.maximizin~ th,. safety and functionality of hark!ne areas: (2~ nrovidinE harking, and load!ne facilities ip ,, reasonable nrooortion to one.or more use's needs: (3~ reducin~ minimum oarkinE reouiremeni:: to coincide with common usaEe rather than oeak usaEe: (4~ minimizin~ the visual and environmental imoacts of oarkin~'areas on adiacent lands: and (5) sunoortin~ mass transi! Sec. 4.12.2 Anolicabilitv The reEulations of section 4.12 shall anolv as follows' General ap~licabilitvl Exceot as orovided in section 4.12;3, these varking, stacking and lo, ad!ne regulations shall aonlv to: (1) each new use or structure annroved after the date 0f aaontlon of these regulations; and (2~ each chan~e or intensification 'of anv use thai necessitatei additional hark!nm but only tothe extent of the additional naa'kine.- Each use or structure to which these regulations armlv shall be subject to {he following: ,1. All narkin~ areas havine four (4) or more soaces, reeardless of whether th,: number of soaces exceeds the annlicable minimum number renu!red bv sections 4.12.6 or 4.12.7. and all stack!ne and loadin~ areas, shall satisfy the minimum specifications for narkin~ area desi~ renu!red in section 4.12.15 Neither a certificate of occunancv nor a zonin~ comnliance clearance shall br, issued until the zoning administrator determines that the reauired harking stack!n,, and loadin~ imnrovements have been comnleted and are onerational the use or structure for which the imorovements are reauired · All hark!ne snaces nrovided in excess of the minimum number of soaces require,! bv sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.7 'shall comolv with the reouirements of this section 4.12 and section32. Exceptions. These r~arkine, stack!ne and loading, re~,ulations shall not avvlv to harking, stackin~ or loadin~ smces for uses or structures annroved by the county in a valid nreliminarv or final site olan or a valid oreliminarv or final subdivision nlat or!or tO thc, date of adontion of section 4.12. regardless of whether those snaces have bee,, constructed or otherwise established_ Modification or waiver. The limitation on the maximum number of oarkinE snace~ reauired by subsection 4.12.4(a). or the design reouirements in sections 4A2.15.4.12.16, 4.12.17. 4.12.18 and 4.12.19 may be modified or waived in an individual case if thc, Attachment B Draft: 09/16~02 zoning administrator finds that the vublic health, safety or welfare would be eouallv or better served by the modification or waiver and that the modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrarv to the ouroose and intent of this chaoter. The zoninff administrator may modify or waive a design reouirement only after consultation with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator whether the orooosed waiver or modification would eouallv or better serve the oublic health, safety or welfare. In m'anting a modification or waiver, the zoning administrator msv imnose sUCh conditions as deemed necessary to orotect the oublic health, safety or welfare, The denial of a modification or waiver, or the avvroval of a mOdification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the develover may be considered bv the commission as vart of its review of: (1) a riot. as nrovided in sections 14-220 and 14,-225 of the Code: (2) a site vlan. as vrovided in sections 32.4.2.6 and 32.4.3.6: or (3) a soeeial use oermit The board of suvervisors shall consider a modification or waiver only as follows; The denial of a modification or waiver, or the avvroval of a modification or waiver with conditions obiectionable to the develooer may be avoealed to the board of suoervisors as an ar)veal of a denial of the vlat. as vrovided in section 14- 226 of the Code. of the site vlan, as vrovided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver vertains. A modification or waiver considered bv the commission in conjunction with an avvlication for a sOecial use hermit shall be subiect to review by the board of suvervisors In considering a modification or waiver, the board mav re'ant or deny the modification or waiver based uvon the finding set forth in subsection (c). amend any condition imoosed bv the commission, and imnose any conditions it deems necessary for the masons set forth in subsection (c). Sec. 4.12.3 Prohibited activities in oarkine, stackin~ and loadin~ areas The following activities are prohibited: a. In any oarking, stacking or loading area: Uses. The sale. renair, dismantling or servicing of any vehicle or eauioment; the storage of materials, suoolies or merchandise: the storage of refuse, recycling or similar disoosal containers; or other use that would orevent the oarking, stacking, or loading area, or any portion thereof, from beine used for its intended purpose This orohibition shall not aOolv to single-family dwelline units or to temoorarv uses or activities aooroved bv the zoning administrator Discontinuation~ elimination or reduction of area: The discontinuation, elimination or reduction of a reouired ~arkin~. stacking or loading area. or any hart thereof, unless an alternative eauivalent area comolving with these regulations is armroved as reauired bv this chaoter. The removal of any oarking soaces will reauire an amendment to the .site plan. 1¥ AttaChment B Draft: 09/16/02 On anv Int. including any r~arking, stacking or loadine area. except whece exr, msslv Parking. storage or use of maior recreational eauipment. No major recreational eaui~)ment shall be used for living, sleet)ing or other occur)ancv when harked o[ stored on any lot or in any other location not.ar)~roved for .qnch use. For numoses limitedto, travel trailers, oickuo camoers. motorized dwellings, tent trailers boate and boat trailers, house,boats, and trailers, cases or boxes used for Wan.qoorting such recreational eauioment, whether occuoied by the eauioment or not~ Trucks with minimum cross vehicle we ieht or maior recreational eauit~ment. No truck With a mOSS vehicle Weight of twelve thousand.(12.000) ~>ounds or mai¢- recreational eauinment shall be oarked in any residential district other than tl~ rural areas (RA) zoning district; exceot for ourooses of making Oiclmos or deliveries, in any location other than an off-street narkin~ area shown on anvroved site olan or subdivision olat. Parkine or storaee ofinot~erable vehicles. No ino~>erable vehicle shall be parked or stored on a lot within any am'icultural or residential district, including the rural areas (RA) zoning'distriCt, unless the vehicle is within a fully enclosed building structure, or are otherwise shielded or screened from view from all r~ublic roade and adioining ~roperties~ NO more than two (2) inor~erable vehicles may r~arked or stOred on a lot. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to authorize or orohibit oarking storing the vehicles and eauioment described herein ~on a street Or highway. Sec. 4.12.4 parkine areas The following reauirements shall aorflv to all parkin~ areas, excent as otherwise exomssl¥ Maximum number of spaces. The number of r~arking sr~aces in a oarking area may not exceed the number of spaces required by this section by more than ten (10) r~ercent bo Spaces to satisfy minimum ADA requirements. The number-of r>arking sr~aces reserved fo~ the disabled shall comply with the federal regulations r~romulgated r~ursuant to thc, Americans with Disabilities Act and with the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Roundi'ne off to determine minimum number of reauired parkin~ soacesi When th,', calculation of the minimum number of reauired r~arking s~aces results in something othe~ than a whole number, the minimum required number of r~arking snaces shall be rounded off to the closest whole number 1£ Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Sec. 4.12.5 Location of narkin~ aren~ The following reauirements shall anolv to establishing the location of all oarking areas, exceot am otherwise exoresslv nrovided: an Parking areas on same lot as t~rimarv use: excevtion~ All oarking snaces sh~l ~ established on the same lot with the r~rimarv use to which it is annurtenant, except authorized bv section 4.12,$~ bo Determining minimum yard reauirements. For the oumose of determining minimum yard reouirements of the various zoning districts, the term "off-street oarking soace' consist,c of the oarking soace or stall together with the adiacent aisle .and turnaround. Orientation to buildines. Parking should not be the dominant feature seen from the street or other adiacent areas. Parking areas shall be located to the rear or side of the principal building, unless the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the director of vlannin~ and community development that the proposed oarking areas, in another locatiOn, would not be the dominant feature seen from the street or other adjacent areas. Sec. 4.12.6 Minimum number of reauired harking snaces for scheduled use~ Exceot when alternative oarkin~ is aoorovedas provided in section 4.12.8. the following, schedule shall anolv to determine the number of recruited off-street oarkin~, soaccs to be orovided in a oarticular situation.~ If a particular use is not scheduled, then section 4.12.7 shall anplv. Assisted Ii tne £actlttv. One space per three (3) beds. Automated teller machines (ATMs): Two (2) spaces per each outdoor walk-ut> twe: five (5) stacking soaces per each drive-up type. Automobile service station and truck repair shop: One (Il soace oer each emnlovee plus two (2) soaces net each service stall. In addition, when accessory activities such as the rental of automobiles, trucks and trailers of all tvoes exist on the site, there shall be provided suitable area to accommodate the highest number of rental units expected at any one time. Barber shop. beauty shop: One (It soace per'two hundred (200/souare feet of moss floor area plus one (D soace per employee. Boarding house: One (1) soace oer two (2) beds plus one (It soace oer emolovee Camt~eround: One (il space oer camosite: for ~ouo camosites, a_deanate oarkine soace shall be nrovided for buses as determined by the zoning administrator, Church: If the area of assembly seats more than one hundred oersons, one ¢1/soace oer three (3) fixed seats or oer seventy-five (75t souare feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. If the area of assembly seats one hundred oersons or fewer, one (1) soace ocr four (4) fixed seat~ or vet seventy-five (75/sauare feet of area of assembly, whichever shall be ereato, r. Attachment .B Draft: 09/16/02 Club, lodge: One (1) space Der three (3) fixed seats or Der seventy-five (75) souare feet. whichever shaltbe ereat~r Contractor's (construction office, shov. eauivment storaee and materials)var& One (1) sDa¢.. [. ": '' e £c:i v i ~_a~__c_a~re_.c.e~n. te.r. nurse.?. £acih'ties: One f .1) space Der ten (10)chilch-er, enrolled in the rnaio~ . c~s or stun musone ~! space Der emolovee. In addition, a oick. uD and dm°;off area sha~ I~ orovided on the site~ Dental clinic: One (1) space Der One hundred seventy-five (175) sauare feet of net floor area Drive-in restaurant: Eiehteen (18) soaces t>er each one thousand (1.000) son_aAre feet of eros..; _Drive-in lane servine any use: The number of stackin~ soaces shall be deterr, fined bv the zonint, administrator usine a combination of traffic eeneration fieures either known to the industry ¢, estimated by Institute :of TransDortation Engineers, The stackin~ spaces shall, be designed so not toim edere uired arkin i~ aces edestrian r vehicularcirc lation. Dry cleaning: One (1) space Der fifty (50) square feet oDen to the Public olus one (1) space emoloyee. Dwellings: Single family detached (includine manufactured homes): Two (2) spaces Der unit, except .when, the Virginia DeDasXment of Transportation rec~uires three (3) spaces to offset thc. loss of ancillary °nstreet Darkine because a reduced urban street width has been t>e~dtted m accordance w~th the VDOT Subd~v~ ~on Street Re uirement Multi-family units, including duvlexes, single family attached, and townhouses, but excluding studeni suites' _Number of Parkin .Bedrooms/Unit Soaces/Unil Any unit of 500 sauare feet or less 1.25 One (1) bedroom 1.50 Two (2) or more bedrooms 2.00 I.n addition if arkin i rovided on individual 1 ts such f r du Iexes and s~n le famil attached townh: u s rather than in 1 ts or a s th sh ed all Units :in the devel°'ment then on I uest s ace er four 4 unit hall e .Student suites: One and one-quarter (1 1/4) st>aces oer bedroom AttaChment B Draft: 09/16/02 Multi-£amilv dweRines for the elderlY: One and one-aUarter (1 1/4) spaces ocr unit olus one (1) space ocr ernolovee on the lar~,est shift: t>rovided that for a conm~egate care facility, one (1) soace ocr unit olus one (1) snace ocr emolovee on the lareest shift. Feed and seed store: One (D space ocr four hundred (400) sauare feet of retail sales area. Financial institution: One (1) st>ace tmr one hundred fifty (1503 saUare feet of moss floor area. This reauirement may be reduced by twenty-five (25~ sauare feet ocr drive-in aisle. EaCh drive- throu~,h lane serving a financial institution shall nrovide a minimum of five (5) stacking soaces that shall not imocde any recmired t>arking or loading st>aces or any ocdestrian or vehicular circulation aisles. Food store: One (1) space per two hundred (200) scmare feet ~of moss floor area. Funeral home: One (1) space per three (3~ fixed seats or ocr seventy-five (75) sauare feet area of assembly, whichever shall be greater. Furniture store and other large sized retail items such as appliances, carvetine, office eauit~ment or specific building materials: One (D st>ace ocr four hundred (400~ sauare feet of retail 'sales area. Gift, craft, antiaue shop: One (1) space per two hundred (2003 souare feet of moss floor area: provided that for any area devoted to furniture, parking shall be one (D st>ace ocr four hundred (400) square feet of such area. Greenhouse and nursery_'. Sales area within a greenhouse that is not in coniunction with any other retail sales: One (1) space per one hundred (100) square feet for the first one thousand (1.000) souare feet and one (1) space for each five hundred' (500) square feet of greenhouse sales area above one thousand (1.000) souare feet. Exterior nursery sales area: One (1) space per each five thousand (5.0003 sauare feet of exterior nursery sales area. Hospital: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown on a oarkine study submitted bv the hospital. The number of reouired spaces shall be determined by the zoning administrator. In making the determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the recommendations in the parking study, traffic generation figures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, peak parking, demands, and other relevant information. Hotel. motel: One (II st>ace ocr unit: additional st>aces shall be reouired fOr restaurants, assembly rooms, and other Separate uses identified herein. Industrial use not otherwise identified: One (D st>ace t>er emolovee on the largest shift nlus one (1) svace ver five hundred (500) sauare feet ot>en to'the t>ublic for customer t>arkine, but in all cases a minimum of two (2~ customer t>arkin~, soace* Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ~ - ' --- ed (400~ .qmm,-~ £ f II' 1--'_:~:_ ~ Il ~-.- .... ..-, ._ .Laundromat. One (D soace oer two (2~ washin~ machines, u ~ h r rn r, fir : - -- . U.' '- --: "- .- -~'a. M~ tor v h' l ' l in m i · rrn i nt an tru · th u n five h d "uar~ e t f dis la area. a t~ u I 1 1 lineate t n i and 'nt 'n d ~ r t m nl . - ~~'ve and. ro.- ional [includim, medi,',,l o~e.~ %;t not dent, cltntc, n__e I ace er two ndred 200 u e feet f net office fl . r a. The trm" et ~i ~ht_-- - - --~ercent of the. ~q~ n,,,,r are~- r~r c2~ the ~.-r-~ara.---h wn n fl-'r tans~ actual net office floor ar a ~hmh lanssh 1 eb~ di~n a lo. hemax' umn t rareaue . ver-the-countersal : ne ace efi 0 u ef~et nt th u lic r ne 1 s ace er two hundred 200 s uare fe't f s fl or area whi hever s all eater. Prinfin and ublishin -a ilities includin~ newst~a,er nublishin-: CUne (lb s'~aco' ,~r em onthelar estshift lusone I ace er each five hundred : 0 feetof rareao ent__q_~ ublic for customer arkin but in all cases a minimum of two 2 cu tomer arkin ace. Production rocessin testin re airin or servicin materials ods or r, dut: e 1 s ace er em Io ee on the lar~,e __t hift lus one 1 s ace er each five hundred 0 uare feet of floor area o en to the ublic for cust met arkin but in all case a minimum of two customer arkin:_ s :aces. Public assembl indoor Or outdoor use not otherwise identi ed: ne Ii ace r three ~) sauare feet of,,lace of assembl,, whichever shall be reater.' Fixed seats where the seatin cOnsists of ews enches leachers and similarforms0fseatin shall becalculat d at the rate of one . 1 seat ertwo 2 f~ etoflen h. A lace of ublic assem 1 includes multi u se areas' that ma be uSed eit er f r assembl r recreation and dance hall that are not acce s r to a restaurant. Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Recreation. commercial and residential: Recreation Parkin~ snaces reauired lBaseball field 20 oar field 15ilsketball court 2 oar basket Golf course, drivin~,ram, e 1 oar 2 tees HOrseshoe nits Soccer field Skating rink Swimmin~ nool Tennis court 2 oar nit 24 oar field 1 oar 200 souare feet of rink area 1 oar 125 souare feet of water surface 2 oar court For each recreation use not soecified above, one (D snace oar one hundred twenty-five (125) souare feet of useable recreation area. The minimum number of oarkin~ soaces reouired for a residential recreational facility within a subdivision shall be reduced bv the oarcentaee of dwelline units within the subdivision within one-auarter mile of the facility. Recreation, public: The number of proposed spaces shall be shown on a oarkin~ study. The number of required spaces shall be determined by the zoning, administrator. In makine the determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the recommendations in the r>arkine study. traffic generation fieures either known to the industry or estimated by the Institute of Transportation Eneineers. oeak r~arkin~ demands, and other relevant information. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home: One (1) space per four (4) beds. (See also Multi- family dwellings for the elderly.) Restaurant: Thirteen (13) spaces per one thousand (1,000) square feet of moss floor area including areas for accessory dancing. Drive-through lanes servine restaurants shall orovide a minimum of five (5) stacking spaces that shall not impede any required oarkine or loadine spaces or any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles. The five (5~ stackine soaceS shall be provided at the order board and additional spaces may be provided at the oavment or nick-un windows. Retail use not otherwise identified: One (1) space per each one hundred (100) souare feet of retail sales area for the first five thousand (5,000) sauare feet and one (1) space oar each two hundred (200) square feet of retail sales area above five thousand (5,000) square feet. For ourooses of this oaraeraoh. "retail sales area" shall be deemed to be: (II eiehtv (80) oarcent of the moss floor area: or (2) the actual retail sales floor area as shown on floor olans submitted by the aoolicant delineating the actual retail sales area. which olans shall be bindine as to the maximum retail sales area used. Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Schools~ (based on caoacity ). Kinder~artenthroueh ernde five: One (II snace nertwelve (12) r~unils, or one (II svac-. per seventy-five (75): sauare.feet of the largest area of indoor assembly, whichever is Grades six through eieht: One (1) st~ace t~er eleven (11) nutfils, or one (1) snace seven[v-five (75) sauare feet of the largest area of indoor assembly. Whichever is m'eater~ G~j~idi~s~/;;teh, r,°,u~htwelve andad,_~t_ education facilitv: One (1)snace ncr three (3) ~. , ..~.t ~ snace ver seventy,five (75) snuare feet of the largest area of indo0~ assemtnv, wmel~ever is re'eater, Parking for schools whose r~unil nonulation incl-d~s more than one of the above thrc,' ;[a~ssi..fi_c,a?ons,.s.ha!l be based.on the .a~eregate of each annlicable classification2 The any mace ot ~nuoor or outaoor r~ul>lic assembly for non-school numoses shall nol ~.ncrease the minimum number of reauired harking snaces. The minimum number of parking snaces reauired for a school shall be reduced by the nercentage of dwelling unit:; served bv the school within one-auarter mile of the school. ~erv~e btdust~~ feet of net office floor area Shovt~ine center: .~._~_o_oss leasable area Minimum number of s aces re uired er m souare feet . one thousand s~uare feet of cross leasable floor area 25.000 to 50,000 5.00 50,001 to 200,000 4.75 200.001 to 600,000 4.50 600,001 to 750,000 4.75 750.001 and larger 5.00 Theater indoors or outdoors: One I s ace er each three 3 seats. Tourist lodeihe: One (1) snace ver unit in addition to the varking reouired for a single family .Veterinary clinic: One (1) snace her two hundred (200) square feet of ~ross floor area exclusiv6 of that area to house animals. Wayside stand: One (1) snace ver one hundred (100) souare feet of sales or disnlav area_: Wholesaling or warehousing use not Otherwise identit~ed: One (1) st~ace, t>er emolovee r>lus one (I) st>ace ver each five hundred (500) sauare feet of floor area oven to the tmblic for custome, parking, but in all cases a minimum of two (2) customer r~arking stmces, Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Winerie$~ including farm wineries: If ooen to the oublic, one (D soace ~er two and one-half (2.5] ¢~stomers for daily use. For soecial events and festivals, one (D soace ocr two and one-half (2,5) customers, olus one (D soaee ocr emrflovee (includes winery staff, caterers, musicians and vendors]. The oarkin~ reouired for soeeial events and festivals may be considered overflow oarking and may be orovided in a well-drained, suitably graded area adiacent to reauired oarking 0rea. Sec. 4.12.7 Minimum number of required narkin~ snaces for unscheduled uses For uses not soecificallv identified in section 4.12.6. including mixed uses. or when a conflict exists between ~ossiblv armlicable schedule reauirements, the zoning administrator shall determine the minimum number of reauired oarking s~aces. In making this determination, the zoning administrator shall consider the characteristics of the ~rooosed use or uses. anticioated employment, the number of residents and/or visitors, the minimum ~arking reauired for similar uses or mixes and other relevant considerations. The zonin£ administrator shall also consider the following: Permitted use not otherwise identified. A total number of spaces sufficient to accommodate the vehicles of all employees of the establishment ~lus those of all oersOns who may be exoected to visit the same at any one time. b. Concurrent uses. The zoning administrator may reauire additional oarking for concurrent uses'on any site. Parking study. The zoning administrator may consider any oarking studv relevant to the request, whether it is suoolied by the aoolicant or available from any other source. Sec, 4.12.8 Alternatives available to orovide minimum number of narkino snaces The alternatives described herein are intended to promote more creative design: allow higher density in those zoning districts in the development areas, and reduce imoervious area by allowing the parking requirements of this section to be satisfied, in whole or in ~art. bv street parking, shared oarking, and off-site stand alone oarkine. In addition to all other armlicable requirements of this section, the following requirements shall anolv to the oarkine alternatives provided in sections 4.12.9, 4.12.10 and 4.12.11: _ Types of alternatives. The parking alternatives consist of street parking, as orovided in section 4.12.9, shared parking, as orovided in section 4.12.10. off-site stand alone parking, as orovided in section 4.12.11, and other reductions resultin~ from the ~rovision of mass transit or other transportation demand management tools. Combination of alternatives. One or more oarking alternatives may be used in combination with one another or with on-site oarking to attain the minimum number of required oarking soaces. Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Provision of means for safe movement. Sidewalks and other means for ~imkting safe movement of ~ede~ixians between the oark/n~ area or snaces and the use or structure they serve shall be nr°vided Parkine not to be separated from use by major ronrle. No oarkin~ area or soaces shall seoarated from the Use or structure they serve bv a street whose classification is ereateq than a maior collector, unless safe and convenient access is orovided t~om the oarkill~ eo Instrument assurine continu_ation of off. site varkine. If stand-alone narkin~ or off, site shared ~arkine is to be arovided, the annlicant shall submit With the a~oliCation for a sit,, plan..site vlan waiver or. if a site ~lan is not reouired, with an a~alication for a zoninf, .c. omoliance clearance, an instrument that restricts the use of that ~art of the land 0n Which oarkine is orovided to that'use, and assures that a minimum number of ~arkine snace$ s,: reauired bv this section Shall be established and maintained for the life of: the Use. Th.- Instrument shall be in a form that is suitable for recordine, shall be subiect tO review and a~f0val as t° form and substance by the county attomev, and shall be recorded in th,~ Office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county before the site rfian or Site olan waive~ ~s ar, otoved~ As the oarking reauirements for the use or structure chance, SUbseauenl instruments may be submitted, reviewed, av~roved and recorded that rescind or modify the orior instrument. Sec. 4.12.9 Street and alley narkinn Street and alley oarkine may be orovided as follows: treet parkine consists.of oarkine s~aces located in a oublic or private fieht-of way.. Each r~arkine sr~ace that is in a t~ublic or private fi~ht-of-way abuttine the lot shall count as, Darkin~ st~hee fo? the VurPose'of meetine the minimum oarkine since requirements i,, sections 4.12.6 and 4.12.7. F. ach oarkine snace shall be on a oared area abutting the .travelwav, and if the oarkin~ soace is ina oublicrieht-of-wav it shall not be ~rohibited by the Viminia DeDal-tment of Transnortation. b. Alley Varkin~ consists of varkin~ areas located in the alley right-of-way. A oarkinl, soace in an alley may meet the minimum oarkine soace rec~uirements in section 4.12.6 il a~r, roved by the county eneineer. In atmrovine alley oarkine, the county en~,ineer shall consider the width of the travelwav, the widths of the lots abuttine the alley, and setbacks from the alley. Sec. 4.12.10 Shared narkino Shared narkine allows oarkine soaces to be shared amone two (2) or more uses that tvnically exoerience oeak varkin~ demands at different times and is located on the same lot or on nearby lots. Because narkine~ snaces are shared, the total number ofoarkine soaces that would otherwis. be rec~uired may be redUced: In addition to all other antflicable recmirements of this section. followine reouirements shall am>Iv to shared oarkin~,- Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Authority to reduce aggregate number of oarkine s~aces. The zonim, administrator ma.v reduce ~he at, m'e~,ate minimum number of reauired oarkin~, soaces. ~rovided that each use ~articioating in the shared oarkin~, exneriences oeak ~arkinv demands at different times. The zoning 0.dministmtor shall base this decision on the oartieular circumstances of the aoolieation. parking study. Before makita, the decision to allow shared oarking and to reduce the a~,m'egate number of Oarking soaces, the zoning administrator may reauire the armlicant to submit a oat'king study to determine the oeak oarking demand oeriods or other information needed to determine the viability Of shared oarking under the oarticular circumstances of the anolication. Effect of reserved varkine svaces. Parking soaces reserved for soecific individuals or classes of individuals shallnot be counted toward the oarking soaces that could be shared, exceot for those st)aces designated and marked for use ontv by handicat)oed persons. do Maximum reduction. The a~,m'egate number of r~arkin~ st)aces reouired for all uses participating in the shared r~arking shall not be reduced bv more than thirty-five (35~ percent. Sec. 4.12.11 Stand alone oarkine Where authorized bv the aot)licable zoning district regulations, stand alone oarking allows parking areas to be located on a lot other than the lot on which the use' served by the parking areas is located. Stand alone parking is not required tO be located on a lot under the same ownership as the lot on which the use served by the ~arking is located. In addition to all other apulicable reauirements of this section, the following requirements shall armlv to stand alone parking: a. Site plan required. A site plan for the stand alone parking shall be submitted and approved under section 32. b. Identification of use served. At least one (1) sign shall be posted in the ~arkin~, area identifying the off-site use served bv the oarking area. Sec. 4.12.12 Transt)ortation demand management Transportation demand management ("TDM") is a set of tools that provide an alternative to parking st)aces uoon a demonstration that the number of vehicle trips upon which the minimum number of parking soaces reauired herein will be reduced. TDM tools include, but are not limited to. mass transit, car ooolinm and oark and ride lots: Ar, vlication. An aoolicant seeking, to reduce the number of reouiredoarking soaces through TDM shall submit to the zoning administrator a oarking study demonstrating how the number of reouired oarking soaces may be reduced through TDM. . Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Authority toreduce. The zonine administrator may reduce th,, ,,,,,.,~,~,...,.... '- · · . ,. . - -.- ,=....,,,,. ox on-sire Darlon~ 'g--" lc t~v ~ 'n t ' e 'the , · n demonstrates that the use of TDM tools can effectively eliminate the need fOr some of hS.- reoui~ed parking Space~ Sec. 4.12.13 Loadln~ arenq Off-street loading areas shall be provided as follow~: aD bo Loading spaces shall be provided on the same lot with the use to which it is aoourtenanl and Shall be adjacent tothe structure it Serves. Loadin~ spaces shall be designed so as not to impede any reauired oarkine svae*s or any pedestrian or vehicular circulation, --- ' Loading spaces shall be provided in addition to and exclusive .Of anv narkin~ reouiremeni on the basis of: (D one (D SPace for the first eight thousand (8.000) sonarc feet of retai gross leasable area. Plus one (1'} space for each additional twentY.thousand (20 000) souare feet of retail ~ross leasable area: (2~ one (1~ space for the first eight thousand (8.000~ sauare feet'of office space Dlus one (D space for each additional twenty thousand (20.000) souare feet of office snace: or (3~ one (D space for the firs[ ten thousand (10.000) souare feet of industrial floor area olus one (D space for each additional twenty, thousand (20.000~ souare feet of industrial floor.area Additional loading spaces mav be reauired or requested during review of the site Dian. Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building of four thousand (4.000) moss sauare feet or more shall provide a dumDster Dad that does not irauede any reouire, i parking or loadin~ spaces, nor any oedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles~ The reouirements of this subsection may be modified or waived in an individual case il the zonin~ administrator, in Consultation with the county engineer, finds thatthe public health, safety or welfare would be eouall¥ or better served by the modification or waive~, that the modification or :waiver would not'be a departure from sound engineering td;;~_~_°_ra_~tice:, .and that~~h,e. m,odificati~On .or waiver would not otherwise be contrary tC health, safety or welfare. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the aPProval of a modification or waiver with conditions obiectiOnable to the developer may be considered bv the com-dssion as Da~t of its review of.' (1) a Olat. as provided in sections 14-220 and 14-22n; of the Code: (2~ a site plan. as provided in sections 32.4.2.6 and 32.4.3.6: or (3~ a soecial use permit The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any reauirement ~ I' .this subsection only as follows' Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 The denial of a modification or waiver, or the annroval of a modification or waiver with conditions objectionable to the deveIoner may be annealed to tho. board of sunervisors as an a~neal of a denial of the ~lat. as orovided in section 14- 226 of the Code. or the site olan. as orovided in sections 32.4;2.7 or 32.4.3.9. A modification or waiver considered bv the commission in conjunction with an aoolication for a snecial use nermit shall be subject to review bv the board of sunervisors. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may re'ant or denv'the modification or waiver based unon the finding set forth in subsection Or), amend any condition imoosed bv the commission, and imoose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection Sec. 4.12.14 Preexistin~ or anoroved narkinm stackino and loadin~ area~ Each oarkinm stacking and loading area serving a use or structure lawfully established in accord with a valid final site olan or subdivision olat orior to the date of adootion of these regulations, or armroved in a valid and vested oreliminarv site olan or subdivision olat. whose n.qe has not changed or intensified so as to necessitate additional oarking, shall be allowed to continue, subject to the following: Preexisting or avoroved oarkin~ svaces mav be used to satisfy the number of oarkin~ sr~aces reouired for a changed or intensified use if the structure to which the harking area is accessory remains. If the structure to which the parking area is accessory is demolished, removed, or reconstructed, then all harking required or otherwise serving anew use or structure must comolv with this section. Co Pre-existing oarking structures authorized by right or by special use permit by the aoolicable zoning district regulations that do not comt>lv with the reouirementS of section 4.12 shall be deemed to be nonconformin~ structures subject to section 6 of this chapter, Preexisting or avoroved oarking, stackin~ or loading areas that arc not harking structures as described in subsection (c). and that do not comolv with the reauirements of seCtion 4.12. are accessory to a primary use and shall not obtain status as a nonconforming use or structure. However. these areas may continue and be maintained for so long as the primary use exists. Sec. 4.12.15 Minimum desima reouirements and imorovements for narkinu are~a.q The following desima reouirements and minimum imorovements shall be oroVided for ail Off- street varking areas consisting of four (4) or more oarking spaces: Surface materials. All oarking areas consisting of four (4) or more soaces shall be surfaced. The surface materials for t>arking areas and access aisles shall be subiect to Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 review and armroval bv the county engineer, based ur~on the intensity of usage Virginia Denartment of Transt~ortafion navement desima guidelines and sr~..cifications. The county engineer' may ore,rove the use of alternative surfaces deemed ecmivalent i,, re~ard m strength, durabilitv. SUstainabilitv and lon~ term maintenance for the intensil:¥ Grading and drainage systems. Parkin~ area ~r.adin~ and drainage systems shall b¢ designed and constructed to minimize, to the m'e.a?est extent r~ractical, the amount of surface runoff exitin~ or enterin~ throu~,h entrances to nublie street~ · Maximum grade. The maximum made for harking st>aces, loadin~ snaces, and acces,: aisles abutting r~arking or loading st>aces shall not exceed five (5~ r~ercent in any direction. Sight distance. Minimum intersection sight distance for internal intersections of acces:; aisles, intersections of access aisles and r~edestrian ways. and access aisles around buildin;,s shall not be less than one hundred (100~ feet. The county engineer maxf increase this minimum, if the travel sr~eed is anticir~ated to exceed ten (10`} miles r~ec hour. to a sight distance commensurate with the anticipated travel st;ccd. If the county' engineer anticir~ates that travel sr~eeds of twenty (20~ miles r~er hour or mater may b.~- reasonably achieved along a nrimarv travelwav serving a develor~ment, he may reauii:c, that the travelwav comt>lv with the r~rivate road horizontal and vertical:standards stated in Table A of section 14-514 of the Code for the anticimted traffic volume. Sight distance. shall be measured as r~rovided in Section 602 of the Albemarle County Design Stanctard~ Manual Accessibility to loading st)aces, loading docks and dumosters. Parking areas shall b,, designed.so that all loadin~ sr~aces, loadin~ docks, and dumr~sters are accessible bv delivery and service vehicles when all ~arking sr~aces are occur~ied. Protective barriers and design. When deemed necessary and reasonable to assure tha~ safe and convenient access is provided, the county engineer may recmire: (D raised traffic: islands at the ends of r~arking rows to r~rotect r~arked vehicles and to ~rohibit t~arkin~ in unauthorized areas; (2) traffic islands and other such traffic control devices: and (3') a design that provides no ~arki-'ng along the accesswavs taroviding the r~rincitaal in_oress egress and circulation on the site. Curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelwavs. Curbs shall be established at th,', edges of ~arkine areas or access aisles in the following circumstances: (1) in all commercial or institutional developments reouiring eight (8'} or more r~arkin~ srmces; (2) in all multi-family dwelling and townhouse developments reauiring eight (8) or more, ~arkine sr~aces; (3`} where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff: (4) Where ,q sidewalk is located closer than four (4`} feet from the edge of an access aisle; and (5`} where necessary to contain vehicular traffic to r~rotect nedestrians and/or r~ro~ert¥, Gutters shall be reouired where necessary to control or direct stormwater runoff. The county en ~,ineer may waive or modify this reouirement if deemed necessary to accommodate stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning, district, Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 SeParation of parkine area from public street or private road. Where off-street narkin~ is provided, harking areas shall be established sufficiently inside the site So as to nrevent oueuin~ onto a nublic street or private road. The minimum reouired separation shall be determined bv the county eneineer and will be based on the intensity of traffic on the site. In any case. the minimum separation should not be less than one (1~ car leneth for the most minimal use. Location of handicapped parkine spaces. Parking, areas shall be desiened so that handicanoexi oarkin~ spaces are located to provide persons With direct unobstructed access to buildings bv the shortest practical route, and to eliminate the need to cross vehicular access aisles wherever possible. Sec. 4.12.16 Minimum desicyn reouirements and improvements for harking snaces within harking areas or harking bays The followin~ desien reouirements and minimum improvements shall be provided for ali parking spaces within parking areas or oarkin~ bays: Arraneement of spaces. All varkin~ spaces shall be perpendicular, angled, parallel or curvilinear to the vehicle access aisle. Aneled parking may be provided at sixty (60~. forty-five (45~ or thirty (30~ dem'ees from the access aisle. Desien of spaces. All oarkine spaces shall be desim~ed so that no part of any vehicle will extend over any lot line. rieht-of-wav line. sidewalk, walkway, and driveway or aisle space. Minimum. parkine space size. Parkine spaces shall be the minimum sizes, and have the minimum aisle width, orovided below: Perpendicular varkine. For perpendicular oarkine, the minimum space and aisle widths shall be: Width (ft.) Length (ft3 Aisle Width (ft.) 10 18 20 9 18 24 2. Parallel.parkine. For parallel parking, the minimum space shall be: Width (ft.) Leneth (ft3 9 , 20 Attachment.B Draft: 09/16102 3. Aneledparkine, For angled oarkin~, the minimum soace and aisle widths shall be, ANGLED PARKING DIMENsIONs-ONE WAY cIRCUI~TION ANGLE' STALL AISC, ' I · (DEGS.) DcF~ V~DTH WIDTH I-RNGTH'~ A B E F G H I 60 20 20 9 18 4.5 10.5 35.5 40 60 96 116 45 15 19 9 .18~ 6.5 12.5 32 34,53 81 100- 30 12 17 9 18 8 , 18 26 29 45.5 66.5 83.5- ANGLED PARKING DIMENSIONS-TWO WAY CIRC~TION ANGLE STALLI AISLE ' [ (DEGS.) DEPTH WIDTH: WIDTH LENGTH [ A B E F G ' H I 60 20 · 20 9 18 4.5 10.5 35..5. 40 60 96 116 45 20 19 9 . 18 6.5 12.5 32 ~ 39 58 91 I10 99.5 30 '20 17 9 All devths, widths and lengths are stated in feet. All an~'led t>arkinamust have a varkine envelove that is nine (9) feet by eiehteen (18~ feet within each angled t>arkine svace.~ The' dimensions of aneled varkin~ (as provided in the above tables in columns A, B, E, F, G. H and I) shall be measured as provided in Section 602. I (Fi~,ure 64) of the Albemarle County Desien Standards Manual. Curvilinear parking: For curvilinear narkine, the minimum space and aiSle width.,; shall be the same as for t>eroendicular t>arkin~, excent that the width of the varkine st>ace Shall be measured at the narr°west voint alon~ the length of thc, snace, and provided that a one-hundred (100) foot si_,2ht distance is maintained . Handicapped parkine spaces. For handicat>t>ed Varkin~. vehicular access aisle widths shall be the same as for perpendicular t>arking. In addition, a handicanoed access aisle shall be provided adiacent to each handicavt>ed t>arkine st>ace, provided that the aisle may be shared between adjacent handicavved varkin~, svaces. The minimum space and aisle widths shall be: Handican Access Van Access Width (ft.) Leneth (ft.) Aisle.Width (ft.) Aisle Width (ft-) 8 . 18 5 8 Minimum length reduction. Pemendicular and curvilinear oarkine snace minimum length reauirements may be reduced by not more than two (2~ feet when any of the followin~ conditions are satisfied: (1) one or more rows of r~arkin~ are Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 seoarated bv olanting islands, median, or'other suer fe~_n~res (other than sidewalks~ and allow for an unobstructed overhan~, from each row. eauivalent to the reduction: or (2~ one or more rows of oarking adiacent to a blJilding are seoarated from the building bv olanting islands, or other such features (other than sidewalks'~ and allow for an unobstructed overhang, from each row. eauivalent to Delineation oft~arkinesvaces. Parkin~ st>aces shall be delineated in a Canner that identifies and ~reserves the reauired dimensions by t>alnt strininm siena~,e, or by another means at>oroved by the zonim, administrator. The zoning, administrator may authorize that bumner blocks or oosts be used to delineate t>arking soaces on surfaces that are not conducive to ~aint strioing. Bumper blocks. Bumr~er blocks shall be nrovided in t>arking s~aCes in the followin~, circumstances, unless waived bv the county engineer: (D the oarking area has no curb or curb and matter: (2~ the narkin~ has curb or curb and ~utter and there is a sidewalk located closer than two (2~ feet from the edge of the t>arkin~ area. exceot that bumoer blocks shall not be reauired where a sidewalk has a minimum width of six (6) feet. Bumt>er blocks shall be constructed of a durable material such as concrete or treated timbers. Each bumt>erblock shall be a minimum length of six (6) feet, a maximum height of five (5~ inches, and shall be securely anchored into the oavement in at least two (2) olaces. Sec. 4.12.17 Minimum desi..t,n reauirements and imnrovements for vehicle access aisles The following desien requirements and minimum imvrovements shall' be t>rovided for all vehicle access aisles: Grade for vehicle access aisles not adjacent to varkine svaces. Vehicle access aisles that are not adjacent to oarkine soaces, shall not exceed a made of ten (10) t>ercent. The county engineer may increase the maximum ~ade. ut>on a findinff that no reasonable desien altemative would reduce or alleviate the need and that the increase in grade would be in the best interest of oublic health, safety and welfare. The develot>e'r must reouest the waiver in writing and provide all information necessary to iustify that no reasonable desima' alternative exists. In no case shall the grade exceed private road standards set forth in section 14-514 of the Code. bo Entrances. Entrances to oarkin~, areas from public streets or private roads shall be desimaed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards. An adequate landing and/or made transition shall be provided for vehicle access aisles at the intersection with oublic streets or private roads to allow for the stoooing of vehicles and sight distance, as deemed necessary bv the county engineer to assure oublic safety. As a maideline, the aooroach made should not exceed four (4] nercent for a distance of not less than forty (40) feet measured from the edge of the street or road being, intersected. AttaChment B Draft: 09/16/02 Vehicle access aisle standards. Vehicular access aisles that are not adjacent to parkin;- snaces shall comol-V With the followine: .!. Two-way access aisles. The minimum travelwav width for two-way access aisle,: shall be twenty (20)feet, One-way access aisles. One-way circulation is allowed provided the circulatio, 'loor~ or pattern is containedWithin the site or sites. Public streets or nrivste mad,.- shall not be used as hart of the circulation loop or pattern. The minimu,. travelwav width for one-way access aisles shall be twelve (12~ feet. with thc~ following excentions: (a) Bvt~ass tra~c. A travelwawwidth of up to sixteen (16) feet may l>,. reouired to allOw for bwass traffic when d"~.med necessary bv the county engineer. In making this determination, the county entfineer shall Considei the site soecific factors including, but not limited to. the length of thc, travelWav, nature of the land uSe. and internal traffic circulation~ (b) Bank teller and ATM canotrv and lanes. The travelwav width may be reduced for bank teller and ATM canomes and lanes if the county enginee, detemlines that a reduction is necessary to accommodate the s~ecifi~: architectural, structural and customer service needs of a orooosed aDr~lication, and the reduction will not reduce r~ublic safety. Turnine radii. Turning radii shall be limited bv the retluirement to maintain one hundre~l (100) foot sight distance. Turning movements for delivery vehicles or other expected truck traffic shall be evaluated bv the coUnty eneineer using AASHTO single unit trucl, standards or other AASHTO standard vehicle as armronriam. Sec. 4.12.18 Minimum desien reauirements and improvements for loadine area:: The following design rer~uirements and minimum imr~rovements shall be r~rovided for all loading areas.'_ ' Co Size. Loadin'~ srmces shall be a minimum of twelve (12) feet in width, fourteen and one. .half (14 1/2) feet in clearance height and a length sufficient to accommodate the delivery trucks serving the establishment, but in no case will such lenmh be less tho,, twenty-five (25) feet. Surface materials. All loadin~ and unloadin~ berths shall be ~surfaced with a bituminou:; or other dust free surface Design ofloadin~ svaces. Loading st>aces shall be designed so that no part of anv vehicl, will extend over any lot line. ri~,ht-of-wav line. sidewalk, driveway or aisle space. Delineation ofloadine svaces. Loading soaces shall be delineated in a manner that identifies and oreserves the reouired dimensions with oaint striping, simaage, or bv othe, AttaChment B Draft: 09/16/02 means atmroved bv the zonin~ administrator. The zoning, administrator may ~uthorize that burner blocks or oosts be used to delineate loadin~ soaces on surfaces that are not conducive to oaint strioing, Sec. 4.12.19 ' Minimum desit, n reouirements and imnrovementSr for dumoster Dad,~ The following desima requirements and minimum imnrovements shall be .~mlsfied for all vehicle access aisles; a. Materials. DumDster nads shall be conerete, Desizn. The nad shall extend beyond the front of each dumoster so that the front wheels of a track servicing the dumoster will rest on the concrete, but in no case shall the length of a concrete oad be less than eight (8/feet beyond the front of the dumoster. The site shall be desimaed so that stormwater does not mn through, and drains away from. areas where dumosters are located in order to minimize the ootenfial for contaminating stormwater runoff due to contact with solid waste. Co Screenine. Dumosters shall be screened as required by section 32.7,9.and, where armlicable, section 30.6. A 1 '~ I DTTDDFt~ DDt' Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ~..12.3.2 /! 1"1 I t'~/~DI~D A r~lrg~ 1)A D~rTi~TC Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 A 1 ~) ~ I ~ A ~ A 'N,'fT~ ['~t'~I~T~;rl~'N,TTI~'N,TrIp A ~'qr~l~(~C~ Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 /I 1') ~ ~ T~J'rln~nl)~TAT (nTT)I~TTT Aq"Tt~&T A AA'.~ A~.,/AAv ,, AAA~ AAI2,* ......... AAAA~JA~./ ! WAAA~'&,.~ ~i .... ~/~ A~.~,,~AAW~ AWA ~J~,~I.&~A~I,i~I q.~l~¥¼U ¥WAA~JAU~AAA& ~,/A A'l,,~4b&A, ~. W// Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ..... ~ ........ ~U A .4 1 ") ~; 4' T T/'~i..TrflT]~'/'~ /I 1'9 t~ g DA DI,rT'NT/'n gDA /'~17 ~T'7"I~ Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 · Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 /R A 1"7 ~ ~ I 1") 11"1 (~f'l 1 I 1~ OQ *'7 ~F~ 0~. t'~A /11 10/'~'1 1/'1 Q /11% ~rlmDgl~rl~ DA DTZT~It' ~DA/~'~0 Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ,,~ ,,. ,., ~..,~ kl ..... k:~k ..... vl,, nll I.- .... Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ........... ~ ...... , ......... .~,,,~.: r~.~ ll~, ~, 5.0 4.75 4.3 4.7~ ¥/ Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 ~...'" .." P. EQ?.P. ED 0.'~- STREET LOADLMC SP. ICE Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 4.!3.1.1 4.!3.1.2 ' A Attachment B Draft: 09116/02 A 1 '~ "~ · T~,fl'rl~, A ~I"T~TkT~. .. I'~T ~T)~A. DT. r13q~T/'~ d"~'~ rr~DTT/'~TJ'~ A '~lTI /"qS~DrT~ A TI~. 1)1~I'"'1)12~ A..rl~Tl"ll~' i T 'VE~CT ~"E I'TN~ DlY~TT'~IG'"I%J'T~T l T I'~Ie'T'DTP'T'e. b. In an:,' approved off ~*" ...... "; ...... Article HI. District Regulations Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1.. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire 'and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis, or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines,and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone Attachment B ' Draft: 09/16/02 exchange centers; micro-wave and radio,wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.:5). 9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage o~' similar: institution (reference 5.1.13). 10. Hospitals. 11. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 12. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 13. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81) 14. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) .15. Parking (reference 4.12) Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities .(reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and.relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, (reference 5.1.13). 10. Hospitals. 11. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). I2. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 13. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81) 14. Mobile Home Parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) 15. Parking (reference 4.12~. Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: orphanage or Attachment B Draft: 09116/02 similar institution by special use permit approved by the board of 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). 9. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference 5.1.13). 10. Hospitals. 11. Professional offices. AttaChment B Draft: 09/16/02 12. Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential characteristics of the ~district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet. 13. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 14. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 15. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81) 16. 7-84) ......... ~ --- ~,.~-., ~...~vc ~'aae ~l~?a~a.~. (Added l I- 17. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) Sec. 18.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted subject to the requirements and limitations of this ordinance: 1. Detached single-family dwellings. Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses provided that density is maintained, and provided further that buildings are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wail. Multiple-family dwellings such as garden apartments. Cluster development of permitted residential uses. Rental of permitted residential uses and guest cottages; provided that yard, area and other requirements of this ordinance shall be met for each such use whether or not such use is on an individual lot. 6. Homes for developmentally disabled persons (reference 5.1.07). 7. Boarding houses. 8. Tourist lodgings (reference 5.1.17). 9. (Repealed 9-2-81) 10. (Repealed 9-2-81) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 11. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. 12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by lOCal, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11- 149) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 14. Accessory uses and buildings including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and storage, buildings. 15. Parkin~ (reference 4.12~. Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Community center (reference 5.1.4). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, fratemal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). 8. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference 5.1.13). 10. Hospitals. 11. Professional offices. 12. Retail stores and shops on a single floor, compatible with the residential Characteristics of the district, with a gross floor area not exceeding four thousand (4,000) square feet. 13. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2), 14. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 15. Cemeteries. (Added 9-2-81) 17. Mobile home parks (reference 5.3). (Added 3-5-86) Sec. 19.3.2 By special use pernfit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use as shall be included in the original PRD rezoning petition: ~ 1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.9). 3. Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, orphanage (reference 5.1.13). or similar institution Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; rmcrowave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). Churches. (Added 9-2-81) 7-84) ...................... ""' ~'~"-' ..... ~, ..... ~ (Added 11- 8. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). (Added 9-13-89) 9, Professional offices. (Added 6-8-94) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Sec. 20.3.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted ordy by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition: 1. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 2. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 3. Rest home, nursing home,, convalescent home, orphanage or similar institution (reference 5.1.13). 4. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). 5. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 6. Churches. (Added 9-2-81) o*,-,,t-t ..... 1~,,*~,4 ,,,h~ll ......~-1,, n~, ......~ (reference 4 I2~. (Added 11- 7-84) See. 20.4.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition: 1. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 22.0, commercial, C-1. 2. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 23.0, commercial office, CO. 3. Parking (reference 4.12~. See. 20.5.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit, provided that no separate application shall be required for any such use included in the original PUD rezoning petition: 1. Uses permitted by special use permit in section 25.0, planned development - shopping centers, PD-SC. AttaChment B 2. Parkin~ (reference 4.12}, Draft: 09/16/02 Sec. 22,2,1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any C-1 district subject to the reqmrements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by fight in general character and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section-34.0. a. The following retail sales and service establishments: 1. Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops. 2. Clothing, apparel and shoe shops. 3. Department store. 4. Drag store, pharmacy. 5. Florist. 6. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 7. Furniture and home appliances (sales and service). 8. Hardware store. 9. Musical instruments. 10. Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops. 11. Optical goods. 12. Photographic goods. 13. Visual and audio appliances. 14. Sporting goods. 15. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. b. The following services and public establishments: 1. Administrative, professional offices. 2. Barber, beauty shops. 3. Churches, cemeteries. 4. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.02). 5. Financial institutions. 6. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 7. Funeral homes. 8. Health spas. 9. Indoor theaters. 10. Laundries, dry cleaners. 11. Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be operation). 12. Libraries, museums. 13. Nurseries, day care centers (reference 5.1.06). 14. Eating establishments. 15. Tailor, seamstress. 16. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 on duty at all hours during 17. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and 6perated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-2-93) 18. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11- 1-9) 19. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.1). Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 20. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). 2'1. Medical center. 22. Automobile, track repair shop excluding body shop. (Added 6-3-81; Amended 9-9- 92) 23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-3-6) 24. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 25. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 26. Parkin~ (reference 4.12). Sec. 22.2.2 By special use permit The ~llowin uses hall e __~_~tte~ onl b s ecial use ermit a r ved b the board of su erv~sors ~-- ursuant to section 31.2.4: Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 3. Hospitals. 4. Fast food restaurant. o Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this Section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 7. Hotels, motels and inns. 8. Motor vehicle sales and rental in communities and the urban area as designated in the comprehensive plan. (Added 6-1-83) 10. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9-92) 11. 12. 13. Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Uses permitted by fight, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) Body shop. (Added 9-9-92) Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-I6-99). Sec. 23.2.1 By right The following uses shall be permitted limitations of these regulations: 3. 4. 5. 6. in any CO district, subject to the requirements and Administrative and business offices. Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical. Financial institutions. Churches, cemeteries. Libraries, museums. Accessory uses and structures incidental to the principal uses provided herein. Such uses in c6mbination shall not occupy more that twenty (20) pement of the floor area of buildings on the site. The following accessory uses shall be permitted: -Eating establishments; -Newsstands; -Establishments for the sale of office supplies and service of office equipment; -Data processing services; -Central reproduction and mailing services and the like; -Ethical pharmacies, laboratories and establishments for the production, fitting and/or · sale of optical or prosthetic appliances on sites containing medical, dental or optical offices; -(Repealed 3-17-82) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 -Sale/service of goods associated with the principal use such as, but not limited to: musical instruments, musical scores, text books, artist's supplies and dancing shoes and apparel. (Adcl~d 12-3-86) 7. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, .excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtena~nces owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 8. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11- 1-89) 9. TemPorary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 10. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21). (Added. 3-17-82) 1 i. Temporary nonresidenti al mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 12. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.6). (Added 9-9-92) 13. Parkin~ (reference 4.12). Sec. 23.2.2' By special use permit The fo. llowin~, uses shall be ermitted onl b s ecial use errnit a roved the board o su~ -ursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Hospitals. 2. Funeral homes. Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 5. Commercial uses otherwise permitted having drive-in windows (Added 11-7-84) School of special instruction. (Added 1-1-87) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). (Added 1-1-87) Uses permitted by fight, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 9. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. (Added 6-19,91) 10. Hotels, motels and inns (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 11. Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19-91) 12. Research and development activities including experimental testing. (Added 6-9~91) 13. Laboratories, medical Or pharmaceutical. (Added 6-10-92) 14. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) Sec. 24.2,1 By right The following uses shall be permitted in any HC district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. The zoning administrator, after consultation with the director of planning and other appropriate officials, may permit, as a use by right, a use not specifically permitted; provided that such use shall be similar to uses permitted by right in general character, and more specifically, similar in terms of locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact and traffic generation. Appeals from the zoning administrator's decision shall be as generally provided in section 34.0. 1. Automobile laundries. 2.. Automobile, truck repair shops. 3. Automobile service stations (reference 5.1.20). 4. Building materials sales. 5. Churches, cemeteries. 6. Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (reference 5.1.2). 7. Convenience stores. 8. Educational, technical and trade schools. 9. Factory outlet sales - clothing and fabric. 10. Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22). 11. Financial institutions. 12. Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service. 13. Fire ad rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 14. Funeral homes. 15. Furniture stores. 16. Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops dispensary and wine and cheese shops. 17. Home and business services such as grounds care, landscaping and other repair and maintenance services. 18. Hardware. 19. (Repealed 6-3-81) 20. Hotels, motels and inns. 21. Light warehousing. 22. Machinery and equipment sales, service and rental. 23. Mobile home and trailer sales and service. 24. Modular building sales.. 25. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental. 26. New automotive parts sales. 27. Newspaper publishing. 28. Administrative, business and professional offices. 29. Office and business machines sales and service. 30. Eating establishment; fast food restaurants. as bakery, cleaning, Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 candy, milk exterminators, Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 31. Retail nurseries and greenhouses. 32. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles. 33. Wayside stands - vegetables and agricultural produce (reference 5.1.19). 34. Wholesale distribution 35. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 36. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11- 1-89) 37. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 38. Indoor theaters, 39. Heating oil sales and distribution (reference 5.1.20). 40. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 41. Uses permitted by right pursuant to subsection 22.2.1 of section 22.1, commercial, C- 1. (Added 6-19-91; Amended 9-9-92) 42. Indoor athletic facilities. (Added 9-15-93) 43. Farmers' market (reference 5.1.36). (Added 10-11-95) 44. Parking (reference 4.12). Sec. 24.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be r~ermitted only bv sr~ecial use vermit aovroved bv the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: 1. Commercial recreation establishment including bUt not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. (Amended 1-1-83) Attachment. B Draft: 09/16/02 2. Septic tank sales and related service. 3. Livestock sales. o Veterinary office and hospital (reference 5.1.11). Drive-in theaters (reference 5..1.08). Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; 'gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations 'and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers, micro-wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (reference 5.1.12). Hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent homes (reference 5.1.13): Contractors' office and equipment storage yard. Auction houses. 10. Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this section, uses permitted in section 18.0, residential - R-15, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and Such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to section 31.2.4. 11. Commercial kennels - indoor only (reference 5.1.11). (Added 1- 1-83) 13. Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. (Added 11-7-84; Amended 9-9-92) 14. Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. (Added 6-14-89) 15. Warehouse facilities not permitted under section 24.2.1 (reference 9.0). (Added 6-19- 91) 16. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99) Sec. 27.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 27.2.2. I0, the following uses shall be permitted in any LI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: (Amended 2-13-85) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 Compounding of drugs, including biological products, medical and chemical as well as pharmaceutical. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.9). Manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, distribution of products such as but not limited to: (Amended 12-2-81; 2- 20-91) -Artists' supplies and equipment. -Business, office machines and equipment: -Cosmetics, including perfumes, perfumed toiletries and perfumed toilet soap. -Drafting supplies and equipment. -Electrical lighting and wiring equipment. -Electrical and electronic equipment and components including .radio, telephone, computer, communication equipment, TV receiving sets, phonographs. -Food products, such as bakery goods, dairy Products, candy, beverages, including bottling plants. -Gifts, novelties including pottery, figurines and similar ceramic products. -Glass products made of purchased glass. -Industrial controls. -Jewelry, silverware. -Light machinery and machine parts, including electrical househOld appliances but not including such things as clothes washers, dryers and refrigerators. -Musical instruments. -Paper products such as die-cut paperboard and cardboard, sanitary paper products, bags and containers. -Photographic equipment and supplies including processing and developing plant. -Rubber, metal stamps. -Small electrical parts such as coils, condensers, transformers, crystal holders. -Surgical, medical and dental instruments anrl supplies. Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 -Toys, sporting and athletic equipment, except firearms, ammunition or fireworks. -Watches, clocks and similar timing devices. -Wood cabinets and furniture, upholstery. 4. Publishing, printing, lithography and engraving, including but not limited to newspapers, periodicals and books. 5. Preparation of printing plates including typesetting, etching and engraving. 6. Research and development activities including experimental testing. 7. Scientific or technical education facilities. 8. Assembly and fabrication of light aimraft from component parts manufactured off- site. 9. Contractor's office and equipment storage yard. I0. Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work and excluding such uses as drop hammering and foundry. (Amended 10-3-01) 11. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facffities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water diStribution and. sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law. (Amended 5-12-93) 12. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amen~d 11- 1-89) 13. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 14. Business and professional office buildings. 15. Dwellings (reference 5.1.21).. (Added 4-17-85) Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 16. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5'86) 17. Warehouse facilities and wholesale businesses not involving storage of gasoline, kerosene or other volatile materials; dynamite blasting caps and other explosives; pesticides and poisons; and other such materials which could be hazardous to life in the event of accident. (Added 12-2-87) 18. Parkina (reference 4.12), (§ 27.2.1, 12-10-80, 12-2-81, 2-13-85, 4-17-85, 3-5-86, 12-2-87, 11-1-89, 5-12-93; Ord. 01- 18(6), 10-3-01) Sec. 28.2.1 By right Except as otherwise limited by section 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted in any HI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: (Amended 2-13-85) 1. Automotive, farm and ~onstmction and machinery products assembly. 2. Brick manufacturing, distribution. 3. Concrete mixing plant, storage, distribution. 4. Dry-cleaning plants. 5. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 6. Machine shops, tool and die, blacksmithing, boiler shops and similar operations. 7. Manufacture of heavy household, commercial and industrial appliances. 8. Manufacture of building components. 9. Manufacture, distribution, service of individual sewage disposal systems. 10. Manufacture and recycling of tires. 11. Metal fabrication and welding operations. i2. Mobile home manufacturing, distribution. 13. Moving businesses, including storage facilities. 14. Petroleum, gasoline, natural gas and manufactured gas bulk 5.1.20). 15. Recreational vehicle, and components manufacturing, distribution. storage (reference Attachment B Draft: 09/16/02 16. Sawmills (reference 5.1.15), planing mills, wood preserving operations, woodyards. 17. Veterinary or dog/cat hospitals, indoor accessory kennels (reference 5. I.11). 18. Warehouse facilities. 19. Contractor's office and equipment storage yards. 20. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. (Amended 5-12-93) 21. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities Such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); .public water and Sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12). (Amended 11- 1-89) 22. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18). 23. Temporary nonresidential mobile homes (reference 5.8). (Added 3-5-86) 24. Parking (reference 4.12). I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors ~of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Dorrier Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Attachment C 5.1.41 Parking Lots and Structures a. A site plan shall be ~required for all parking lots and parking structures unless waived in accordance with {}32.2.2. b. Parking lots with no structures shall be subject to {}32.7.9, Landscaping and Screening Requirements. [this may not be needed.] 32.7.2A Parking Structures a. Architectural elevations shall be provided with both the preliminary and final site plans and become part of the approved plan. b. In addition to the site plan, the applicant shall provide drawings, photographs or other visual materials which demonstrate the relationship of the proposed parking structure to the surrounding buildings. (if any exist) and land uses. c. The appearance of a parking structure shall be harmonious in size, scale, height, materials and proportion to the nearby and surrounding development ff it is of a permanent nature. Landscape treatment may be required on rooftop areas and street levels to enhance the architectural features and soften the impact of the structure and the parked cars. d.' The ground levels of parking structures shall establish a human scale through the use of integral architectural elements. e. Building components, including but not limited to windows, doors, eaves and parapets, should be proportionately consistent to each other and to the surrounding character of development. f. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from any public walkways, roadways or outdoor spaces designed for public use. g. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential development. h. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights within it will not routinely shine outside the structure. i. Interior lighting, should be covered or softened so thatit is unobtrusive to exterior viewers. Exterior lighting shall be part of the architectural concept, and presented and reviewed with the site plan/architectural elevation. Fixtures, standards, and all exposed accessories shall be harmonious with the building design. j. Access for pedestrians within the structure and from the structure to the uses it serves must be safe and convenient, clearly marked, and along the most direct routes possible. A77 County o/ ~ wemarle RECEIVED AT BOS MEET~G Date: Agenda item #:~ CJerk's ~nitials:~ MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT PREPARED B~ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~ OFFICE OF GEOGRAPHIC DATA SERVICES (GDS) - ~IS MAP iS FOR DISPLAy PURPOSES ONL ~ MAP CREA TED OCTOBER 2002 ELEVATION 700 Ft. or greater 800 Ft. or greater 900 Ft. or greater 1000 Ft, or greater 1200 Ft. or greater 0 12,000 24 000 36,000 ~- "~- --- "~"Feet "-- Roads Railroads · Hydrography ....... ! City or Incorporated ..... Town Boundary N Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Management Committee Coalition Frank Stoner Chair Sam Craig V~ce Chair Dave Rothwell Treasurer Benton Downer Punkie Fell Don Franco Katie Hayes Timothy Hulbert Doug Kingma Dave Phillips [vo Romenesko J. Page Williams Ex-Officio Members TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Several members of the original DISC Committee thought at the time that the Rural Area should be studied in conjunction with the Grov~h Area. Strong arguments were made that decisions made in one area obviously' had impacts on the other. Since the DISC study was completed and made a part of the Comprehension Plan, a Rural Area study is now underway. Part of the study to be completed and ready for work sessions and public hearings by the Planning Commission next May, is revisiting Mountain Top protection. The Rural Area representing 95% of the County is essentially unchanged since 1980 from a zoning standpoint. Approximately 20% of the Rural Area acreage would be in elevation contours affected by any Mountain Overlay District and Ordinance. Any changes to that part of the Rural Area v~.ill have an obvious impact (unknown at this time) on the balance of the Rural Area and would be a classic example of piece meal planning. The issue is not whether the Mountain Protection Ordinance should be revisited but when. Carole Clarke jane Dittmar Government Affairs Director Bob Watson Administrative Assistant We urge you to keep the planning f'or Mountain Protection as part of the Rural Area study as currently planned. Bob Watson Government Affairs Director Charlottesville Area Legislative Action Coalition RECEIVED AT 1308 MEETIglG Date: Agenda Itom #:. Laura Bryant 550 Hillsdale Drive, Charlottesville, VA22901 · Phone (804) 817-2380 · Fax (804) 8t7-2836 · Email:bob@calac.org A coalition of the: Blue Ridge t qome Builders Association · Charloltesville Regional Chamber o( Commer(e o Charlottesville Area Association of REALTORS(.,'~) COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 't0-30-02A11:05 RCVD Mountain Protection Ordinance _SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work session to review and discuss setting public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District Zoning Ordinance and }map amendment. STAFF CONTACT(S): ~lessrs. Tucker, Fole , Cilimber , Benish BACKGROUND: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ¢ONSENTAGENDA: -- ACTION_: INFORMATION_: ATTACHMENTS: Yes The Board of Supervisors, at their September 11, 2002 meeting, set this work session to discuss the issues related to setting a public hearing on the originally Proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD). The Board deferred action on the MOD zoning text and map amendments while adopting a Compreher~sive Plan amendment regarding mountain protection on August 5, 1998. At that time it was anticipated that mountain protection and the MOD would be further considered with the update of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff and the Planning COmmission are currently reviewing the Rural Areas section. Mou ntain protection is scheduled to be addressed by staff between February and April of 2003 with Planning Commission action by June 2003. To provide some history regarding mountain protection and the proposed MOD, the following chronology is provided: 1971: Mountain protection efforts began with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan that described the mountains as "conservation areas." The provisions of the proposed Mountain Overlay District are based on concerns described in that Plan and successive Comprehensive Plans. 1980: Steps were taken to protect moun[ains through regulation when the Rural Areas zoning district and the critical slopes provisions were adopted. The critical slopes provision currently requires a "building site" (minimum 30,000 square less than 25% slope for the location of the dwelling and septic system). Driveways are not regulated on critical si opes. 1992: The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the Comprehensive Plan, recommended a mountain protection ordinance and first defined mountains by contour elevations. 1995: The Board of Supervisors appointed a twelve member Mountain Protection Committee to study mountain measures and to make a recommendation regarding an ordinance. 1996: The Committee's final report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996 recommended that the Board adopt an ordinance to protect water quality, reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, and scenic values with their associated impact to the economy, tourism, and public safety. The Board of Supervisors received the report on September 4, 1996, and directed the Planning Commission to hold sessions on a proposed ordinance as recommended by the Committee. The Planning Commission held three sessions that fall, leading to the resolution of intent adopted on October 15, 1996. Staff was directed to prepare ordinance language. 1996-1998: Planning staff worked with the County Attorney's office, the Mountain Protection Committee; and the County development departments to prepare final ordinance language consistent with the intent of the Committee recommendations. The Planning Commission held a final work session on April 7, 1998, and a public hearing on May 19, 1998. The Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously (6-0) of all three amendments (CPA, ZTA and ZMA). AGENDA TITLE: Mountain Protection Ordinance November 6, 2002 Page 2 DISCUSSION~. Facts regarding development activity in the MOD area: · Between August 1998 and October 2002, a total of 374 building permits have been issued for parcels within or partially within the MOD area. Of that total, 103 building permits havebeen for single family dwelling units. Between 1991 and 1998, 9 to 17 dwellings per year were constructed on parcels totally or partially in the MOD according to information found in prior staff reports. See Attachment 1 for further information regarding development activity in the MOD. · There are approximately 84,000 acres in the MOD (including 15,000 acres in the National Park). This represents approximately 15 percent of the County land area. In a 1996 staff report, it was estimated that there was a potential for as many as 3,000 development right lots and 1,300 parcels of 21+ acres within the MOD Determining the number of development rights lost if the MOD is adopted will be a manual and very labor intensive process. It would take a number of weeks to complete, probably involving both the Planning and Zoning departments, and would come at the expense of work on other projects, such as the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan work and ACE development rights determinations. · No new regulations have been put in place that would limit development or the identified impacts of development within the designated mountain areas. The most available options/methods for protecting mountainous areas are continued encouragement of the Rural Preservation Development "clustering" option for subdivisions and the ACE program . Attachment 2 responds to specific questions regarding the status of the proposed regulations and planning/study efforts related to mountain areas and resources. Issues related to the review of the MOD at this time: Rural Areas Review - Readvertising the MOD would effectively delay the review of the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff now devoted to the Rural Areas review would need time to familiarize themselves with the ordinance and its background and respond to public inquiries. The Rural Areas core staff has already received numerous calls regarding the ordinance. In 1998, notification and advertisement of the MOD created inquiries of staff by the public that required significant time of several staff over a four-week period. Also in 1998, staff held public informational meetings for the public prior to the public hearing, and the Board may want to consider doing this again if a public hearing is set. This would, however, require additional staff time. Staff estimates that Rural Areas review could be delayed by 1 to 2 months, depending on the amount of public inquiry before the public hearing and additional work/modification of the proposed ordinance after the public hearing. Staff is currently working on presentation s for four (4) public meetings on the Rural Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan scheduled from November 13 to December 11. Due to that obligation and the holidays that follow, staff would recommend that, if a public hearing is to be held, it not be scheduled any earlier than February 2003. Notification Process - The notification process for zoning text and map amendments require notification by the Planning Commission of all properties affected by the proposed district. There are approximately 1,800 parcels affected by the MOD. The County will have approved parcel data for its GIS system by the end of December. The ability to use GIS information will greatly reduce staff time and potential error in the notification process. Therefore, setting the public hearing for February will assure the best information available to undertake this aspect the public hearing process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff anticipated that the MOD would be further considered in the Rural Areas Corn prehensive Plan update. Considering the time that has passed since the MOD action in 1998, staff believes this is the most advisable route. Any public hearing on the MOD should be delayed until completion of the Rural Areas review, and the proposal should be referred back to the Planning Commission for a re-evaluation and recommendation. Should the Board decide to move to public hearing on the MOD before completing the Rural Areas review, staff recommen ds that at least one "open house" opportunity be provided to allow the public to learn more about the proposed ordinance and ask staff questions. Should a public hearing be desired, staff recommends it be held in February 2003. 02.167 ~4ttachment 1 .... Original Message .... From: Tex Weaver Sent: Monday, October 21,2002 2:15 PM To: David Benish; Wayne Cilimberg Cc: Ty Chambers; Roderick Burton; Damon Pettitt Subject: FW: Mountain Protection Overlay Importance: High Dave/Wayne- Per your request, we have determined the following based on our analysis of the Mountain Overlay District (MOD): 1.preparedAS of Decemberin 1998.31' 2001 a total of 1 8._~08 parcels were within or partially within the MOD as it was defined on mapping 2. From August 8, 1998 to October 18, 2002, a total of 374 building permits were issued on parcels within or partially within the MOD as it was defined on mapping prepar~'-~n 1998. Please refer to Rod's email below for a breakdown in volume by building permit type and qualifying statemen ts about the accuracy of the building permit data. To complete the requested tasks, staff utilized digital topographic data (10 foot contour intervals) obtained in 2000 to introduce greater accuracy than that which was achieved using USGS source mapping in 1998. The mapping that was generated for this request was compared to the MOD defined in 1998 to ensure that no geographic areas were omitted. Using GIS software, the newly created digital MOD mapping was compared to digital parcel data updated through December 31, 2001. Any parcel that was within or partially within the MOD was extracted. Duplicate parcel numbers were subsequently deleted yielding a total of 1,808 parcels within the MOD. The Building Permit File, maintained by the Department of Building Codes and Zoning Services, was queried for all building permits issued from August 8, 1998 to October 18, 2002. The parcel numbers associated with the building permits were compared to the parcels within or partially within the MOD and extracted yielding a total of 374 building permits issued on parcels within or partially within the MOD. Ty has produced a new color 8.5 x 11 map of the MOD for use as an attachment to staff reports as needed. A display map of the MOD can be produced as needed for public meeting display. Ty, Rod and Damon should be commended fOr the work they performed associated with this request. Their skills using the GIS technology that the County has invested in resulted in Performing the requested tasks in a fraction of the time (with greater accuracy) than it would have taken using manual methods utilized in 1998. Should you have questions regarding any aspect of our analysis or require additional detail, please let us know. -Tex Weaver Manager, Office of Geographic Data Services County of Albemarle, Virginia 434-296-5823 tweaver(D, albemarle.org Or M~sage ..... To: Tex Weaver Cc: Ty Chambers Subject: Mountain Protection Overlay I have run the queries for permits in the Mountain Protection Areas. There were 299 permits issued in those areas from August 8th, 1998 (the date of the ordinance) to December 31st, 2001 (effective date of our digital parcel layer). Please note that parcels numbers may have changed during this time period and may not have been in existen ce on December 31 st, 2001. As such here is the breakdown by permit type from that period, of permit activity: Count Of Bid Permits Permit Type 70 Single Family 69 Residential Alteration 36 New Non-Residential 31 Farm Building 26 New Commercial 18 Tower 10 Swimming Pool 10 Mobile Office Trailer 8 Miscellaneous 7 Commercial Alteration 3 New Institution 3 Sign 3 Tent 2 Mobile Home In County 2 Demolition 1 Commercial/Institutional Zon lng From December 31st, 2001 to present there have been 75 permits issued in the same area. Please allow that building permit activity on new parcels yielded from subdivision or merges since the above mentioned effective date would not be captured in our analysis as our digital parcel data would not include parcel info recorded by Real Estate after December 31, 2001. With that in mind, these are the breakdowns from this period. Count Of Bid Permits Permit Type 33 Single Family 20 Residential Alteration 5 New Non-Residential 5 Farm Building 3 New Non-Residential Zoning 2 Swimming Pool 2 Commercial Alteration 1 Tower 1 Tent 1 Sign 1 Mobile Office Trailer 1 Demolition These results have been yielded from queries of the Building Permit File on October 18th, 2002. Additional information pertaining to the permits queried can be provided if so desired. Attachment 2 Response to questions from the Board members (as provided by Sally Thomas): **NOTE - References in the bolded questions to attachments an d page numbers are to th e packet of information provided to the Board at the September 11, 2002 meeting, NOT attachments to this Executive Summary.** 1. Specifically, as I mentioned at our meeting, any changes to pages 2 and 3 of Attachment B - these were the reasons in summary of why we needed a mtprotection ordinance--? For example, any changes to how we require constructed embankments to be stabilized? Generally, the deficiencies identified on pages 2 and 3 of Attachment B are still present. The Engineering Department determines Twenty-five percent slopes, and the information available for identifying these is more accurate today. The accuracy of the information provided appears to be acceptable, but is not always checked through field verification. Topographic information is not required for all Rural Area plats. Addressing these deficiencies would require significant staff time from the Planning, Zoning and Engineering Departments and the County Attorney's Office. 2. Attachment C includes what I assume was adopted: Comprehensive Plan CPA 98-01 Mountains. I assume we are not discussing changes to the CPA, but while looking at the need for an ordinance, we should get an update on the strategies listed in that CPA. One strategy involves the overlay district, but there are other strategies. Some are still impossible, such as TDR, but are there other strategies that have been put into place in the last 4years? The following are the other recommendations of the Mountain Protection Plan and the status of those recommendations. · Develop brochure detailing design recommendations in Mountain Areas. There has been no work on this recommendation, to date. Developing this brochure would require an estimated 20 to 40 hours of staff time from the Planning Department, with assistance from the Zoning and Engineering Departments and the County Attorney's Office. · Inventory Albemarle County's Natural Heritage. The Biodiversity work group began its works in January 2002. The Biodiversity Work Group has just completed the eighth monthly meeting of its planned 18-month duration. The group is working on several major projects: Data Colloction~ - Group members are developing lists of species known to inhabit the County, as well as of sites of special biological interest. The lists of vertebrates, rare plants, and special sites are well under way. Other groups, such as invertebrates, are not yet listed, but members are investigating possible data sources. All of these lists are intended to grow over time as more information is gathered. An effort to map field observations of species and natural communities is underway, and another to map special sites is about to begin. The data collection efforts will continue through the life of the Work Group. The results will become the foundation of the County's ongoing biodiversity database(s). .Ecosystem/Landscape Classification _ Two systems for classify/ng areas or sites into ecosystem types have been discussed (one is based on the accepted system used statewide by the Natural Heritage division of the Department of Conservation and Recreation). As the listing and surveying of sites progresses in the future, these systems will provide a consistent way of describing them that will inform conservation efforts. Several group members are working on a GIS mapping project that intends to characterize the County by physical aspects (geology, slope, aspect, soil moisture, etc.). It is hoped that this effort will correlate these physical aspects with the plant communities on (relatively) undisturbed sites, thus providing the County with a way to describe the expected natural communities on a site and to identify sites that are likely to need .protection. With possible assistance from students at U.Va., the classification efforts will continue into the spring. A decision on the system to be adopted will be made once more data is available and statewide experts have been consulted. Rel~ort Production - The group has already developed an outline of its final report. This outline makes it possible to distribute work among the group members, and to track progress toward the Group's assigned goals. Several members are working on the introductory and background sections of the report. The sections reporting on the status of species and natural communities, on educational materials/programs, and on the Group's recommendations will be developed over the next several months as more data becomes available and works results are analyzed. · Support use value assessment tax-the concept of land use assessment tax for forestland, agricultural, horticultural and open space should be continu ed and defended. The County continues to utilize use value taxation. · Continue to request enabling legislation in the General Assembly to permit a TDR program. This has been a ~ong-standing request to the general Assembly in the County and TJPDC legislative program. · Develop a program to purchase development rights for preservation of agricultural and forest lands, significant plant an d animal communities and areas of significance to tourism and recreation. The Acquisition of Conservation Easement program (ACE) has been established and is in the process of going through its third round of land acquisitions. To date a total of 2,302 acres approved for acquisition in the first two rounds of the program. Of the total acreage to be acquired, 93 acres (6,850 feet ofridgeline) are located in the MOD. For the third round of the program, currently under review by staff, there are three requests located, lin part, within the MOD. The total area in the MOD is 179 acres. · Full cost accounting and revenue sharing discussions of revenue sharing between the city and county should involve a comprehensive approach and include the flows of benefits in cost in both direction (the city and urban area benefit economically from ecosystem services, notably watershed protection an d air quality, provided by rural land in th e County. Has not been considered or discussed with the City, to date. 3. Aredistrict?any of those strategies that are now in place so successful that they change the need for an overlay The ACE program and the Rural Preservation Development option in the RA zoning district can be good tools for successfully protecting mountainous areas, but rely on the property owner applying for participation in the program or proposing the RPD development a property. Because of the reliance on property owner participation and eligibility issues for some properties for either program, they cannot be fully successful in protecting mountainous areas. A Transferable Development Rights system could be the advantageous tools for protecting mountain areas, if developed correctly. However, the County does not have enabling legislation to implement TDR's. Page 4 of the CPA recommends a hazard map be created. Do we have such a thing, now? A hazard/debfis flow map has not been developed. The Dept of Engineefing and Public Works established that it would take 80 to 120 hours to complete. Page 5 of the CPA mentions biodiversRy. See the response to question 2, above. What is status of the biodiversity committee presently working 6. Page 7 of the CPA lists design standards. CouM weput these into effect if we wanted to9 What has been success of suggested design standards in other Virginia localities? ' The design standards are now part of Comprehensive Plan and can be used to guide the review and approval of legislative, discretionary proposals (Special Permit, RPD). The standards cannot be required on a by- fight development proposal (subdivision, site plan). The State Code fairly significantly limits the ability to impose design and aesthetic related standards in land use regulations. That page also discusses the danger of spotty planning. Since our final action on mountain protection was to agree that it wouM come back to us (in a matter of months, which now have turned into years) as part of the Rural Areas CPA, it would be good to update us on progress of the Rural Areas. I understand the Planning Commission asked that it be speeded up. The Review of the RA section of the Comprehensive is scheduled to be completed by the Planning Commission by June 2003. Staff is currently developing the presentation for four public meetings on the Rural Areas. These meetings will be held in November and December. It was anticipated that mountain protection would be addressed by staff between February and April of 2003 and be a component of the RA plan reviewed by the Commission. PageusefulginliStSanytheway?eoncept map locations. This was adopted with the CPA. Has this concept map been The concept map has been useful in defining what is considered mountain areas for protection. It is helpful in defining the areas to be protected in reviewing subdivision plats, RPD's, towers and other utility proposals, and the like. Attachment D is the proposed ZTA. Have any portions of it been adopted or effectively put into place by other actions that have been taken place in the last 4years? No. 7. 10. Following Attachment D is a memo dated June 16, 1998, with staff responses to public comments. In it, the possibility of dealing with driveway issues in a separate manner -- #s 8 - 10 - is discussed. Has this happened? To date, Countywide driveway regulations have not been considered since the review of the Mountain Protection ordinance proposal. No driveway design standards have been included in the Zoning Ordinance. 11. In that memo, #12 and #20 talk about the cost to landowners. Has GIS or any other changes in technology or ordinances changed any of this significantly? Applicants would still incur the costs for erosion control plans or agreements, and to locate the building site and verify location ora designated peak or ridgeline. However, advancing technologies (GPS) and County GIS data could reduce those costs somewhat over time. 12. #18 in that memo discusses the effect of adopting the Mountain Overlay District. Did the adoption of the CPA WITH the map, as we did, put any of that into effect? At the time, I thought adopting the map would have some effect, although less effect than adopting the zoning map. Adopting the CPA with the map did not put any of the MOD in effect. Adoption of the MOD zoning map (the ZMA) would have put a portion of the Water Ordinance in effect that defines "land disturbing activity" as 2,500 square feet or more. Land disturbing activity is currently defined as 10,000 square feet or more, and is applied Countywide. Erosion control permits (or agreements) are required for land disturbing activities. 13. Did our failure to adopt a zoning map amendment result in having the Water Ordinance adopted in February 1998, not go into effect? As I read page 5, #18 of the staff memo, that Ordinance would require smaller land-disturbing activities to have a soil erosion permit if the activities took place inside a designated Mountain Overlay District. What other effects would there be of adopting a District, even if we didn't adopt anew Mountain Protection Ordinance? I.e. if we had a ZMA but not a ZTA? Since the zoning district was not adopted, the smaller land disturbing area (2,500 sq. f~) did not take effect. Adoption of the Mountain Area maps in the Comprehensive Plan did not put this into effect. Adopting the ZMA would only allow for the implementation of the 2,500 square feet measure of land disturbing activity within the MOD. MOUNTAIN PROTECTION PI.AN ATTACHMENTS August 5, 1998 Executive Summary, Attachment A - July 1, 1998 Executive Summary, Attachment B - Mountain Committee Recommendations. July, 1998 ' Attachment C - CPA-09-01 Mountains Staff Report - June 10, 1998 · Attachment D - ZTA-98-05 Draft Ordinance (June 16, 1998 IA-II). Memorandum dated June 16, 1998 from Mary Joy Scala, re: Comments and questions concerning the Mountain Overlay District amendments raised at the June 10, 1998 public hearing June 10, 1998 Executive Summary Attachment A- CPA-09-01 Mountains Staff Report- June 10, 1998 . Attachment B - ZTA-98-05 Draft Ordinance (March 3!, 1998) . Attachment C - ZTA-98-05 Draft Ordinance (May 28, 1998) . Attachment D - Proposed Mountain Protection Plan Final Report May 19, 1998 Executive Summary Attachment A - Memorandum dated April 1, 1998 from Ron Keller, re: Mountain Ordinance Impact Analysis , Attachment B - Memorandum dated May 12, 1998 from Amelia McCulley, re:. Mountain Protection staffing Attachment C - Summary of County staffing and revenue effects , Board of Supervisors minutes: June 3, 1998 June 10, 1998 June 17, 1998 August 5, 1998 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Worksessions: ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10 Mountain Oveday District ordinance and related amendments; and CPA 98-01 Mountains SUBJECTIPROPOSAUREQUEST: Worksessions on Mountain Overlay District ordinance zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment and Comprehensive Plan amendment on Mountains STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Scala; Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: August 5, 1998 ACTION: Yes CONSENT AGENDA: No ACTION: ATTACH M ENTS: REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) ordinance amendments and Comprehensive Plan amendment on June 10, 1998, continued discussion on June 17, 1998, and deferred action on all three amendments until August 5, 1998. The Board directed staff to present a proposal to them (which the Board approved on July 1, 1998), regarding how to proceed with the review of the MOD ordinance. (July 1, 1998 staff report is ATTACHMENT A.) The Mountain Committee met twice in July to discuss public hearing comments and the content of the latest version of the ordinance. (The Committee's comments are ATTACHMENT B.) SUMMARY: At the August 5 worksession, staff will review the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the latest version of the ordinance, and will discuss the Mountain committee's recommendations regarding the ordinance. Using the proposed zoning maps, staff will also present several examples of how the ordinance would affect specific mountain properties. All three amendments may be adopted at the August 5 meeting, or at a later scheduled meeting. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Mountains section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies mountain resources, as well as why and how they should be protected. Although mountains have been discussed in all previous Comprehensive Plans since 1971, this section is a more detailed discussion, based on the Mountain Committee's 1995 Mountain Protection Plan. The Mountains section is an integral part of Chapter Two, the Natural Environment section of the Plan, which the Planning Commission has most recently been working on. The importance of adopting the CPA, whether alone or along with the proposed MOD ordinance and maps, is because the Comprehensive Plan is used to guide all land use decisions. The 1992 Open Space Plan defines mountain areas, which have been used in discussions of cellular tower locations, rural preservation developments, and other development proposals in mountain areas. The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment will provide additional data and guidance assembled by the Committee to inform future land use decisions. Mountain Overlay District ordinance The Mountain Committee's suggestions indicate continued support for the most recent version of the Mountain Oveday District ordinance. They do recommend that more time is needed to educate the public about the ordinance. Additional public information sessions regarding the proposed ordinance as suggested by the Mountain Committee are desirable but will require staff time and resources which will affect other projects. Staff AGENi3A TITLE: Worksessions: ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District ordinance and related amendments; and CPA 98- 01 Mountains August 5, 1998 Page 2 recommends (1) notification of the public through a newspaper ad or direct mailings (direct mailings require more staff time but may be more effective); (2) one-on-one meetings between staff and property owners to be scheduled in the County Office Building rather than several County locations; and (3) maintaining current · information on the mountain ordinance on the internet Site. Zonin,q Map Amendment The zoning maps may be adopted without the ordinance. Adoption of the maps alone without the full MOD ordinance would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of CPA 98-01. Staff recommends that the Board 'decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, notify the public of its intent, and schedule additional meetings in September for further discussion. 98.146 ATTACHMENTS: A - July 1, 1998 staff report B -Mountain Committee Recommendation C - CPA 98-01 D - ZTA 98-05 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT A AGENDA TITLE: Mountain Overlay Distdct (MOD) Ordinance Review Process SUBJECTIPROPOSAI. JREQUEST:. Staff recommendation regarding how to proceed with review of the proposed MOD ordinance. STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. Scala, Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Benish AGENDA DATE: July 1, 1998 ACTION: X ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ATTACHMENTS:' REVIEWED BY: The Board of Supewisors at ils meeting on June 17, 1998 deferred action on the proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) ordinance and related amendments (ZTA 98-05, ZMA 98-10, CPA 98-01) until August 5. The Board directed that staff and the mountain committee present the Board with a proposal for how to proceed with the review of the MOD ordinance by the July 1 Board meeting. DISCUSSION: Staff has prepared a recommendation to guide the Board's review of the proposed ordinance. Staff intends to contact committee members prior to July 1 for further suggestions. RECOMMENDATION: ' July 1, 1998!~ Presentation/discussion of review process - Board to reach a consensus on how to proceed with review of the ordinance. Due to time constraints, staffwill discuss ils recommendation on process informally with the mountain committee members pdor to July 1, and will provide any additional comments from the committee at this meeting. Mid-July- Convene the mountain committee for discussion regarding (1) public comments received at the public hearings and (2) the content of the latest version of the ordinance. ,August 5, 1998 - Hold a work session to discuss mountain protection components. Issues will be discussed in the following orde r: Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Staff will review the amendment, and explain what it accomplishes, and why it is important to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment either alone, or along with the proposed ordinance and maps. Board members may wish to submit questions to staff in advance of this work session. The Board may choose to take action on the CPA on this date. Zoning Text Amendment - Staff will explain the latest version of the MOD ordinance, provision by provision. Many changes were made or proposed to the ordinance in a short period of time. The purpose of this session is to fully inform Board members about the current proposal. Zoning Map Amendment - Staff will present specific examples of mountain land owners' properties, and how the proposed ordinance would affect them. Following this work session, the options for the Board are: Adopt the CPA. The CPA must be adopted prior to the other amendments. Adopt the CPA and the ZMA (zoning maps). Adoption of the maps alone without the full MOD ordinance would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. Adopt the CPA, ZMA and ZTA (MOD ordinance) with or without modification. All three amendments may be adopted at the meeting on August 5,.~or at a later scheduled meeting. ATTACHMENT A if more discussion is desired on the ZTA (MOD ordinance) or ZMA (Zoning maps), then staff recom mends that the Board: · Decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, · Notify the public of its intent (see below), and · Schedule an additional meeting(s)in September for further discussion and/or input from specific individuals. KEEPING THE PUBLIC INFORMED: A concern expressed at the public hearings was that the public wanted accurate information. Staff recomm ends the following ways we intend to inform the public: The most recent draft of the MOD ordinance and the June 17 staff report with questions and comments raised at the public headng will be displayed on the Internet immediately. Following each Board action, the information on the Internet will be updated. Following the August 5 meeting, additional public notification may consist of' · An information ad in the newspaper, which outlines the latest draft of the proposed ordinance; · A second open house in the County Office Building for the purpose of making the proposed zoning maps and planners readily available to the public; · Notification by individual letters if necessary. Staffwill continue to be available in the Department of Planning and Community Development to answer questions and to provide copies of ma ps and information. 98.114 ATTACHMENTS: A ~ CPA 98-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment B - Mountain Protection Plan C _ ZTA 98-05 MOD ordinance, June 16, 1998 (A~I) draft D - June 16, 1998 staff report ~ ~ ATTACHMENT B MOUNTAIN COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS - JULY, 1998 The Mountain Committee made the following comments and suggestions regarding issues raised at the public hearings and the content of the latest version of the Mountain Overlay District ordinance: 1. Exempting Cambell's Mountain (Lewis Mountain) because of its urban location and R-1 zoning. The Committee was not in favor of exempting mountain properties located in Development Areas. (One member preferred downzoning mountains to RA.) The Committee felt that the same concerns for environmental, health, safety, aesthetic and access issues held in the Development Areas, and that Development Areas must be included for consistency. In the case of Lewis Mountain, the property is already largely restricted by critical slopes. "Grandfathering" existing small lots under 21 acres that straddle the ridge area, to permit building on the ridge by right. The Committee was not in favor of this proposal. They prefer requiring a special t/se permit to allow building on a ridge, rather than allowing it by right when other buildings sites exist which are not on a ridge. With the limited number of such lots, exempting them would seem to be tailoring the ordinance to benefit a few landowners, while making its requirements apply to a large group of landowners. 3. Establishing with more specificity criteria for applicants seeking a special use permit to build in the ridge area. The Committee was in favor of establishing specific criteria. However, they were unsure how aesthetic criteria could be included, and suggested that staff and a designated Committee member consUlt with the County Attorney prior to developing criteria. Seeking modification of state enabling legislation to permit regulation of aesthetics. The danger in this approach is that the ordinance would appear to be tied to only aesthetic concerns, when, in fact, it is largely based on environmental, health, safety, and welfare aspects which are addressed in existing zoning enabling legislation. It is recommended that the ordinance be adopted, and then reviewed in 18 months. If aesthetic-based enabling legislation is added in the interim, the ordinance can be adjusted accordingly. Look at Mountain Committee minutes'for discussion of deficiencies in current regulations and why we need a mountain ordinance to bridge those gaps. The Committee 'directed staff to make those minutes available to the Board. Staff reviewed the ATTACHMENT B Committee minutes of July 17, 1995, and found the following references to deficiencies in current regulations: 25% slopes The Board of Supervisors think that we are protecting the mountains through critical slopes, but it appears they may not be checked until the footers are inspected. Need better verification of 25% slopes; most are not accurately depicted. Difficulty in determining if house is being built on 25% slopes. Subdivision plats No building site is shown on the final plat. - Family divisions are being abused - should raise the one year limit. Private driveways are not regulated. - Need to tighten up exempt lots at least in mountains. - Exemption allows lots greater than 5 acres to be created without proof of drainfield location. - Easier to develop in Rural'Areas than in Development Areas. Soil erosion - Single family homes are exempt up to 10,000 sq. ft; a signed agreement is required but not an erosion control plan. - Driveways are the problem: concentrated water flowing down long, steep slopes. Site plan is needed but cannot be required - Lighting issues. - Tree cutting. - Skylighting of houses against the horizon. - Color of house, but not style. Other - Lack of water on some mountains - prove there is water on a lot before it is approved. - Telecommunication towers are a problem in terms of mountaintop protection. - Excessive development rights. Take steps to make the mountain ordinance proposal less threatening to the public. The Board should decide what the ordinance will look like before taking it back to the public. Property owners should be notified by mail of additional "open house" meetings to allow more time for property owners to learn how the proposed ordinance will affect their properties. Staff or Committee members should hold one-on-one sessions with property owners, possibly in several locations in the County. Constructed embankments - requiring stabilized side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County. The Committee originally proposed driveway regulations to apply just in the mountain areas, for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. The constructed embankments section currently addresses only soil erosion, County-wide. ATTACHMENT B Questions have been raised whether this section requires undesireable grading and clearing, and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. Although Engineering department has stated that 2:1 slopes are already required as a matter of Engineering Department policy for soil erosion conrol purposes, this section would make the requirement a zoning ordinance regulation. The Committee preferred that the constructed embankments section be included along with the mountain ordinance to ensure that new slopes are not created unless they can be stabilized. Making it a regulation rather than a policy will ensure that it is applied consistently. One member preferred that it be addressed separately, possibly in the Subdivision Ordinance. Closing of inadvertent loophole of creating lots in mountain area (MOD). The ordinance currently requires that a building site be located outside the MOD if one exists, but does not prohibit creating a lot within the MOD. The Committee said it is important to close this loophole. It was a result of a succession of different drafts and was never left out on purpose. The Committee recommended that the small development right lots must be created outside the MOD if building sites exist there. If building sites do not exist, or have been used up outside the MOD, then the small lots may be divided inside the MOD. Combining Section 30.8.4 c. and d. (allowing lots by special use permit on a ridge). Section 30.8.4. c. should be more clearly worded that development rights are not guaranteed unless the intent of the ordinance can be fully met. This section might be interpreted that a special use permit would be granted merely because a development right would otherwise be lost; a special permit should be granted only if it is shown that the building site also meets the intent of the ordinance. Section 30.8.4 c. is so broad that 30.8.4 d. is not needed. Is there a reason to keep it in there? ~ ~ ATTACHMENT C PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER TWO, THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OPEN SPACE RESOURCES JUNE 10, 1998 CPA 98-01 MOUNTAINS INTRODUCTION Albemarle's mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. Mountains may be said to define much of the character of Albemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide economic benefitsto the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy air, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal species. And~ to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle County in large measure its "sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and visitors and one which is consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. Mountains are a source of concern when inappropriate development creates unwantedimpacts to environmental and aesthetic resources and public safety. Environmental concerns include soil erosion, surface water runoff, septic system contamination, fragmentation of forests, and destruction of habitat. Aesthetic. concerns center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a' sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness, and the resultant impact on tourism. Public safety concerns include difficult access for emergency vehicles, and the potential for debris flows. OBJECTIVE: Recognize the value of Albemarle's mountains, including protecting water quality and drinking water reservoir capacitY, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values, tourism, and the economic impact of these resources. Pursue additional protection measures to protect these resources and to promote public safety in these areas of exceptional critical slopes and higher elevations. Strategies: Develop a mountain protection district to protect and promote mountain resources and to protect public safety in mountain areas. Develop an educational brochure with recommended design standards for mountain areas to encourage sensitive site design which is considerate of safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns. Encourage voluntary measures which protect mountain resources, such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and use value taxation. Encourage the use of the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option to protect mountain resources. Utilize an acquisition program, such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to prdtect mountains. When enabling legislation allows, evaluate a density transfer or transfer of development rights(TDR) program to protect mountains. Develop County planning tools and educational materials that address hazard avoidance with regard to areas that are prone to debris flows. In conjunction with appropriate resource agencies, develop a debris flow hazard map for Albemarle County. ATTACHMENT C ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the County which are distinguished by the natural resources and physical conditions listed below. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to such extremes. Critical Slopes: Mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower elevations of the County that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greate~ distances than critical.slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. In Albemarle's mountains continuous critical slopes in excess of $0% can be found for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer. Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more erodible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate longer driveways and' access roads over more highly erodible soils than in other areas of the County. Such driveways and access roads may disturb many times more land area than a dwelling itself. Improper attention to soils may result in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and forestal lands. Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public drinking water reservoirs in addition to increased demand may necessitate the building of an additional raw water source prior to 2015 to meet the average daily demands of the Urban Service Area. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage capacity annually as a result of sedimentation. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no appreciable capacity. Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them. (See Water Resources, page -) Forest and Agricultural Resources: The mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenance of forest land: The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural and Forestal Industries Support Committee report states, "Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The Growth Management Goal of Albemarle County places highest priority on the protection of agricultural and forestry resources in the Rural Area. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. Debris Flows: Some types of landslides take place very gradually, and while they can cause property damage, the landslide can be tracked and mitigation planned. Others types of landslides move very rapidly and have to potential to inflict massive damage to natural landscapes and human settlements. Debris flows (also called mudslides, mudflows, or debris avalanches) are a particular type of fast-moving landslide that occurs during periods of intense rainfall. 2 ATTACHMENT C The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) describes debris flows as follows: Fast moving flows of mud and rOck, called debris flows, arC among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for substantial damage and loss of life wofldwide...Their consistency ranges froha watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wet concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away.leading to a temporary condition of perched water in the soil .... Theycommonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquefy, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hill slopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The following debris flow events have occurred in recent times in our particular region of the Appalachian Mountain chain: · In 1969, during Hurricane Camille, Nelson County (and a small part of Southern Albemarle) experienced debris flows that caused 150 deaths and $100 million in property damage. · In November, 1985, widespread debris flows in Virginia and West Virginia in the Potomac and Cheat ~River basins led to 70 deaths and $1.3 billion in property damage. · In June, 1995, a storm cell in Madison County caused by 30 inches of rain during a 16 hour period resulted in debris flows, that caused one fatality and $100 million in property damage. · During the same period as .the Madison County events, at least 100 debris flows occurred along the North Fork Moorman's River in Albemarle County and Shenandoah. National Park. It is estimated that at least 11.5 inches of rain fell during a two-hour period. Were it not for the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, which acted as a trap for the debris flow flood surge from theNorth Fork Moorman~s, eight or more downstream residences would almost certainly have been destroyed. In addition, scientists have documented 51 historical debris flow events between 1844 and 1985 in the Appalachians. Studies of debris flow sites have revealed old, prehistoric debris flow~4 beneath deposits of modem debris flows, meaning that, in geologic time, debris flows are recurring events in the Appalachian region. While a debris flow may not return to the exact same geographic area (e.g., the North Fork Moorman's) for thousands of years, it is known that conditions promoting debris flows occur somewhere in the Appalachian region every two to three years~ and, accordingly, somewhere along Virginia's Blue Ridge- front approximately once every decade. Compared to other areas of the country, Central Virginia is not known as a region that is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, etc.). However, floods and debris flows are certainly natural hazards that are known to occur in Central Virginia, and for which the population should be prepared. With regard to typical flooding, the County maintains a flood plain program in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program, and regulates activities within flood plains through the zoning ordinance. Debris flows, however, are not typical floods, and until the events of June, 1995 brought these realities to our door step, the community has remained largely unaware of this natural hazard. It is important for the County and the residents of mountain-side communities to realize that there are measures that can be taken to avoid debris flow hazards and to be prepared. The U.S. Geological Survey recommends the following general measures: ATTACHMENT C Become familiar with the land around you. Learn whether debris flows have occurred in your area by contacting local officials, State geological surveys or departments of natural resources, and university departments of geology. Slopes where debris flows have occurred in the past are likely to experience them in the future. Support your local government in efforts to develop and enforce land-use and building ordinances that regulate construction in areas susceptible to landslides and debris flows. Buildings should be located away from steep slopes, streams and rivers, intermittent-stream channels, and the mouths of mountain channels. Watch the patterns of storm-water drainage on slopes near your home, and note especially the places where runoff water converges, increasing flow over soil-covered slopes. Watch the hillsides around your home for any signs of land movement, such as small landslides or debris flows or progressively tilting trees. 4. Contact your local authorities to learn about the emergency response and evacuation plans for your area, and develop your own emergency plans for your family and business. In accordance with these recommendations, the County should enhance its planning and informational resources to direct and advise that development avoid debris flow-prone areas. In this regard, recent USGS studies have identified the following predictive criteria for potential future debris flows: · Storms with very intensive rainfall -- the 1995 storms had periods with rainfall intensities of 5 inches per hour that were sustained'for 2 hours or more. · Areas underlain by prehistoric debris flow deposits. · Areas underlain by slopes greater than 26 degrees (67 percent slope). · Natural drainage channels and streams that originate on slopes greater than 26 degrees and delineated with a buffer 10 feet in elevation above the channel. The USGS has used these and other criteria to produce a hazard map for Madison Count3, based on studies of the 1995 debris flows. Albemarle County should work with the appropriate agencies to produce a similar map for the County's mountain areas. The information in this section was derived from the following reports: Debris-Flow Hazards in Areas Affected by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Morgan, B.A., Wieczorek, R.H., Campbell, and Gori, P.L., USGS Open-File Report 97-438, 1997. Debris Flows and Landslides Resulting From The June 27, 1995, Storm on the North Fork of the Moorman 'a River, Shenandoah NationalPark, Virginia, Morgan, B.A. and Wieczorek, G.F., USGS Open- File Report.96-503, August, 1996. Debris-Flow Hazards in the Blue Ridge of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet- 159-96, 1996. Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Wieczorek,1995. G.F., Gori, P.L., Campbell, R.H., and Morgan, B.A., USGS Open-File Report 95-822, October, 4 ATTACHMENT C Plant and Animal Habitat: Losses of native biological diversity (plant and animal species diversity, genetic diversity and ecosystem diversity) are a significant concern. Those declines are caused by several factors, most importantly, fragmentation of habitat - the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. (See Biodiversity, page -, and Forest Fragmentation, page -). Scenic Resources and their Economic Impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to current residents and to prospective'reSidents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important lo County residents. An issue that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a countywith as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (See Scenic Resources, page -). Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to thc University's Observatories has been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990). Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City, and degrades the quality of the built environment. (See The Dark Sky, page -). Tourism: Ti)urism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the County. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109,139,211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic benefit to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In '1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates into over 159 million dollars in revenue to the County. HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan, which delineated the mountains as "conservation areas." The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained a map of conservation areas which included hilltops, major ridge lines, and slopes over 15%. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. All the mountains except two small peaks in the Urban Development Area are currently zoned Rural Areas. The critical slopes provisions require a "building site," a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. The 1980 critical slopes provisions did not address driveway construction. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural resources. The Plan states: "Cleating, grading, building, cropping or overgrazing of critical slopes can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive storm water runoff; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent." 'ATTACHMENT C The 1989 .Comprehensive Plan states that, "Natural, scenic, and historic resources are essential to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life." The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry preservation, which are the major reasons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes the interdependency of environmental resources, "For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality; wildlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality." The 1989 Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. "In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any seribus modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area." The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to identify and to develop protection measures for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, identifies Mountains as one of four major open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect. It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features' and habitats for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. (See attached list of Mountains.) The Open Space Plan includes the following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." The Open Space Plan states: "Visual concerns related to mountains center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, combined with high elevations, result in a prominent display of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities which alter the continuity of the ridgeline or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. Environmental concerns include (1) the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment and (2) disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time, it is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas, of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in. these areas." MOUNTAIN PROTECTION PLAN The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors met from June, 1995 through July, 1996. They prepared a report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1, 1996, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors September 4, 1996. The plan contained three major recommendations: (1) Delineation of a Mountain Overlay District describing the area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the mountain area's residents and which control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. The intent of an ordinance would be to protect resources characteristic of or dependent on the ATTACHMENT C mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Specific recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District addressed soil erosion plans, driveway requirements, protection of ridge areas, and building and subdivision requirements to use building sites located outside the mountain district if they are available. (2) Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance to require shielding of all new exterior lighting fixtures. The Committee also recommended a future study to determine maximum foot candles for categories of uses, and recommended that the Board of SupervisOrs ask power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient lighting. (See The Dark Sky, page-) (3) Additional Planning TOols: Though the Mountain Protection Committee's task was to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee noted that planning for the protection of discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks. The mountainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Some of the County's land use regulations developed with a compartmentalized approach to land planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and other comprehensive planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5~20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may- unintentionally increase housing costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path of proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection may not be broad enough in-scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The Committee recommended several planning tools to achieve a more systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County: The Mountain Protection Plan is attached as an appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN STANDARDS · Minimize clearing. Consider the impact of your clearing On others' vistas of the unspoiled natural terrain. Locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on critical slopes and trees. Driveways should disturb no more than 65 feet in cross section. Consider "peek holes" in the vegetation and winter views rather than clearing for year-round views. Maintain the natural tree canopy. Replant the forest edge with local indigenous species to discourage growth of undesirable edge vegetation (poison ivy, greenbriars). · Locate the house and structures toJmake them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy. Do not locate the house and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the horizon. Do not alter the cont'muity of the ridgeline. 7 ATTACHMENT C · Locate the house and structures to make them safe. Do not build in swales or other areas where a debris flow may occur. Minimize disturbances to critical slopes. Locate the septic system down slope of the dwelling to make use of the clearing as a fire buffer area. · Design private driveways to permit fire and rescue emergency vehicle access: Longitudinal gradient should not exceed 16%. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal ~urvature should be 40 feet. Avoid north slopes where snow and ice may accumulate. · Design the house and structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the building site. Choose non-reflective colors and materials. Choose earth tone colors rather than stark white. Choose underground rather than overhead electrical service. Choose local indigenous landscape materials. Consider an alternative to growing a lawn, · Consider your impact on plant and animal habitat. Maintain the natural landscape in large contiguous areas. Clearing for a dwelling creates edge habitat. Be prepared to coexist with deer and other wildlife. · Locate and shield exterior lighting to minimize its obtrusiveness on neighbors and the natural environment. Use full cutoff fixtures which are aimed downward, Use lighting which is adequate but not excessive for the proposed use. ATTACHMENT C MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are included on the Concept Map (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duplicated). They are defined by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot Contour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian Wolfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowell Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Piney Mountain (Earlysville Quad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesville West Quad) Newcomb Woodson Gibson (Alberene Quad) Gillums Mountain Turner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Buck Mountain Taylor's Mountain Martin's Mountain (Crozet Quad) Sprouse Mountain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brush Mountain Yellow Mountain Harris Mountain Green Mountain (Free Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mountain Long Arm Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Ennis Mountain Round Top Mountain (Wayn~sboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Lick Mountain Currant Pigeon Top Mountain 1200 Foot Contour Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks Elbow Little Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Browffs Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) 9 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30.8, 30.8.1, 30.8.2, 30.8.3, 30.8.3.1, 30.8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8.6 and 30.8.7 and by amending section-s 3.0, 4.2.1, 4.2.3, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as follows: By Adding New: Sec. 4.2.01... =.Sec. 30.8. .Sec. 30.8.1. Sec. 30.8.2.= .Sec. 30.8.3. .Sec. 30.8.3.1. Sec. 30.8.3.2.. Sec. 30.8.4. Sec. 30.8.5. ._Sec. 30.8.6. .Sec. 30.8.7. By Amending. Sec. 3.0. Article II. Basic Regulations .Constructed embankments. Article Ii1. District Regulations ~ountain overlay ctistrict. J,ntent__ .Establishment of district boundaries. Permitted uses. By special use permit. .Location of lots and building sites. Exempt structures =.Relief from district requirements. _Grandfathered dwelling units Article !. General Provisions Definitions. Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Article Il. Basic Regulations Building site required. Location of structures and improvements. .Slope restrictions. Exception for existing lots. ATTACHMENT D Sec. 31.2.2. Article IV. Procedure Building permits. CHAPTER20. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Section 3.0. Definitions. Buildin.q site: A contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by reference to either United States Geologic Survey toDo_clraphic suntey maps (based on a contour interval of twenty [20] feet) Or a source (~etermined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: under water; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) within the one hundred li~00) .year flood plain of a natural stream identified on a site plan or on a plat; or within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwi,,~e allowed therein._ Land disturbing activity: Any land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, cle~rinq, grading, excavating, transporting and filling of land.. Peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district._ which rises atleast twenty (20) feet above the surroundin.q land, as delineated on United States Geologic Survey topo.qraphicsurvey maps. Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the. rid.qeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the n~ap a ' roved b the board of su ervisors ursuant to section 30.8.2. Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain. of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.~.2. ATTACHMENT D Sec. 4.0. Article il. General Regulations. Basic Regulations Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) ~Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Each embankment constructed on alot or arcel in order to establish a drivewa accesswa or buildin ad which the coun en ineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of five.-5 feet or 'rearer shall be sub'ect to the followin : az The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two (2) .feet of horizontal distanCe for each one (1)' foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1) .Notwithstanding subsection (a), during construction the county en.qineer may authorize a constructed embankment'with a gradient exceeding tv~o (2) feet or horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of v6rtical rise or fall (2:1) if the owner ~stablishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that: (i) extenuatinfl .c~rcumstances exist; and (ii) equal or .qreater water quality and land stabilization .Can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complyinq,,w_ith subsectio,, ~a). For purposes of this subsection, 'extenuatin.q circumstances shall mean such things as rock and other existin~ physical si}e features. Building size, location and other factors that are primariiy the proprietary interest of'the owne~ ~re not, in and of themselves, justification for approval of a modification of thc. 2:1 gradient limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in ~cases where the owner provides to the county engineer detailed site evaluation, data sufficient to enable the county en.qineer to make a decision. The owne~ ~hall submit to the county engineer all'information requested by him in order to _~onsider the request. The c~unty engineer shall identi~ all land stabiliTntion .measUres that must be installed as a' condition of grantinq the authorriz~t-~o,,. provided in this subsection; provided that; in areas of a lot or parcel whi~ch~, thc; .~ounty engineer determines to be predominantly rock, 'the county engineer may rant authorization without re uirin land'stabili~,ation measures. ' c___. This section 4.2.01 shall not apply to any constructed embankment establishea as art of a ublic im rovement ro'ect of a state or federal a enc. Sec. 4.2.1. Building site required. No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. For .......... ,~,,~ m s~opes of less than ,~,~, ,,y-,,v~ ~] percent as ,:,~,,,,,, ,~, by, ~,~, ~, ,~ ,~ ~,,,,~, t~po~r~phic qu~dr~ngl~ II I[~1 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) ,~7 or a source ue~-~rrTlrrr~uY- Such area as ,,,~y u~ ,u~u ,,, ,,,~ ~d~r~ .._~ .......... ~_ ~,_~ ...=,~=_ ~..- ~..-~--~ ,~, ~--=---'-' '--' of the on~ ~U~II ~1~ ~ II1~ ~ ~C~L~U VVILIIIII LVVU IIMIIUI~M ~UU] IIUI,I~UIIL~I I~L _~ · .' .' i . . L~I I~L UI tll~ ~U~ ~l ~lJy tllUUt~ly ._~ ~ :---,~ ~- protection a~eas on the resourco Su~, ~~u~ ~s~m,a~u ao resource ~~ p~,o~,,,, t~ chapter I~ ~ -"~- Code of protection areas map -~--'-~ ........ · - o.~ u, ,,,~ OI1~11 ~ U~lll~U LU ~I6V611[ MI II ~,,~ vv,,~, resources m, nnnger Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and improvements. Except as otherwise perrn?it'edl~arsuant-to authorized by. section 4.2.2 and section 4.2.6, the provisions of this section 4.2.3 shall apply to the location of'any structure for which a permit is required under bv~~ Uniform Statewide Building Code.and to any improvement shown on a site develop~ plan ~ required by section 32.0 of this ordinance- ~. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictions. No structure, or improvement~ nor earth-land, disturbing activity to establish such structure or i-m provement~ sh~ll be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percentor greater, except as othen~ise permitted under section 4.3.01.. Sec. 4.2.6.2 Exception for existing lots or parcels,~ Exce t as rovided in sections 30.8.4.b.1 and 30.8.4;b.2 of this cha ter A__any lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective.date of this ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parCel; provided that.section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the purposes of this section a mobile home s--~all be deemed a single-family detached dwelling unit. 4 ATTACI--IMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Article Ill. Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay district District Regulations ..Sec. 30.8.1. Intent The mountain overla district is intended to rotect and romote those resources characteristic of or de endent on the mountainous re ions of the count and includes rotectin water ualit and ublicdrinkin water reservoir ca acit romotin soil conservation and the conservation of forest resources lant habitat animal habitat and scenic values associated with the mountains of the count rotectin and romotin the economic im act of these resources and tourism and romotin ublicsafet b amon otherthin s~controllin land disturbin activities in mountain areas that can contribute to or be im acted b debris flows and rovidin that roads be desi ned and constructed to accommodate the assa e of fire and emer eric vehicles. !n establishing the mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds thai mountain areas are uni ue and distinct from the lower elevations of the count that also ma contain critical slo es because mountains b their nature are a s stem ofslo es that extend for rearer distances than critical Slo es at lower elevations and which ma be considerabl_ stee er.; It is the intent of the board of su ervisors that the boundaries of the mountain overla district encom -ass those mountainous.areas of the coun*,, at and above the seven ne thousand tw~ hundre~ 1 2~0 foot elevations and that the a licable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district shall depend on the location of th~; mountainous area in the county, as shown on the official zonin .-:' ma- a--roved b~'the board of su ervisors ursuant to section 30.8.2. ' · .Sec. 30.8.2. 'Establishment of district boundaries. The boundaries of the mountain overla district the rid e areas and the rid elines are identified on and established b the officialzonin ma a roved b the board of su ervlsors and administered b the zonin administrator. Sec. 30.8.3. Permitted uses. ..Sec. 30.8.3.1. By riqht The uses identified as bein ermitted b ri ht in the underl in zonin district shall be ermitted in the mountain overla 'district b ri hr. 5 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Sec. 30.8.3.2. By special use permit, The uses identified as bein allowed b a s ecial use ermit in the underl in zonin district shall be allowed in the mountain overla district onl b a s ecial use ermit a roved b the board of su ervisors ursuant to section 31.2.4. Sec. 30.8.4. Location of lots and building sites.. Each lot or arcel created shall com i with the followin : No lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridge area_. The buildin site on the lot or arcel shall be located outside of a rid e area.. 3. The buildin site on the lot or arcel shall be located outside of the mountain overla district if.a buildin site exists outside of the mountain overlay district.. b. Each existin.q lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain ----- overlay district shall comply with the followincl: 1. The buildin site on the lot or arcel shall be located outside'of the rid e ----- area, unless: (ii the lot or parcel is entirely: within the ridge area, or the lot Or parcel is both within and without'the ridge area but the only building si[e is within the rid.qe area; and (ii) the buildin'~! site is fOr the first single f~mily dwelling unit on. the,lot or parcel.. 2. The buildin site on the lot or arcel shall be located outside of the, ----- mountain overla district unless the lot or arcel is entirel within the mountain overlay district, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the mountain overla district but the onl buildin site is within the mountain overlay district, C._x Section 30.8.4.a. notwithstandin a lot ma be ermitted b s eciai use ermit to be created in whole or in ,,art within a ridoe area upon demonstration that: iii the location of the lot is re uired to utilize an existin develo ment rlht' ii that no rior division of ro err under this section recluded the use of existin develo merit ri hts from bein utilized outside of the rid e area' iii the buildin site of the ro osed lot is consistent with the intent of this section 30.8' and iv the buildin site meets the criteria of section 31.2.4.1. 6 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Section 30.8.4.b. notwithstanding, the building site on the lot or parcel may be permitted by special use permit to be within the ridge area or mountain overlay district upon demonstration that the building site would better meet the intent of this section 30.8 by being 'located within rather than outside of the ridge area or mountain overlay district and the building site meets the criteria of section 31.2.411. Sec. 30,8.5; Exempt structures. The following structures within the mountain overlay district shall be exempt from any requirement of sections 30.8.4 and 31.2.2.a of this chapter' An accessory building of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not including porches; A structure, which is not a building, lessthan twenty feet in height; c_. A structure used exclusively for production agricultural or forestal purposes: A tower used for the purpose of supporting one or more antennae for radio, television, microwave or wireless telecommunications. Sec. 30.8.6. Relief frOm district requirements. A lot or parcel, or any.part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2 to be within the mountain overlay district or th~. ridge area shall not be subiect to the requirements of this section 30.8, section 31.2.2.a.2.a, or section 31.2.2.b.2, if the owner of the lot or parcel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer that it is below the applicable minimum elevation or outside of the ridge area, as provided herein. a_.~_ In order to make such a demonstration, the owner shall 'submit to the county engineer a certificate from a licensed land surveyor that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the apPlicab e minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district as described in Section 30.8.1, or outside of the rid.qe area The certification shall be based upon datum which coincides with United States Geological Survey .1927 North American datum, with benchmark acceptable to the county engineer. 7 ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) Sec. 30.8.7. Grandfathered dwelling units. The provisions of this section 30.8 shall not apply to any single family dwelling unit le.qally existing on June 10, 1998. Such dwelling' units shall not be deemed to be nonconforming dWelling units because of their inability to meet the requirements of this section 30.8. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2,2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed is ,,, ~,~.,.~, ~,=, ,~.~ vv,,,,..,. ,~,,,,o .compl es wIth the requirements of this~,u,,--": ..... ,~,, ,,.~ chapter. Each applicant shall submit the following information to the zoning administrator for review prior to issuance of a building permit: ~,,.,, .,pp,,,.~,,, o,,~,, p, uv,u~ If no part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most recent plat of record of the land to be built upon unless no such plat'exists, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. If the land is located within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: Evidence which establishes that the loCation of the building site on the lot or parcel complies with sections 4.2 and 30.8.4 of this chapter, Evidence demonstrating such compliance shall~be:either: (i) a final plat approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance; or (ii) if the lot or parcel was created prior to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor which shows the location of the buildingsite on the'lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification signed by a professional engineer or land surveyor stating that the buildin.q site .upon which the Structure will be constructed complies with all of the. building site requirements of this chapter; and Evidence from the department of engineering and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an agreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. ATTACHMENT D Draft: June 16, 1998 (A-l) 3._.&.. Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application may b~, ~,,, ~,~. No permit to construct, reconstruct, enlarge, extend, expand or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: No permito,-~--",,~,, ~-- ,oo~,~" ..... '" ', =F°r any construction for which a site ~ plan is required to be approved by the commission in accordance with section 32.0 of this ordinance chapter, unless and until · --'- --- is approved. Thereafter, any item Su,.,, the site plan s, ,~,,,,~w shown on such the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in .... -' ....... :'~- '~-- terms compliance with the requirements of this a~,t.~UI MCI. I I~.~;~ VVILI I [I I~: ordinance chapter; or 2. For any construction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unlessand until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2 and 30.8.4, and the water protection ordinance. In determining such compliance1 the zoning administrator shall consult with the department of planning and community development and the department of engineering and public works, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to whether such requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. The department of engineering and public works shall also advise the zoning administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance chapter, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. One (1) copy of the drawing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. I:\DEP'i-~TTORN EY\ORDI NANC'J~/ITN 15PC.wpd 9 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road Charlottesville, virginia 22902-4596 804/296-5823 FAX 804/972-4035 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Mary Joy Scala June 16, 1998 COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENTS RAISED AT THE JUNE 10, 1998 PUBLIC HEARING SUMMARY AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The latest draft of the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) ordinance has more liberalized provisions than those originally recommended by the Mountain Committee, staff, and the Planning Commission. However, the ordinance as proposed still allows a higher level of review in the mountain areas than is currently provided under existing regulations. The Board may wish to exercise the right to review the ordinance's implementation in eighteen months, and make changes as warranted. Staff notes the following changes to the June 8 draft which you previously received: (1) Staff recommends that Section 3 0.8.5 Private roads be deleted in its entirety based on Engineering's information that the current private roads regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive. (2) Section 30.8.4.c. is revised slightly to permit a lot by special use permit enOreary in whole or in part within the Ridge Area .... This revision is suggested by the County Attorney and does not alter the intent but allows a lot to straddle the Ridge Area for example if the ridge is small or narrow. (3) The definition of" building site" in Section 3.0 is clarified by the addition of the words (based on 'contour interval twenty [20] feet). This change clarifies that twenty feet is the Uniform standard, even though the topo map available may show ten, twenty or forty foot contour intervals. (4) The CountY Engineer requests that part of Section 4.2.01 Constructed embankments be revised to replace "a vertical rise or fall of~c20 feet" with .... a vertical rise or fall of five (5) feet." This change provides that embankments smaller than five feet in height will not be subject to the regulation. (5) The Board may wish to consider deletion of Section 4.2.01. Constructed embankments, and to consider addressing driveway regulations Separately at a later date. This section requires minimum 2:1 side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County. Although 2:1 slopes are currently required as a matter of Engineering Department policy, this section would make the requirement a zoning ordinance regulation. Driveway regulations were originally proposed for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. This section addresses only soil erosion. Questions have been raised whether it requires additional undesirable grading and clearing, and whether a minimum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. The following comments and questions were raised at the public hearing. They are presented here to facilitate discussion of the proposed amendments. Public comments and questions are in bold italics. Staff's responses are indented. 1. The Planning Commission's alterations were included to address public concerns, and make the ordinance supportabl~ The Planning Commission recommended three major changes: (1) Delete the requirement for a special use permit for development right lots within the MOD to allow them by right (this meets objections that development rights were taken); (2) add a "grandfathering" clause for existing residences (this meets concerns that existing homes could not be added on to or rebuilt following a fire); and (3) the Board should consider a mechanism such as a special use permitto allow building on the Ridge Area when it can be shown that building there would cause less environmental degradation than building below the Ridge Area (this meets concerns that on some ridges the best place to build is actually on the ridge which may be relatively level, have an existing road, etc.). Other minor changes clarified but didn't change provisions. 2. The original ordinance (particularly requiring small lots by special permit and no building on the ridge) is preferable to the revised versions because it is stronger. Although the Planning Commission was concerned about the large number of devel~opment rights existing in the mountains, it said that perhaPs this was not yet the time_to address the issue of the number of development rights. Forestry and intensive agriculture should not be permittea[ The State Right to Farm. law requires that agriculture and forestry be permitted by right in zoning districts included for such activities, so that counties may not prevent forestry as a land use. In Albemarle County, the Comprehensive Plan promotes and supports agriculture and forestry as preferred land uses in the Rural Area. 4. Lewis Mountain and other Development Area tracts should be excluded from the MOD because they are in a Development Areta Lewis Mountain, Observatory Hill, Stillhouse Mountain, and several smaller peaks near the Ragged Mountain Reservoir are located in the Development Area, and are zoned R-1 Residential. These areas are included in the MOD to be consistent and because the concerns are the same regarding critical slopes and elevation. For example, the portion of Lewis Mountain within the MOD is almost entirely critical slopes. With the current prohibition of building on critical slopes, those areas have a limited amount of development available, despite the R-1 zoning. 5. Flat and accessible ridges should not be subject to Ridge Area provisions because building on them would be less environmentally damaging than building elsewhere on the parcel The special use permit provision has been recommended as a method to permit building on Ridge Areas (30.8.4 c. and d. in the June 8 draft). Since each ridge has individual characteristics, it is.nearly impossible to draft an ordinance that defines a "buildable" ridge from an "unbuildable, ridge. The special use permit provision would deal with each separate situation. 6. Special permits are undesirable because the decision to grant them becomes political rather than on the merits, and/or requires that one come "hat in hand" to the government. Special use permits are the only way to address specific differences in topography on different ridges, 2 and to address siting issues and aesthetic issues such as color, which cannot otherwise be required. state law, we are not perm!tted to require a site plan for a single family dwelling, so the special use permit is the only tool available. By Criteria for the special use permits is included in the Zoning Ordinance Section 31.2.4.1 (the use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, the character of the district will not be changed, the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, etc.); and in Section 30.8.1 Intent of the Mountain Overlay District (protecting water .quality, conservation of forestry resources, promoting public safety, etc.). Good and longtime stewards of the land should not be subject to regulation. Ordinance provisions are in no way intended to ignore or minimize the historical stewardship of the mountains by landowners. However, with the growth and development pressures Albemarle is likely to face, there is no guarantee that futUre owners would continue the tradition of good stewardship. 8. It is not generally understood that Section 4.2.01, the constructed embankments provision Oror driveways, accessways and building pads) is proposed County-wide. This provision is unnecessary, especially in non- mountainous areas. Although the Mountain Committee originally recommended driveway standards to apply only in the MOD, the County Attorney's opinion is that drivewayregulations must be imposed County-wide. It may be preferable to address County-wide driveway regulations separately from the MOD issues. This could be done by removing Section 4.2.01 frOm the proposed ordinance and dealing with the driveways issue in a separate charge to the Planning Commission. Why isn't steepness of private roads and driveways addressed? Private roads serving three or more dwellings or lots .are currently required to comply with VDOT mountainous terrain standards. This means the road cannot exceed 16% slope. The Mountain Committee originally recommended that driveways also meet the 16% maximum slope. When it was determined that driveway standards would have to be imposed County-wide, it was thought to be too burdensome to require road plans which showed road gradients for all new driveways. If County-wide driveway regulations are considered separately, the gradient question can.be stUdied at that time. 10. Are 2:1 side slopes more damaging environmentally and more erodible than shorter and steeper slopes? In most cases, 2:1 slopes are e0sier to stabilize ,than steeper slopes because vegetation is more likely to become established on gentler slopes. Unless vegetation is established, the slope will continuously erode. It is possible'that requiring 2:1 side slope will result in a wider graded swath, However, it may . be difficult or impossible to stabilize steeper slopes, and gentler slopes may be easier to maintain. The County Engineer has suggested new language (in the June 8 draft) in Section 4.2.01 Constructed embankments and Section 30.8.5 Private roads, to provide greater flexibility in approving constructed embankmems which are steeper than 2:1 slope. Under the revised language, constructed embankments may be approved at any slope, rather than being limited to 1.5:1 maximum slope, provided they are stabilized. For example, if rock is present, it could be stabilized at a slope steeper than 2:1 slope. Currently, 2:1 slopes are required for private and public roads, but not for driveways. The County Engineer is now suggesting that the side -slopes requirement for driveways ~only pertain to slopes taller than five feet. It may be preferable to address County-wide driveway regulations separately from the MOD issues. 3 11. Can a moratorium on approving plats be instituted right away? The County Attorney has stated that a moratorium is not legally permitted for this purpose. Staff has- . already received a number of subdivision applications in the mountain area, and anticipate that we will continue to receive applications in the mountain areas while this ordinance is under consideration. 12. Some provisions may make it more difficult for less affluent landowners to build Building in the mountains is necessarily and already more expensive than building on less steep, more accessible property. The MOD will impose some additional costs for a single family dwelling: (1) Increased initial cost of grading 2:1 side slopes on a driveway (additional cost related to steepness of land and length of driveway). But as this produces a more stable driveway, long-term maintenance costs may be lower. (2) An' erosion control plan (including a bond) may be required instead of an agreement. A plan allows the Engineering Department to make sure erosion controls are adequately designed for the steeper mountain conditions. An agreement is a paper signed by the property owner which states that the owner will comply with whatever is necessary to control erosion. A plan permit fee is currently $40; an agreement has no fee. The cost to prepare an erosion control plan by a professional may be up to $1000. ProfesSional services are not required for an agreement. (3) Locate building site on a boundary survey if a recent subdivision plat does not show a bullding site. Engineering estimates this would add $400 - $2500. Currently, proof of a building site is not.required to obtain a building permit. Rather, building sites are confirmed during inspections. In the mountains, where critical slopes are common, confuxnati0n of a building site becomes more important. One way to avoid a high cost to the landowner would be to use a USGS topographic map to confirm a building site prior to obtaining a building permit. The building site could also be located on a parcel using a topographic map. More information could be required in certain cases. (4)The driveway centerline and building site must be staked by a surveyor. The cost range is $300 - 1000, depending on the amount of field work involved. 13. The ordinance constitutes a taking. The County Attorney has concluded that it does not. 14. The ordinance is analogous to eminent domain or a conservation easement. Therefore the County owes compensation. All development rights may continue to be used in the MOD by right, and within the Ridge Area by special use permit, provided the.intent of the ordinance is met. Withthese provisions, no development rights are lost, so .there is no seizure as in eminent domain. A conservation easement usually permits only one dwelling per 100 acres, so effects of this ordinance are not analogous. 15. Even if the ordinance does not constitute a taking, it produces loss in value and the County should pay for that. The County Attorney stated that as long as a reasonable use is provided, the County is not required to compensate for a loss in value. 16. More time is needed for public input, more study. As far as "more study" is concerned, it is useful to know that the Mountain Committee met monthly for a year. They reviewed existing regulations, enabling legislation, and constitutional takings issues. They met with the County Attorney, Health Department, Department of Forestry, Natural Resources Conservation Service and others to obtain information and advice. Other localities' ordinances were reviewed. Comments were solicited from the Farm Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, the Piedmont Environmental Council, the Blue Ridge Homebuilders Association, and County agencies including Housing, Engineering, Zoning, Planning, and the County Attorney and others in written form. When the committee completed its report in the fall of 1996, a press conference was held with television and newspaper cox~erage. Copies of the Plan were published and made available to the general public. The Board received the plan and directed the Planning Commission to hold work sessions. The Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to adopt an ordinance. In accordance with State law, all affected landowners were notified by letter of the upcoming public hearings. Staff held an open house on May 7 for the public. Two public hearings were held, each well attended. No significant new ideas or approaches were-put forth in the public hearings which were not already considered by the Committee or staff. ! 7. Should one or two dwelling on each parcel be exempted from everything in the MOD ordinance? The current zoning regulations for critical slopes require that you build on. a building site if one exists. Current regulations also allow one dwelling on each parcel, whether or not a building site exists. The MOD allows' one dwelling to be built on a Ridge.Area by right if that is the only location for a building site on a parcel. Otherwise, dwellings are required to be located outside the Ridge Area on a building site. The MOD also imposes driveway (constructed embankment) requirements and soil erosion requirements. Parcels that straddle the MOD must use a building site outside the MOD if available. If one or two dwellings were exempted by the MOD ordinance, they would not be subject to any site plan or erosion plan (as opposed to agreement) requirements or siting or design regulations, as they could be under a special use permit. Since these requirements are for the safety of the resident as well as protection of the natural resource, releasing dwellings from these requirements could have unwanted long-term consequences. 18. Because of the large number of parcels (1900) in the MOD, exempting dwellings from the ordinance could result in a potentially large number of dwellings in the Ridge Area. Is there no land disturbing in excess of 2500 square feet permitted above 25% slope? The 2500 square foot measure simply designates when the requirement for a soil erosion permit takes effect for land-disturbing activities in the MOD, according to the already-adopted Water Ordinance. If the MOD zoning map is adopted, then language in the Water Ordinance adopted in February, 1998 will go into effect. It says that within the MOD, a land disturbing activity requiring a soil erosion permit is'defined as 2,500 square feet; elsewhere'it is 10,000 square'feet. The zoning ordinance currently permits grading on slopes of 25% and greater, but does not permit a building site there. This would not change under the MOD. Driveways could still be constructed across 25%+slopes. 19. Could a special use permit be approved administratively within the MOD or Ridge Area based on compliance with a voluntary list of special use permit criteria? By state law, special use permits cannot be approved administratively. A list of criteria prepared by staff may not be construed as "voluntary." For example, while the applicant could offer to construct an "earth-tone" dwelling, staff cannot require that a non-white house be a criterion for approval. 20. The landowner would have to go to a lot of expense to locate a small peak on their property which has been designated adjacent to a larger mountain (such as in the Southwest Mountains area). In many cases the location of the elevation in relation~to a proposed dwel,ling can be determined from the USGS topographic maps. If the dwelling is proposed very near the elevation, then.the owner will need to confirm its location through a surveyor. If the surveyor' does not have. a GPS .unit, which is the latest technology, then traditional surveying methods using a known benchmark would be used to determine elevatiom 21. Does this ordinance prevent a big, white house on a mountain? Yes and no. On an existing parcel whlch straddles the MOD, a building site must be located outside the MOD if one exists. Nothing in the present ordinance would prevent subdivision of a straddling parcel to create a new lot which is entirely within the MOD, if there is a building site located there, and if the parcel has extra development rights. Color cannot be regulated, nor can tree cutting to expose the house be regulated. A design booklet will be prepared with Suggestions that may be incorporated by applicants for building in a mountain area. The driveway will require approval of a soil erosion permit, which entails greater, scrutiny within the MOD than is presently required. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE.'_ ._,.._ _ CPA 98-01 Mountains ~. ~ENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER.: I Z'rA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and ~ u,-,n-~e, 1,-,0~, i ~ 8 (.P u ~lic h earin g) '' Related Provisions ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District ACTION: Yes (public hearing) INFORMATION: Yes -SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: (wore session) Proposed Amendments Related to Mountain Protection CONSENT AGENDA: ATTACHMENTS: Yes _ STAFF CONTACT(S~): ~ PROPOSAL: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ,CPA 98-01 Mountains - An amendment to Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The)NatUral Environment," to include a section on "Mountains," including a list of MOuntains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map description of Mountains by contour elevation. (ATTACHMENT A- yellow) Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overla District and related rovisions - An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, including a requirement to obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amendments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning diStdct which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also pro posed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.0 Definitions, Section 4.2 Critical Slopes, and Section 31.2.2 Building Permits. (ATTACHMENT B - Original'ordinance -white) (ATTACHMENT C - Revised ordinance as recommended by Planning Commission - ivory) Amendment to the Zoning Map _ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay Distri~' -An amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and described as Mountains in the proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. DISTRICT BOUNDARIES: A Mountain Overlay District (MOD) boundary for each mountain has been identified by a specific contour line elevation, located in the area where the crilJcal' slopes begin on a particular mountain. (Example: The MOD boundary for Fox Mountain begins at the 1200 foot contour elevation.) · The intent is to protect the mountain resources above this elevation, where the mountain becomes visually prominent, and where development is more difficult due to concentrations of critical slopes. Within the MOD boundaries, Ridge Areas have been delineated. (In no case does a Ridge Area extend outside a MOD boundary. ) The Ridge Area is the highest and most prominent part of a mountain, defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the mountain ridgeline and peaks. The intent of the ordinance is to'keep development off the Ridge Area as much as possible. The proposed MOD boundaries and Ridge Areas have been shown on topographic maps and on tax maps, which will become the official Mountain Overlay Distdct zoning maps when adopted. ORIGI N: ' On October 15, 1996 the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent toamend the Zoning Ordinance by adding a Mountain Overlay District and to amend the Subdivision Ordinance as recommended in the Committee's report. BACKGROUND: ~ 1971: Mountain protection efforts began with the adoption of the County's first Comprehensive Plan which described the mountains as "conservation areas." The provisions of the proposed Mountain Overlay District are based on concerns described in that Plan and successive Comprehensive Plans. 1980: Steps were taken to protect mountains through regulation when the Rural Areas zoning district and the critical slopes provision were adopted. The critical slopes provision currently requires a "building site" (minimum 30,000 square feet of less than 25% slope for the location of the dwelling and septic system). Driveways are not regulated on critical slopes. 1992: The Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors as part of the Comprehensive Plan. recommended a mountain protection ordihance and first defined mountains by contour elevations. 1995: The Board of Supervisors appointed a twelve member Mountain Protection Committee to study mountain protection measures and to make a recommendation regarding an ordinance. 1996: The Committee's final report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan (ATTACHMENT D) dated August 1, 1996, recommended that the Board adopt an ordinance to protect water quality, reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values with their associated economic impact, tourism, and public safety. The Board of Supervisors received the report on September 4, 1996, and directed the Planning Commission to hold work sessions on a proposed ordinance as recommended by the Committee. The Planning Commission held three work sessions that fall, leading to the resolution of intent adopted on Qctober 15, 1996. Staff was directed to prepa re the final ordinance language. 1996-1998: Planning staff worked with the County Attorney's office, the Mountain Protection Committee, and the other County development departments to prepare final o[dinance language consistent with the intent of the Committee's original recommendations. The Planning Commission held a final worksession on April 7, 1998, and a public hearing on May 19, 1998. At ils public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval unanimously (6-0) of all three amendments, with changes as described below. PUBLIC PURPOSES TO BE SERVED: · To protect the environment: water quality and quantity (public drinking water reservoirs and groundwater); to reduce soil erosion and runoff; to protect plant and animal habitat. · To protect scenic quality and character of County (quality of life, sense of place) · To protect economic benefits: tourism industry (a major sector of County's economy), agricultural (such as orchard and vineyard land) and forestry resources. · To protect general public safety: better emergency vehicle access, protects residences from.debris flow hazard. · To promote more efficient use of tax payer services (furthering our Rural Area policy limiting delivery of services in Rural Area). DISCUSSION: Mountain Overlay District The proposed Mountain Overlay District would overlay the underlying zoning district, which is largely the RA, Rural Areas District. Currently, building can take place in the RA District in mountain areas if (1) development rights exist; (2) if a building site is available, and (3) if other zoning and subdivision requirements are met, such as access requirements. If a parcel has no building site, one dwelling is currently permitted. The effects of the proposed MOD would be as follows: · Small Lots - ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: A special use permit would be required to develop small development right lots in the MOD. Minimum 2.1 acre parcels could be divided by dght in the MOD if building sites are available. AS RECOMMENDED BYPLANNING COMMISSION: Both small development right lots and minimum 21 acre parcels could be divided by right in the MOD. · Ridge Area ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: Building may not occur on the Ridge Area. Exceptions: If the entire parcel is w'rthin the Ridge Area, or if the parcel straddles the Ridge Area and the only building site is within th~ Ridge Area, then one 2 dwelling is permitted there. Other exceptions are accessory buildings (non-dwellings) under 500 square feet (like a hunting cabin); Production agriculture and forestry uses (like a barn); agricultural and forestry roads; and structures less than 20 feet high (like a gazebo). AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION: The Board of Supervisors should consider a mechanism, such as a special use permit, to permit building within the Ridge Area when it can be shown that it would cause less environmental degradation than building below the Ridge Area. · Building Sites All approved building sites must be shown on the final plat. If a parcels straddles the MOD, then the building site must be located outside the MOD if one is available there. · Building Permits To obtain a building permit in the MOD, one of the following is required: (1) a final plat showing an approved building site, or (2) on a parcel created prior to the current ordinance, a boundary survey with an approved building agreementSite depictedhasbyabeenSUrveyOrapproved.Or engineer. In addition, evidence will be required that an erosion control plan or · Water Ordinance Requirements A "land disturbing activity" which requires compliance with the Water Ordinance is defined within the MOD as 2,500 square feet or more; outside the MOD it is10,000 square feet or more. Within the MOD it is likely that an erosion contol plan will be required rather than an agreement. · Constructed Embankments A maximum 2:1 slope on constructed embankments would apply to all driveways and building pads throughout the County. · Private Roads Private roads are currently restricted to 16% grade bythe existing, subdivision ordinance. Additional requirements radiusf°r privatefor roadshodzontalwithincurvature.the MOD are: A maximum 2:1 slope on constructed embankments, and a minim um 40 feet · Existin g Residences ORIGINAL ORDINANCE: The status of existing residences was not addressed specifically. AS RECOMMENDED BY' PLANNING COMMISSION:Specific clause added to clarify the issue of existing houses. The Committee's major concerns which have been addressed by the proposed ordinance are: (1) Keeping development off the Ridge Areas; (2) Specifying on the final plat the location of the actual building site to be used; (3) If a lot straddles the MOD, requiring that the building site be located outside the MOD if one is available there; (4) Requiring an 'erosion control plan for all driveways .and houses within the MOD; and (5) Limiting the slope of constructed embankments to 2:1. The major differences between the proposed ordinance language and the Committee's original recommendations are: (1) the Committee's recommended driveway regulations have been deleted; (2) the Water Protection Ordinance was adopted with a provision that defines,"land disturbing activity" with the MOD as minimu m 2,500 sq. feet. The Committee supports this provision, especially as it includes driveways; and (3) the Committee originally recommended that small lots be permitted by right, 'but located outside the MOD when possible. (The original ordinance recommended a special use permit for small lots in the MOD; the Planning Commission recommended deletion of the special use pemit requirement for small lots to allow them by right in the MOD.) Comprehensive Plan Amendment The proposed Comprehensive Plan section describes: · the value of mountain s and concerns related to inappropriate development; · the types of natural resources and physical conditions present in the mountains; · a history of mountain protection; and ·protectionthe Comm/ttee'Sin AIbemarlereC°mmendati°nScounty. for mountain protection measures and a systematic approach to resource The Comprehensive Plan section also includes new Design Standards addressing development on mountains which will be incorporated into an educational brochure recommended by the Mountain Protection Committee. If the adopted ordinance requires a special use permit, either to allow small lots in the MOD, or to allow certain development in the Ridge Area, then the criteria used to evaluate those special use permit applications will be provided by: (1) the general criteda for all special use permits found in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 31.2.4,1, and (2) th'e Comprehensive Plan section on Mountains. Impact Analysis of Proposed Mountain .Overlay District Ordinance The proposed ordinance has been evaluated for impacts to (1) housing costs; development review time. (ATTACHMENT E -gray) (2) County staffing needs; and (3) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: The Albemarle County Planning Commission at its ~eeting on May 19, 1998. recommended unanimously (6-0) approval of the following amendments: CPA 98-01 Mountains - recommended approval as proposed. ZTA 98-05 Mountain Overlay District and related' Provisions - recommended approval with the following changes: (1) Delete the requirement for ra special use permit for small lots by deleting the third paragraph of Section 30.8.1 Intent; and by deleting the language of Section 30.8.3.1 By Right, after the second UbY right;'.and by deleting the language of Section 30.8.3.2 By Special Use Permit, after the first ~district" and before the second ~acres.~ (2) Clarify the issue of existing houses by adding new Section 30.8.9 Grandfathered Dwellings, using the language proposed by the County Attorney..The grandfathering clause should clarify that an existing house that burns can be rebuilt. (3) Make other technical changes suggested by Commissioners Rieley and Rooker: a. Add ~fences' to the list'of exceptions in Section 4.2.3.1 Placement on Building Site. b. Move the contents of Section 30.8.4 Density to Section 30.8.5 Location of Building Sites, delete Section 30.8.4, and adjust numbering after Section 30.8.4. c. Move Section 30.8.8.b. to Section 30.8 Mountain Overlay District. It will become a single paragraph under the heading of 30.8. ' ' " ~ e greater on centerl ne ..... (The rest remains the same.) d. Add to Section 30~8.6.b ....shall b forty (40) feet or e. Change the last sentence of Section 30.8.8.a. to read, u...Survey 1927 North Amedcan datum, with benchmark_ or other ~uc,h datum acceptable to the county engineer." (4) Ask the Board of Supervisors to consider a mechanism, such asa special use permit, to permit building within the Ridge Area when it can be 'sh own that it would cause less environmental degradation than-building below the Ridge Area. Note: Staff recommends the following language if the Board chooses to accept this recommendation: A single family dwelling (otherwise permitted by the underlying zoning) shall be permitted by special use permit in the Ridge Area if it can be demonstrated that buildin in that articular location would cause less environmental de radation and better meetthe intent of the ordinance to rotect the mountain resources than building below the ddge area on the same parcel. The proposed ordinance current permits one dwelling to be built in the Ridge Area if the only building site on a parcel is in the Ridge Area; that provision would remain. ZMA 98-10 Mountain Overlay District - Recommended approval as proposed. 98.100 PROPOSED COMPREH-ENSIVE PLAN CHAPTER TWO, TIlE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OPEN SPACE RESOURCES ATTACHMENT A JUNE 10, 1998 _CPA 98-01 MOUNTAINS INTRODUCTION Albemarle's mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. Mountains may be said to define much of the character of Aibemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide economic benefits to the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy afl, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal ~pecies. And, to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle County in large measure its "sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and Visitors and one which is consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. Mountains are a source of concern when inappropriate development creates unwanted impacts to environmental and aesthetic resources and public safety. Environmental concerns include soil erosion, surface water runoff, septic system contamination, fragmentation of forests, and destruction of habitat. Aesthetic concerns center on disruption Of the relatively pristine wooded character Which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness, and the resultant impact on tourism. Public safety concerns include difficult access for emergency vehicles, and the potential for debris flows. OBJECTIVE: Recognize the value of Albemarle's mountains,, including protecting water quality and drinking water reservoir capaci~g,'soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values, tourism, and the economic impact of these resources. Pursue additional protection measures to protecthigher elevations, these resources and to promote public safety in these areas of exceptional critical slopes and Strategies: safetyDevel°Pin amountainmOUntainareas.protection district to protect and promote mountain resources and to protect public Develop an educational brochure with recommended design standards for mountain areas to encourage sensitive site design which is considerate of safety, environmental and aesthetic concerns. Encourage voluntary measures which protect mountain resources, such as conservation easements, agricultural and forestal districts, and use value taxation. Encourage the use of the Rural Preservation Development (RPD) option to protect mountain resources. Utilize an acquisition program, such as purchase of development rights (PDR), to protect mountains. When enabling legislation allows, evaluate a density transfer or transfer of development rights(TDR) program to protect mountains. Develop County planning tools and educational materials that address hazard avoidance with regard to areas that are prone to debris flows. In conjunction with appropriate resource agencies, develop a debris flow hazard map for Albemarle County. ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountains are unique areas of the County which are distinguished by the natural resources and · physical conditions, listed below. Such resources and conditions are found in other areas of the County, but only in the mountains do they occur in such combination, as extensively, and to such extremes. Critical Slopes: Mountain areas are unique and distinct from the. lower elevations of the County that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances than critical slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. In Albemade's mountains continuous critical slopes in excess of 50% can be found for distances of up to one mile, and in some cases, longer. Concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced, in mountain areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. Soil: Forest cover is the optimum land use .for minimizing soil erosion and maximizing water quality. Soils on steep slopes are typically more erodible than in other areas. Inaccessibility and isolated location of development sites in mountain areas necessitate longer driveways and access roads over more highly erodible soils than in other areas of the County. Such driveways and access roads may disturb many times more land area than a dwelling itself. Improper attention to soils may result, in accelerated soil erosion and sedimentation, ground or surface water pollution, landslides, flooding, drainage problems, failed septic systems, construction problems, and unproductive agricultural and ~forestal lands. Water Quality and Quantity: Sedimentation of Albemarle's public drinking water reservoirs in addition to increased demand may necessitate the building of'an additional raw water source prior to 2015 to meet the average daily demands of the Urban Service Area. The South Rivanna Reservoir loses 13 million gallons of storage capacity annually as a result of sedimentation. The Ragged Mountain Reservoir, by contrast, loses no appreciable capacity. Protection of water ~esources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general: Albemarle's locationadjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them. (See Water Resources, page-) Forest and Agricultural Resources: The mountains of the County are almost entirelyin forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenanceof forest land. The'principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural and Forestal Industries ~ ' ee re' orr states," Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future Support Co_m. mi~tt . ".P · arcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting viability oftl~e tores~ industry ~n Albemarle County...As p decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The Growth Management Goal of Albemarle County places highest priority On the protection of agricultural and forestry resources in the Rural Area. Tl~e Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersvilie-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the Commonwealth. Debris Flows: Some types .of landslides take place very gradually, and while they can cause property damage, the landslide can be tracked and mitigation planned. Others types of landslides move very rapidly and have to potential to inflict massive damhge to natural landscapes and human settlements. Debris flows (also called mudslides, mudfloWs, or debris avalanches) are a particular type of fast-moving landslide that occurs during periods of intense rainfall. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) describes debris flows as follows: Fast moving floWs of mud and rock, called debris flows, are among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for 'substantial damage and' loss of life worldwide...Their consistency ranges from watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wet concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away leading to a temporary condition of perched water in the soil .... They commonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquefy, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hill slopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The following debris flow events have occurred in recent times in our particular region of the Appalachian Mountain chain: · In 1969, during Hurricane Camille, Nelson County (hnd a small part of Southern Albemarle) experienced debris flows that caused 150 deaths and $100 million in property damage. · In November, 1985, widespread debris flows in Virginia and West Virginia in the Potomac and Cheat River basins led to 70 deaths and $1.3 billion in property damage. · I.n June,. 1995, a storm cell in Madison County caused ~--- ,^ o~ ~am during ~ in debris flows that caused one fatality and $100 million in property damage. ~ l,, ,,,,u, period resulted · During the same period as the Madison County events, at least 100 debris flows occurred along the North Fork Moorman's River in Alberharle County and Shenandoah National Park. It is estimated that at least 11.5 inches of rain fell during a two-hour period. Were it not for the Sugar Hollow. Reservoir, which acted as a trap for the debris flow flood surge, from the North Fork Moorman's, eight or more downstream residences would almost certainly have been destroyed. In addition, scientists have documented 51 historical debris flow events between 1844 and 1985 in the Appalachians: Studies of debris flow sites have revealed.old, prehistoric debris flows beneath deposits of modern debris flows, meaning that, in geologic time, debris flows are recurring events in the Appalachian region. While a debris flOw may not return to the exact same geographic area (e.g., the North Fork Moorman's) for thousands of years, it is known that conditions promoting debris flows occur somewhere in the Appalachian region every two to three years, and, accordingly, somewhere along Virginia's Blue Ridge front approximately once every decade. Compared to other areas of the country, Central Virginia is not known as a region'that is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards (e.g., earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides, etc.). However, floods and debris flows are certainly natural hazards that are known to occur in Central Virginia, and for which the population should be prepared. With regard to typical flooding, the County maintains a flood plain program in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Program, and regulates activities within flood plains through the zoning ordinance. Debris flows, however, are not typical floods, and until the events of June, 1995 brought these realities to our door step, the community has remained largely unaware of this natural hazard. It is important for the County and the residents of mountain-side communities to realize that there are measures that can-be taken to avoid debris flow hazards and to be prepared. The U.S. Geological Survey recommends the following general measures: 1. Become familiar with the land around you. Learn whether debris flows have occurred in your area by contacting local officials, State geological surveys or departments of natural resources, and university departments of geology. Slopes where debris flows have occurred in the past are likely to experience them in the future. 2. Support your local government in efforts to develop and enforce land-use and building ordinances that regulate construction in areas susceptible to landslides and debris flows. Buildings should be located away from steep slopes, streams and rivers, intermittent-stream channels, and the mouths of mountain channels. 3. Watch the patterns of storm-water drainage on slopes near your home, and note especially the places where runoff water converges, increasing flow over soil-covered slopes. Watch the hillsides around your home for any signs of land movement, such as small landslides or debris flows or progressively tilting trees. 4. Contact your local authorities to learn about the emergency response and evacuation plans for your area? and develop your own emergency plans for your family and business. In accordance with these recommendations, the County should enhance its planning and informational resources to direct and advise that development avoid debris flow-prone areas. In this regard, recent USGS studies have identified the following predictive criteria for potential future debris flows: · Storms with very intensive rainfall -- the 1995 storms had periods with rainfall intensities of 5 inches per hour th'at were sustained for 2 hours or more.. · Areas underlain by prehistoric debris flow deposits. · Areas underlain by slopes greater than 26 degrees (67 percent slope~). · Natural drainage channels and streams that originate on slopes greater than 26 degrees and delineated with a buffer 10 feet in elevation above the channel. The USGS has used the}e and other criteria to produce a hazard map for Madison County based on studies of the 1995 debris flows. Albemarle County should work with the appropriate agencies to produce a similar map for the County's mountain areas. The information in this section was derived from the following reports: Debris-Flow Hazards in Areas Affected by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Morgan, B.A., Wieczorek, R.H., campbell, and Gori, P.L., USGS Open-File Report 97-438,. 1997. Debris Flows and Landslides Resulting From The-June 27, 1995, Storm on the North Fork of the Moorman's River, Shenandoah National Park, Virginia, Morgan, B.A. and Wieczorek, G.F., USGS Open- File Report 96-503, August, 1996. Debris-Flow Hazards in the Blue Ridge of Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet - 159-96, 1996. Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995, Storm in Madison County, Virginia, Wieczorek, G.F., Gori, P.L., Campbell, R.H., and Morgan, B.A., USGS Open-File Report 95-822, October, 1995. 4 Plant and Animal Habitat: Losses of native biological diversity (plant and animal species diversity, genetic mostdiversity and ecosystemfragmentationdiversitY)of habitatare a significant_ the dividingC°ncern'of Those declines are caused by several factors, importantlY,of forest cover. (See Bdi ;,,~ large areas into smaller parcels, and the resultine disruption _io_.vers~, page -, and Forest Fragmentation, page -). Scenic Resources this character and their is important Economic to Impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining current residents and to prospective residents and tourists. A scenicnUmberquality°f highlYoftheViSiblemountainStructuresda,,constructedpublicreCently have occasioned public concern about the continued lan-sc-re, expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important to CountY residents. An issue that is of importance to visual impact is the horizon. In a countY with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area. (See Scenic Resources, page -). Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to the University's Observatories has been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts m more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990). Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City, and degrades the quality of the built environment. (See The Dark Sky, page-). Tourism: Tourism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the County. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109,139,211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic benefit to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates into over 159 million dollars in revenue to the County. HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the County,s first Comprehensive Plan, which delineated the mountains as "conservation areas." The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained a map of conservation areas which included hilltops, major ridge lines, and slopes over 15%. Hil lside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards.' In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. All the mountains except two small peaks in the Urban Development Area are currently zoned Rural Areas. The critical slopes provisions, require a "bmldmg s~te," a contiguous area of land in sloe o · ' ' i ' p s of less than 25~ The r~gulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with 'public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. The 1980 critical slopes provisions did. not address driveway construction. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural resources. The Plan states: "Clearing, grading, building, cropping or overgrazing of critical slopes can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive storm water runoff; increased siltation an d sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent." 5 The 1989 Comprehensive Plan states that, "Natural, scenic, and historic resources are essential to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life." The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry preservation, which are the major reasons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes the interdependency of en¥ ironmental resources," For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality.." The 1989 Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. "In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the 'natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area." The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to'identify and to develop protection measures for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and ~hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, identifies Mountains as one of four major .open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect. It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards, natural areas (including geologic features, and habitats for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. (See attached list of Mountains.) The Open Space Plan includes the ,following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." The Open Space Plan states: "Visual concerns related to mountains center on disruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, combined ~vith high elevations, result in a prominent display-of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities which alter the continuity of the ridgelin.e or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. Environmental concerns include (1) the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment and (2) disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time, it is anticipated that due to the location of generally unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of. comparative significance as "natural areas", and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge,-surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas." MOUNTAIN PROTECTION PLAN The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens appointed by the Board of Supervisors met from June, 1995 through July, 1996. They prepared a report, the Proposed Mountain Protection Plan dated August 1,, 1996, which was presented to the Board of Supervisors September 4, 1996. The plan contained three major recommendations: (1) Delineation of a Mountain Overlay District describing the area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the mountain area's residents and which control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. The intent of an ordinance would be to protect resources ch aracteristic of or dependent on the 6 mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality, public drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources, plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Specific recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District addressed soil erosion plans, driveway requirements, protection of ridge areas, and building and subdivision requirements to use building sites located outside the mountain district if they are available. (2) Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance to require shielding of all new exterior lighting fixtures. The Committee also recommended a future study to determine maximum foot candles for categories of uses, 'and recommended that the Board of Supervisors ask power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient lighting. (See The Dark Sky, page-) (3) Additional Planning Tools: Though the Mountain Protection Committee's task was to develop recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, the Committee noted that planning for the protection of discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protecfi5n of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic viability of urban areas, or transportation networks. The mountainous areas of Albem~irle County are not only prominent physical features possessing critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require consideration as components of larger planning issues. Some of the County's land use regulations developed with a compartmentalized approach to land: planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and other comprehensive planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5-20 ac.) too small to farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housing costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricultural lands in the path of proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource ' protection may not be br6ad enough in Scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The Committee recommended several planning tools to achieve a more systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County: The Mountain Protection Plan is attached as an appendix to this Comprehensive Plan. DESIGN STANDARDS · Minimize clearing. Consider the impact of your clearing on others" v~stas' of the unspoiled natural terrain. Locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on critical slopes and trees. Driveways should disturb no more than 65 feet in cross section. Consider" eek Maintain the p naturalh°les"treeincanopy.the vegetation and winter views rather than clearing for year-round views. Replant the forest edge with local indigenous species to discourage growth of undesirable edge vegetation (poison ivy, greenbriars). · Locate the house and structures to make them unobtrusive in the landscape. Do not build structures taller than the natural tree canopy. Do not locate the house and structures where they will be "skylighted" against the horizon. Do not alter the continuity of the ridgeline. 7 · Locate the house and structures to make them safe. . De not build in swales or other areas where a debris flow may occur. Minimize disturbances to critical slopes. Locate the septic system down slope of the dwelling to make use of the clearing as a fire buffer area. · Design private driveways to permit fire and rescue emergency vehicle access: Longitudinal gradient should not exceed 16%. Minimum allowable radius for horizontal curvature should be 40 feet. Avoid north slopes where snow and ice may accumulate. · Design the house and structures to blend in with the terrain surrounding the building site. Choose non-reflective colors and materials. Choose earth tone colors rather than stark white. Choose underground rather than overhead electrical service. Choose local indigenous landscape materials. Consider an alternative to growing a lawn. · Consider your impact on plant and animal habitat. Maintain the natural landscape in large contiguous areas. Clearing for a dwelling creates edge habitat~ Be prepared to coexist with deer and other wildlife. · Locate and shield exterior lighting to minimize its obtrusiveness on neighbors and the natural environment. Use full cutoff fixtures which are aimed downward. Use lighting which is adequate but not excessive for the proposed use. 8 MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are included on the Concept Map (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duplicated). They are defined by a designated elevation contour line., based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot Contour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson Southwest Mountains Trevillian Wolfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnut Dowell Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Piney Mountain (Earlysville Quad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesville West Quad) Newcomb Woodson Gibson (Alberene Quad) Gillums Mountain Turner Mountain 900 Foot Contour Buck Mountain TaylOr~s Mountain Martin's Mountain (Crozet Quad) Sprouse Mountain Israe} Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brush Mountain Yellow Mountain Harris Mountain Green Mountain (Free Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies Mountain Long Arm Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Ennis Mountain Round Top Mountain (Waynesboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Lick Mountain Currant Pigeon Top Mountain 1200 Foot Contour Blue Ridge Mountains Scott Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks Elbow Little Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (BroWn's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) ATTACHMENT B Draft: March 31, 1998 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30:8, 30.8.1, 30.8.2, 30.8.3, 30.8.3.1,30.8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8.6, 30.8.7 and 30.8.8, and by amending sections~.3.0, 4.2.~1,4.2.3, 4,2,3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as follows: By Adding New: ArtiCle II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.01. Sec. 30.8. Sec. 30.8.1. Sec. 30.8.2. Sec. 30.8.3. Sec. 30.8.3.1. Sec. 30.8.3.2. Sec. 30.8.4:' Sec. 30.8.5. Sec. 30.8.6. Sec. 30,8.7. Sec. 30.8;8. By Amending: Constructed embankments. Article III, District Regulations Mountain overlay district. Intent. Establishment· of district boundaries. Permitted uses: By right. By special use permit, Density., , . LoCation of buildinq sites. Private roads.. Exempt struCtures. Relief from district requirements. Sec. 3.0. Article I. General Provisions Definitions: Article II, Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Building site required. Location of structures and improvements. Placement on building site. Slope restrictions. Exception for existing lots. Draft: March 31, 1998 Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. CHAPTER 20, ZOning · - -Article I; General ProvisionS Section 3.0. Definitions. Buildinq site: A contiquous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent as determined by. reference to either United States GeolOgic Survey topographic survey maps (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: (i) under water; (ii) within the flood hazard oVerlay district; (iii) within the one hundred (100) year flood plain of a natural stream identified ~on a'site plan or0na plat; or (iv) within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwise allOwed therein. Land disturbing activity: Any land chancte which may result in soil.erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into state waters'oronto lands in the Commonwealth, includinq, but not limited to, clearinq; grading, excavatinq, transportinq and filling of land. Peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district which rises at least twenty (2'0~ feet above the surrounding land, as delineated on United'States Geoloqic Survey topoqraphic survey maps... Ridqe area: All land within one hundred (100) VertiCal feet of, and including, the" ridgeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the map approved by the board'of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation on at least two (2) sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section .30.8.2. Article II. Basic:Regulations Sec. 4.0. General Regulations. Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Each embankment constructed on a lot or parcel in order to establish a driveway, accessway, or buildinq pad, which the county engineer determines 'to resu t n a vertical rise or fall of two (2) feet or greater~ shall be subject to the following: The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds'two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). Notwithstandinq subsection (a), during-construction the county engineer may .authorize a 'constructed embankment with agradient not exceedinq one and one-half (1 ;5) feet ~of horizontal distance, for'each one (1) foot of vertical' rise or fall (1 .'5:1) if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county engineer that: (i) extenuating circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or qreater water quality and land stabilization can be achieved by, such.authorization;'rather than by . complying with subsectionl'a). For purposes of this subsection, "extenuating circumstances" shall mean such thinqs as rock and other existing physical site features..Building size, location and other factors that are primarily the proprietary interest of the owner are not, in and of themselves, iustification for" apprOval .of a mOdification of,the 2:1 qradient.limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county engineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the' county engineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county engineer shall identify all land stabilizatiOn,measures that must be installed as'a condition of' granting the authorization provided in this'subsection; provided that, in'areas of a lot or l)arcel which the county enqineer determines to be predominantly rock, the counW enqineer may grant authorization without requiring land stabilization measures. C__:.. This section 4.2.01 shall not apl)Iv to any constructed embankment established as part of a public improvement proiect of a state or federal agency. Sec. 4.2.1. Building site required. No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. Fc~r purp~s~a c,f L,,,o o~,~L,,~,,, . V~IIL~--IIV~ ~G~ ~IVGIIL ~O ~L~IIilII'I~ ~ I~1~1~11~ L~ ~ILII~,I LV~U~I~IIIV ~U~I~II~I~ IllO~G UI LII~ ~l~l~l ~UiV~ -- U.~. ~ILIII~IIL ~1 IIIL~II~I ~UIIL~UI IIIL~IV~I LVV~IIL~ L~j I~L) ~1 ~ G~UI~ U~LGIIIIIII~U ~ LII~ ~UIIL~ ~ll~lil~l L~ U~ ~1 OU~IIUI ~1~ 3 Draft: March 31, 1998 ~-, ,_,,.J'-~..,,J ,~1 ,,.] ~1~;,-- A.f ....... I,.I:A .,.,].:--I.: ...... ~.A. ; ............ ;,l.L.,.:~ Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and impr°yoments, ExcePt as otherwise .... ~,~,,,,,.[~,~:'*~-' ~, ......... o~,~, ,'t~_: au;rhorized by section 4.2.2 and section 4.2.0, the provisions ofthis section 4.2.3 shall apply to the location of any structure for which a permit is required ~ bvthe Virc_linia Uniform Statewide Building Gode and to any improvement shown on a site ~ plan ~ required by section 32.0 of this ~ chapter. Sec-: 4;2.3~1. Placement On buildinq site'. No structure or improvement, other than driveways, 'public utility lines and appurtenances, and' stormwater.manaqement facilities, shall be located on any lot or' parcel in any area other than a building site. 'Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictionS. N° structur% o~ improvement_~ nor eaf~ land disturbing, activity to establish such structure or improvement_, shall be' located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, except as otherwise permitted under secti°n 4.3.01- Sec. 4.2.6.2 Exception for exiSting lots or parcels. Except as provided in sections 30.8.5.a and 30.8.5.b of this chapter, Aany lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of this.ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single- family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the purposes of this section a mobile home shall be deemed a single-family detached dwelling unit. 4 Draft: March 31, 1998 Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay' district Sec. 30.8.1. Intent The mountain overlay district is intended to proteCt and promote those resources characteristic of 1 or'dependent on, the mountainous regions of the coUnty, and includes protectinq water quality and public drinkinq water-reservoir capacity, pmmotinq soil conserVation and the COnservation .of forest resources, plant habitat, animal habitat, and scenic values associated with the mountains of the county, protectinq and promoting the economic impact of these resources and'tourism1, and promotinq public safety, by,- amonq other thinqs; controllinq land disturbing aCtivities in mountain areas that can contribute toot be impacted by debris flows and providing that roadS be designed and constructed to accommodate the passaqe of fire and emergency Vehicles. In establishing the mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds that mountain areas are unique and distinct from the lower eleVations of the county that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes that extend for greater distances than critical' slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper The board of supervisors further finds that the cumulative effect of Iotsor parcels less than twenty-one ('21) acres and associated building sites typically poses significantly greater Public safety and welfare concerns in .mountainous areas than. sinqle buildinq sitesOn larqer lots or parcels. These concerns are due to cumulative sOil erosion and runoff effects from a hiqher proportiOn of impervious surfaces in close proximity to extensive critical slopes, to physiographic difficulties of providinq adequate.fire and emergency vehicle access to multiple buildings, to the qreater likelihood of scenic impact from multiple buildings on the-reqion's toUrism and. other economic sectOrs, to increased dsk from debds flows, andto increased impacts~on plant and animal-habitats and aqricultural and forestry activities. Sec: 30.8.2. Establishment of district boundaries. The boundaries of the mountain oVedav district, the ridge areas, and the ridgelines are identified on~ and.established by, the official zoninq map approved by the board of supervisors .and administered by the zoning administrato.r. Sec. 30.8.3. Permi~ed uses. Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 30.8,3.1. By right. The uses identified as being permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted in the mountain overlay district by right, except for lots or parcels of less than twenty-one (21) acres or multiple dwellinqs on any lot or parcel if the density on the lot or parcel is greater than one (1) dwelling .unit per twenty-one (21) acreS. Sec. 30.8.3.2. By special use permit. The uses identified as being allowed by a special use permit in the underlyinq zoning district, and lots or parcels-of .less than twenty-one '(21) acres or multiple dwel!inqs on any lot or parcel otherwise permitted by right.in the underlying zoning district if the density on the lot or parcel is greater than.,one (1) dwelling unit per twenty-one (21) acres, shall be allowed in the mountain overlay district only by a special use permit approved by the :board of*supervisors pursuant to section 3 t.2.4. Sec. 30.8.4. Density. 'Each lot o~' parCel` created shall comply with the f°li0Winq: a_. No I°t or parcel shall be entirely within a ridqe area. b_. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of a ridge area. c__. The' building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the.mountain overlay district if a building site exists outside of the mountain overlay district. Sec. 30.8.5. Location of building sites; In,'addition to all Other-regulations pertaininq t°buildinq sites'contained in this chapter, the following shall apply to each building site on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: ' ' '- The building site shall be located outside of the ridge area, Unless: (i) the lot or parcel is entirely within the ridge area, or the lot or parcel is both within and without the ridqe area but the only buildinq site is within the ridge area; and (ii) the buildinq site is'for the firStrsingle family dWelling unit on the lot or parcel. The building site shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district, unless the lot or parcel is entirely within the mountain overlay district, .or the lot or parcel ~s both within and withOut the mountain overlay district but the only building site is within the mountain overlay district. 6 Draft: March 31, 1998 Sec. 30.8.6. Private roads. In addition to any other requirement for a private road approved pursuant to the. subdivision ordinance, any part of a private road Which is located within the mountain overlay district shall also comply with the followinq standards. a_. Each embankment constructed, which the county engineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2) -feet or greater~ shall be Subject to the following: 1_. The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). 2~ _ Notwiths~ndincj subsection (a)(1), dUrin'q construction, the county engineer may' authoriZe a constructed'embankment with a qradient not exceeding one. and one-half (1:5) feet of horizontal diStance for each one (1) foot Of.vertical dsebr fall (1.5:1) if the owner establisheS to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that: (ii extenuating circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or greater water quality and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complying with subsection (a)(1):. For purposes of.this subsection, "extenuatinq circumstances" shall mean such thinqs .as rock and other existing phySical~site features. This determination maybe made prior to construction 'in' .cases where the owner provides to the'cobnty enqineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient' to enable the 'county enqineer to make a deCision. The owner shall submit to the county engineer all information requested by him in order:to consider the request. The county engineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed asa conditiOn of qrantinq the authorization :.prOvided in this SubsectiOn; provided that, in areas of the private road which the"county engineer determiner to be predominantly rock, the County enqineermay grant authorization without'requiring land stabilization measUres..,,~ _. b_.,/ -;Th'e radius for the horizontal curvature of a priVate road shall be forty (40) feet or greater, except for that portion of the road which is'a turnarOund or a parking space. Sec. 30.8.7. Exempt structures. The following structures within the mountain overlay district shall be exempt from any requirement of seCtions 3018.4, 30.8.5 and 31.2.2.aof this' chapter: 7 Draft: March 31, 1998 An accessory buildinq of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not including porches; A structure, which is not a buildinq, less than twenty feet in height.; A structure used exclusively for production aqricultUral Or forestal purposes; Sec. A tower used for the purpOse'of.s.upPortinq one or more antennae for radio, television, microwave or wireless telecommunications. '30.8.8. Relief from" district 'requirements, A lot or parcel, or any. part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to' section30.8.2 to be within the mountain .overlay district or the ridge area shall nOt be subiect to the requirements of this sectiOn 30.8, section 31.2.2.'a.2.a, or section 31.2.2.b;2, if the owner of the lot or parCel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that it is below the appliCableminimum elevation or outside of the .ridge area, as provided herein, ~ a~ in O~der~o ~make such a demonstration, the owner Shall submit to the county enqineer a certificate from a licensed land surveyor:that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the applicable minimum elevation of the'mountain overlay district as'described in subsection (b), Or 0utside of the ridge area. The certification Shall be based upon datum Which coincides with United States Geological Survey 1927 North American datum, or SUch Other datum acceptable to the county engineer. .._.. The mountain overlay district encom pas§es those mountainous :areas of the county at and aboVe.the seven hundred ("700), eight hundred ('800), nine hundred (900), One thousand (1 ,.000) orone.thousand two hundred (1,200) foot elevationS, depending on the location of the mountainous area in the county. The locations of these mountainous areas, and the minimum elevations of the mountain overlay district that apply to them, are shown onthe map approved by the board of supervisors .entitled "Proposed Mountain Overlay District Elevation Map, dated April 1, 1998.''--, ~.- Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall revieW each application for a building permit to ensure that the building or structure proposed,o =- ,,, :"' '~'-'-'-"'''~'''-~--A*'--''~'"~'A ...=,'.,,,,, tbs tsrms complies with the requirements of this ~ chapter. - Draft: March 31, 1998 Each applicant shall submit the following information to the zoninq administrator for review prior to issuance of a building permit: _1. Fo,.h-.-- o~,~,,,,.,~,,,---'-'~-' o,,,~,,~'- ~" ~,,,,v,,,~='~ If no Part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most.recent plat of record of the land to be ~3uilt upon unless no such plat exists, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. 2___. If the land is/ocated within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: _ a_. Evidence which establishes that the location of the building site on the lot or parcel .complies with sections 4.2, 30.8.4 and 30.8.5 of this chapter:. :Evidence demonstratinq such compliance.shall be either: (i).a final plat approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance; or ('ii) if the lot or parcel was created prior to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared by a professional enqineer or land surveyor which shows the location of the buildinq site on the lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification signed by a professional enqineer or land surveyor stating that the buildinq site upon which the structure will be constructed complies with all of the buildinq site requirements of this chapter; and b_._ Evidence from.the department of enqineerinq and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an agreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application ,m,~y '- ...... :'~" No permit to construct, reconstruct, enlarqe, extend, expand or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: Nc, permito,-~'-",o,, ~,~.~ ,oo,,~,,: ..... -' ', =For any construction for which a site de~etopmefft plan is required to be approved by the comm~sslon in accordance with section 32.0 of this ~ chapter, unless and until pi -~'-" ~' .... ~' ..... roved Thereafter, any item .... ~' the site an o,,,~,, ,,ov~ .... , o,, is app . shown on svCh the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in scc,.,,,.,=, ,,..~ ,.,,,, ,,,~ ,~,,,,.. corn anco with the requirements of this ~ chapter; or 9 Draft: March 31, 1998 2--' For any construction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unlesS and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1,4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2~30.8.4 and 30.8.5~ and the water protection' ordinance. In determininq such compliance, the zoning administrator shall consult with the department'of planninq and.' communitwdeVelopment and the department of enqineering and public works, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to whether such requirements of this chapter have been satisfiedr.~'The department 'of enqineering and public works shall also advise the zoninq administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building Ar use is in conformity,with the provisions of this ~ chapter; a.permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator.. One (1)copy of the drawing shall .be returned to the'applicant with the permit. I:\GEN ERAL\SHARE~ASCALA~VITN 10.ORD 1 0 ATTACHMENT C ~raA:-iviay'28, ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained by adding sections 4.2.01, 30.8, 30.8.1, 30.8.2, 30.8.3, 30.8.3.1, 30.8.3.2, 30.8.4, 30.8.5, 30.8.6, 30.8.7 and 30.8.8, and by amending sections 3.0, 4.2.1,4.2.3, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2, 4.2.6.2 and 31.2.2, as folloWs: By Adding New: Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments: Article III. District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Sec. 30.8.1. Sec. 30.8.2. SeC. 30.8.3. Sec.. 30.8.3.1. Sec.. 30.8.3.2. Sec. 30.8.4, Sec. 30.8.5. Sec. 30.8.6. Sec. 30.8.7. Sec. 30.8.8. Mountain overlay district. Intent. Establishment of district boundaries. Permitted uses. By right. By special use permit. Location of lots and building sites. Private roads. Exempt structures. Relief from district requirements. Grandfathered dwelling units. By Amending: Article I. General Provisions Sec. 3.0. Definitions. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.2.1. Sec. 4.2.3. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Sec. 4.2.6.2. Building site required. Location of structures and improvements. Placement on building site. Slope restrictions. Exception for existing lots. Draft: May 28, 1998 Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. CHAPTER 20. Zoning Article I. General Provisions Section 3.0. Definitions. Building site: A contiguous area of land in slopes of less than twenty-five (25)percent as determined by reference to either United States Geologic Survey topographic survey maps (contour interval twenty'J20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accuracy, and which does not include land which is: (i) underwater; (ii) within the flood hazard overlay district; (iii) within the one hundred ('100) year flood plain of a natural stream identified on a site plan or on a plat; or (iv) within a stream buffer identified in the water protection ordinance except as otherwise'allowed therein. Land disturbing activity: Anv land change which may result in soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediments into stateWaters or onto lands in the Commonwealth, including, but not limited to, clearing, grading, excavatinq, transportinq and filling of land. Peak: The uppermost elevation of a land formation within the mountain overlay district which rises at least twenty (20) feet above the surrounding land, as delineated on United States Geologic Survey topographic survey maps. Ridge area: All land within one hundred (100) vertical feet of, and including, the ridqeline and peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Ridgeline: The uppermost line created by connecting'the peaks of a mountain or chain of mountains, and from which land declines in elevation: on at least two (2) sides, as identified on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2. Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 4.0. General Regulations. 2 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 4.2.01. Constructed embankments. Fach embankment constructed on a lot or parcel in order to establish a driveway, accessway, or buildinq pad, which the county engineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2) feet or greater, shall be subject to the followin.q:. The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two (2) feet of horizontal distance for ea'ch one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). Notwithstanding subsection (a}, during construction the county engineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a gradient not exceedinq one and one-half (1.5) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (1.5:1} if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that: (i) extenuating circumstances exist; and (ii} equal or greater water quality and land stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complying with subsection (a}. For purposes of this subsection, "extenuatinq circumstances" shall mean suchthings as rock and other existing physical site features. Buildinq size, location and other factors that are primarily the_ proprietary interest of the owner are not, in. and of themselves, iustification for approval of a. modification of the 2:1 gradient limitation. This determination may be made prior to construction in caseswhere the owner provides tothe County engineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county enqineer to make a decision. The owner shall submit to the county engineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county enqineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition of grantinq the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in areas of a lot or parcel which the county engineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county engineer may qrant authorization without requiring land stabilization .measures. This section 4.2.01 shall not apply to any constructed embankment established as part of a public improvement project of a state or federal agency. Sec. 4.2.1. Building site required. No lot or parcel shall have less than one (1) building site. For purposes IIIC~.~.~ ~1 LiI~;~ ~....Jt~,~,~J',,-2~l~rC~ll ,..)Ulv~y - ~.~.~..J. I_/~;;~.,,C~l LIIl~;;llL ~1 IIILI~II'~'I ~.~.~'~,,FI IIJ~Jl'-JI III1,~;~1VC~II Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 4.2.3. Location of structures and improvements. Except as otherwise permitted pursuant to authorized by section 4.2.2 and section 4.2.6, the Provisions of this section 4.2.3 shall apply to the location of any structure for which a permit is required ~ bv the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code and to any improvement shown on a site 6~ plan pt~reuaf~t-to required by section 32.0 of this ordiffaf~ chapter. Sec. 4.2.3.1. Placement on building site. No structure or improvement, other than driveWays, public utility lines and appurtenances, fences, and stormwater managementfacilities, shall be located on any lot or parcel in any area other than a building site. Sec. 4.2.3.2. Slope restrictions. No structure_~ o~ improvement_, f~or earth land disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvemenL_ shall be located on slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater, except as otherwise permitted under section 4.3.01. Sec. 4.2.6.2 ExceptiOn for existing lots or parcels. Except as provided in sections 30..8.4.b.1 and 30.8.4.b.2 of this chapter, Aany lot or parcel of record which was lawfully a lot of record on the effective date of t~is ordinance shall be exempt from the requirements of section 4.2 for the establishment of the first single-family detached dwelling unit on such lot or parcel; provided that section 4.2.3.2 shall apply to such lot or parcel if the same shall contain adequate land area in slopes of less than twenty-five (25) percent of for the location of such structure. For the 4 Draft: May 28, 1998 purposes of this section a mobile home shall be deemed a single-family detached dwelling unit. Article III. ,District Regulations Sec. 30.8. Mountain overlay district Sec. 30.8.1. Intent The mountain overlay district is intended to protect and promote those resources characteristic of, or dependent on, the mountainous reqions of the county, and includes protecting water quality and public drinkinq water reservoir capacity, promotinq soil conservation and the conservation of forest resources, plant habitat, animal habitat, and scenic values associated with the mountains of the county, protectinq and promoting the economic impact of these resources and tourism, and promoting public safety, by, among other thinqs, controlling land diSturbing activities in mountain areas that can contribute to or be impacted by debris flows and providing that roads be designed and constructed to accommodate the passage of fire and emergency vehicles. In establishinq the mountain overlay district, the board of supervisors finds that mountain areas are unique and ,distinct from the-lOwer elevations of the county that also may contain critical slopes because mountains, by their nature, are a system of slopes' that extend for q reater distances than critical slopes at lower elevations and which may be considerably steeper. It is the intent of the bOard of supervisors that the boundaries of the mountain overlay distdct encompass those mountainous areas of the county at and above the seven hundred (700), eight hundred (80Q), nine hUndred (900~, one thousand (1,000) or one thousand two hundred (1,200) foot elevations, and that the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain.overlay distdct shall depend on the location of the mountainous area in the county, as shown on the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors pt)rsuant to section 30.8.2. * Sec. 30.8.2. Establishment of district boundaries. The boundaries of the mountain overlay district, the ridge areas, and the ridgelines are identified on, and established by, the official zoning map approved by the board of supervisors and administered by the zoning administrator. Sec. 30.8.3. Permitted uses, 5 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 30.8.3.1. By right. The uses identified as being permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted in the mountain overlay district by right. Sec. 30.8.3.2. By special use permit. The uses identified as being allOwed by a special use permit in the underlying zoning district shall be allowed in the mountain overlay district only by a special use permit approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4 Sec. 30.8.4. Location of lots and building sites. Each lot or parcel created shall comply with the following: 1_. No lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridge area. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of a ridge area. The building site on the lOt or parcel shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district if a building site exists outside of the mountain overlay district. Each existing lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district shall comply with the following: The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the ridge: area, unless: (i) the lot or parcel is entirely,within the ridge area, or the lot or parcel is both within and. without the ridge area but the only building site, is within the ridge area; and (ii) the building site is for the first single family dwelling unit on the lot or parcel. The building site on the lot or parcel shall be located outside of the mountain overlay district, unless the lot or parcel is entirely within the mountain overlay district, Or the lot or parcel is both within and without the mountain overlay district but the only buildinq site is within the mountain overlay district. 6 Draft: May 28, 1998 An accessory buildinq of less than five hundred (500) square feet of interior floor area, not including porches; b_. A structure, which is not a building, less than twenty feet in height; c_. A structure used exclusiVely for production agricultural or forestal purposes; Sec. 30.8.7. Relief from district requirements. A tower used for the purpose of supportinq one or more antennae for radio, television, microwave or wireless telecommunications. A lot or parcel, or any part thereof, shown on the map approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 30.8.2 to be within the mountain overlay district or the ridge area shall not be subject to the requirements of this section 30.8, section 31.2.2.a.2.a, or section 31.2.2:b.2., if the owner of the lot or parcel demonstrates to the satisfaction of the county engineer.that it is below the applicable minimum elevation or outside of the ridge area, as provided herein. a_. In order to make such a demonstration, the owner shall submit to the county engi.neer a certificate from a 'licensed land surveyor that the lot or parcel, or part thereof, is below the applicable minimum elevation of the mountain overlay district as described in section 30.8.1, or outside of the ridge area. The certification shall be based upon datum which coincides with United States Geological Survey 1927 North American datum,with benchmark acceptable to the county engineer. Sec. 30.8.8. Grandfathered dwelling units. The provisions of this section 30.8 shall not apply to any single family dwelling unit legally existing on June 10, 1998. Such dwelling units shall not be deemed to be nonconforming dwelling units because of their inability to meet the requirementS of this section 30.8. Article IV. Procedure Sec. 31.2.2. Building permits. The zoning administrator shall review each application for a building permit to ensure · ' ~ .... -' ....... ~'~- '~-~ · .... complies with the that the building or structure proposed ;s ;n ,~,,,.~, ~,~,, ,,.~ v,,,,, ,, ,~ ,~, ,,,o requirements of this ~ chapter. 8 Draft: May 28, 1998 Sec. 30.8.5. Private roads. In addition to any other requirement for a private road approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance, any par[ of a private road which is located within the mountain overlay district shall also comply with the following standards. Each embankment constructed, which the county engineer determines to result in a vertical rise or fall of two (2) feet or greater, shall be subject to the following: The constructed embankment shall not have a gradient which exceeds two (2) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1).foot of vertical rise or fall (2:1). NotWithstanding subsection (a)(1), during construction, the county engineer may authorize a constructed embankment with a gradient not exceeding one and one-half (1.5) feet of horizontal distance for each one (1) foot of vertical rise or fall (1.5:1} if the owner establishes to the satisfaction of the county enqineer that: (i) extenuating circumstances exist; and (ii) equal or greater water quality and land .stabilization can be achieved by such authorization, rather than by complyinq with subsection (a)(1). For purposes of this subsectiOn, "extenuating circumstances" shall mean such things as rock and other existing physical site features. This determination may be made prior to construction in cases where the owner provides to the county engineer detailed site evaluation data sufficient to enable the county enqineer to make a decision. The owner shall submitTtO the county engineer all information requested by him in order to consider the request. The county engineer shall identify all land stabilization measures that must be installed as a condition of granting the authorization provided in this subsection; provided that, in. areas of the private road which the county engineer determines to be predominantly rock, the county-engineer may grant authorization without requiring land stabilization measures. The radius for the horizontal curvature of a private road shall be forty (40) feet or greater on centerline, except for that portiOn of the road which is a turnaround or a parking space. Sec. 30.8.6. Exempt structures. The following structures within the mountain overlay ,district shall be exempt from any requirement of sections 30.8.4 and 31.2.2.a of this chapter: 7 Draft: May 28, 1998 Each applicant shall submit the following information to the zoning administrator for review prior to issuance of a building permit: ,..,~,.,, =~,~,,,,.,,~,,, o, ,.=,, ~, ~,,,,~ If no part of the land is within the mountain overlay district, a copy of the most recent plat of record .of the land to be built upon unless no such plat exists,, in which case the application shall provide a copy of the most recent deed description thereof. 2_ If the land is lOcated within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district: Evidence which establishes that the location of the building site 'on the lot or parcel complies with sections 4.2 and 30.8.4 of this chapter. Evidence demonstrating such compliance shall be either: (i) a final plat approved pursuant to the subdivision ordinance; or 0i) if the lot or parcel was created prior to the date of adoption of the subdivision ordinance, then a depiction on a boundary survey prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor which shows the location of the building site on 'the lot or parcel; the boundary survey shall be accompanied by written verification siqned by a professional engineer or land surveyor stating that the building site upon which the structure will be constructed complies with all of the building site requirements of this chapter; and Evidence from the department of engineerinq and public works that an erosion and sediment control plan or an agreement in lieu of a plan has been approved, or that neither is required. Any other information which the zoning administrator may deem necessary for consideration of the application may ~' ...... :'~" No permit to construct, reconstruct, enlarqe, extend, expand or structurally alter a structure shall be issued: .= ,,~, ~,~,,, ,,, o, ,o,, ~,~ ,oo,,~,, f=For any construction for which a site ~-~vetopme~ plan is required to be approved by th~ cc, m,,m[s'sion in accordance with section 32.0 of this ~ chapter, unless and until such the site ~'~" ~' .... ~' ..... plan s, ,,~,,, ,,~w ~,~,, o~, --_is approved. Thereafter, any item shown on such the plan as approved shall be deemed prima facie to be in .... · ~ ....... ;'~: '~ terms compliance with the requirements of this ~ chapter; or 9 Draft: May 28, 1998 For any construction on a lot or parcel which is within, in whole or in part, the mountain overlay district, unless and until the applicant demonstrates compliance with this chapter, and in particular sections 4.2.1, 4.2.3.1, 4.2.3.2 and 30.8.4, and the water protection ordinance. In determining such compliance, the zoning administrator shall consult with the departmentof planning and community development and the department of engineering and public works, who shall advise,the zoning administrator as to whether such requirements of this chapter have been satisfied. The department of engineering and public works shall, also advise the zoning administrator as to whether the requirements of the water protection ordinance have been satisfied. If the proposed building or use is in conformity with the provisions of this Ordiftar,~ chapter, a permit shall be issued to the applicant by the zoning administrator. One (1) copy of the drawing shall be returned to the applicant with the permit. C:~MARY~SCALA\MTN 11 PC.ORD 10 ATTACHMENT D County of Albemarle PropoSed Mountain Protection Plan FINAL REPORT MoUntain Protection Committee AUgUst 1, 1996 Proposed Mountain Protection Plan Where has Nature spread so rich a mantle under the eye? Mountains, forests, rocks, rivers. With what majesty do we there ride abOve the storms! How sublime to look down into the workhouse of nature, to see her clouds, hail, snow, rain, thunder, all fabricated at our feet! And the glorious Sun, when rising as if out of a distant water, just gilding the tops of the mountains, and giving life to all nature. --Thomas ~JeffersOn on Albemarle's mountains FINAL REPORT Mountain Protection Committee August 1, 1996 MOUNTAIN PROTECTION COMMITTEE The Mountain Protection Committee consisting of 12 citizens Supervisors, met regularly from June, 1995 through July, 1996. appointed by the Board of The Committee.reviewed existing County .ordinances and regulations to assess the degree to which these public values are adequately protected at present. The Countyy attorney as well as the Piedmont Environmental Council's staff attorney and Page Gilliam, a member of the Mountain Protection Committee and an attorney, reviewed the constitutional issue of ta'king without just compensation and V~rginia legislative authority for local mountain protection. Other presentations were made by Natural Resource Conservation Service, Virginia Department of Forestry, County Department of Planning and Community Development, Department of Zoning, Building Inspections Department, the Water Resource Manager, and the County Design Planner. A member of the University of Virginia's Department of Astronomy gave a presentation and conducted a field trip on outdoor lighting and dark night sky as a natural resource. The Committee identified resources present in the mountainous areas of Albemarle County that it is in the public interest to protect: · public safety · soil · water quality and quantity · forest and agricultural resources · plant and animal habitat · scenic resources and their economic impact · dark sky · tourism The C°mmitt~e reviewed' ordinances pertaining to moUntain protection from oth& localities in Virginia. The Clarke County Mountain Land Plan (1994) provides the closest parallel in Virgima, seeking to protect, "forest resources, surface water quality, ground water, wildlife habitats and ecosystems; scenic values, and well-sited development compatible with the above five resources." The Committee also considered the balance between public values and the prixTate interests of the mountain landowners in developing recommendations. Finally, the Committee drafted recommendations that provide for the assurance of the health. safety and welfare of Countv residents, both within the mountain areas and throughout the County The Committee's draft recommendations will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors and citizens' groups for comment prior to presentation of a final report to the Board. Mountain Protection Committee members: David A. Tice, Chairman Timothy Michel, Vice Chin-man Sherry Buttrick Page Gilliam Peter Hallock Joseph Henley, Jr. Mark Lorenzoni William Nitchmann, Planning Commission halson Carleton Ray William Rieley Alexander Rives, ex-officio, Shenandoah National Park Sally Thomas, Board of SuperviSors liaison Mary Joy Scala, Staff Sixty-six percent (66%) of Albemarle households favor a regulation to preserve the appearance or character of highly visible mountains and ridges. - 1994 Albemarle County Planning Needs Survey, Center for Survey Research, University of Virginia INTRODUCTION Albemarle's mountains have been and continue to be a source of income, natural resources, scenic beauty, and recreation. In fact, mountains may be said to define much Of the character of Albemarle County. Directly and indirectly, the County's mountainous areas provide tens of millions of dollars to the local community in employment, tourism, and agricultural and forest products. Beyond the economic benefits, the mountains provide important natural functions, such as provision of clean water, contributions to healthy air, and habitats for many of the County's plant and animal species. And, to many residents, the blue backdrop of the mountains gives Albemarle County in large measure Its "sense of place," that quality which makes this area a special place to its residents and visitors and consistently ranked among the top places to live in the United States. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Delineation of a Mountain Overlay District describing the'area containing the critical resources of the mountains, and recommendations which ensure health and safety of the ~mountain area's residents and control possible degradation of County's resources from activities within the District. These recommendations are applicable exclusively within the Mountain Overlay District. ' 2. Recommendation of County-wide application: Lighting Ordinance. ADDITIONAL PLANNING TOOLS Recommendations in this category assert the fundamental premise that planning for a sustainable future of the County must examine the County, its resources and developmental needs, from a comprehensive point of view. These strategies for the protection of mountain resources benefiting the County and City of Charlottesville proceed from the assumption of an interrelation between healthy rural and healthy urban areas. ALBEMARLE'S MOUNTAIN RESOURCES Albemarle's mountain~:'are unique areas of the County natural resources and physical conditions listed below. found in other areas'~Of t~"County, but only in the mountains combination, as extensiVely~ and to such extremes. Critical Slope~il found steep land become on side slopes these areas. di~tlnguished by the ~IIS are ~:occur in such mountains continuous critical slopes-iff excess of.50% can be Ie, and in some cases, longer. Concerns regarding disturbance of areas due to generally shallow soils and length of grade and septic system contaminafi0iq'are amplified in Soil: Forest ¢ quality. Soils isolated lc roads over more hi roads Agriculture affect the rate ~ cover and soil tyt on an to 600 feet, as,' in Comprehensive' or surface construction Water addition to Reservoir befo~'e annually as a appreciable capacity. and use fOr minimizing so. il erosion and maximizing water ;are ~Wpically mole erodible than in in mountain a:i~eas dible gOils than in othef'areas of~ :aiea than a dwellin 'Both the length 's!0Pe3 ~the ,°ilfifi0n )iems~. !Ifiaccessibility and and access ~s and access Department of )e substantially 'variables such as than soil loss sample 72 feet Albemarle County use and ground sy stem s, Albemarle C6unty Comprehensive PI an~. lic dr irs in i:dt Buck Mountain ns 0~i'storage capacity by; ~ontrast, loses no "Goal: Protect the County's surface water and ground water supplies for the benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests .... Protection of water resources is of vital importance to Albemarle County and Virginia in general. Albemarle's location adjacent to the Blue Ridge Mountains provides both. the advantage of clean headwaters, and a responsibility to protect them. The CounW's Rural Areas play a crucial role in water supply protection...The maintenance of pasture and especially forestal areas is generally beneficial to water quality." (p.57) Sugar Hollowi~eservoirWith Log Debris, J~ne, 1995 Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray Forest and Agricultural Resources: Now that The Eastern Deciduous Forest. largely cut during the 18th and 19th centuries, is returning, the mountains of the County are almost entirely in forest cover, with the remaining acreage in orchards and pasture. The principal threat to the County's mountain forests and farms has now become fragmentation and conversion to residential land use. The County's Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee states." Continued forest fragmentation is probably the biggest threat to the future viability of the forest industry in Albemarle County...As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economically. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." A viable forest industry is an essential economic incentive to maintenance of forestland. The Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County places agriculture and forestry above residential land use in importance in the County's Rural Areas. The Mountain areas are zoned almost exclusively Rural Areas. The Rabun-Myersville-Catoctin soil association on the Southwest-Carters Mountain chain is among the most productive hardwood forest soils in the' Commonwealth. A Mountain Orchard Near Covesville Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray Debris Flows: The U.S. Geological Survey's report, Landslide and Debris-Flow Hazards Caused by the June 27.1995 Storm in Madison Count. Virginia, states the following: Fast moving flows of mud and rock, called debris flows, are among the most destructive types of landslides and are responsible for substantial damage and loss of life worldwide...Their consistency ranges from watery mud to stiff, rocky mud similar to wet concrete and dense enough to carry boulders, trees and cars .... Debris flows are triggered predominantly by adding moisture to soil on steep slopes faster than the moisture can drain away leading to a temporary condition of perched water in the soil .... They commonly start on steep hillsides as shallow soil slides that liquify, accelerate to speeds of 35 miles per hour or more, and flow down hillslopes and channels until slowing on more gentle ground. The North Fork of the Moorman's River experienced debris flows during the June, 1995 flood. Some of the Moorman's debris flows were thousands of feet long, and created massive swaths of destruction. Debris flows are recun-ing episodes. Portions of Albemafle's mountains also experienced flows from Hurricane Camille in 19691 Moorman's River Debris Flow, June, 1995 Ph0t0graPl~"coUrfesy of G. Carleton Ray Plant and Animal Habitat: Although a number of native species such as the white-tailed deer nearly vanished by the early 1900's have recovered~ losses of native biological diversity (number of plant and animal species and number of individuals in each species)area Significant concern. A number of eastern migratory songbirds are in decline, almost without doubt due to human activities. 6 Those declines are caused by several factors, most importantly, fragmentation of habitat-- the dividing of large areas into smaller parcels, and the resulting disruption of forest cover. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan: "Wildlife is a renewable natural resource which requires both protection and harvesting for'proper management. The mountainous areas oft he CounD' contain the more dense populations of wildlife..." (p.75) Scenic Resources and their economic impact: Albemarle County is well known for its scenic character. Maintaining this character is important to current residents and ro prospective residents and tourists. A number of highly visible structures constructed recently have occasioned public concern about the continued scenic quality of the mountain landscape. Public expression of concern suggests that the scenic quality of the mountains is important To County residents. Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan states, "Objective: Preserve the County's scenic resources as being essential to the Cou.nty's rural character, economic vitality, and quality of life. (p.83). An "issue that is of importance to'visual impact is the horizon. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge in the County will modify the visual character of an entire area."(p,87) UVA Observatory, Fan Mountain Photograph courtesy of G. Carleton Ray Dark Sky: Excessive outdoor lighting in the urban and developed areas of the County is increasing. The natural resource of dark night sky and its importance to the University's Observatories has been insufficiently considered in planning processes in the County. Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more than a billion dollars a year (International Dark Sky Association, 1990) Poorly designed outdoor lighting creates glare, which compromises safety especially for drivers, degrades the quality of the entrance corridors leading to the City and degrades the quality of the built environment. Tourism: Tourism and associated economic benefits related to the mountains continue to grow in the county. Travel sales in 1994 accounted for 17% of total sales or $109.139.211 in the County. Each year approximately 1,985,000 people visit Shenandoah National Park. Direct economic bene~t to counties adjoining the Park is approximately 85 million dollars per year. In 1990 there were 550,183 visitors to Monticello, which translates into over 159 million dollars in revenue to the County. ~PS DeVelOpmenl-'~re~i ' Photograph courtesy of G: Carleion R~ HISTORY OF MOUNTAIN PROTECTION IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING Mountain resource protection efforts began in 1971 with the adoption of the CounD"s first Comprehensive Plan. One of the Plan's six Goals was: Respect conservation values, including the preservation of stream valleys, mountain slopes, watersheds and other open space areas~ The Land Use Plan delineated the mountains, as conservation areas. The Natural ResOurce Objective was: Albemarle County is rich in natural resources which include beautiful stream valleys; scenic mountains, abundant woodlands, wildlife habitations., and mineral deposits. All of these resources are irreplaCeable assets which deserv6 recognition, protection, and proper management. A strategy was: Mountain slopes of 15% or greater should be built upon only under carefully exercised controls; slopes of 25% or greater should not be allowed to develop The 1977 Comprehensive Plan contained the following Goal for the Conservation of Natural Resources: Conserve the County's environment and the balance of its natural ecology. This requires the cbnservation of water supply impoundment watersheds, the best agricultural land, mineral deposits, forests, steep slopes, hilltops/ridges, open space vistas, water quality in stream-s, and flood hazard areas: These areas should be protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and residential development. A map of Conservation Areas included hilltops, major ridge lines; slopes over t5.%, Streams/rivers and their'valleys, and the Rivanna Reservoir watershed. In addition, conservauon measures were also proposed for the County's woodlands. Hillside development standards were proposed on slopes exceeding 15%, which included road construction, grading and drainage standards. In 1980 a new zoning ordinance was adopted, which included the Rural Areas zoning district to restrict rural development rights, and the critical slopes provisions. Nearly every mountain is zoned Rural Areas, and is affected by the development rights restrictions, except two small peaks in the Urban Growth Area. Th~.critical slopes provisions require a building site, a contiguous area of land in slopes of less than 25%. The regulation is intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of those areas described in the Comprehensive Plan as critical slopes. It is hereby recognized that sudh development of critical 'slopes may result in: rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater run-off; siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and in the 9 event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, all of which constitute Potential dangers to the public health, safety and/or welfare The 1982 Comprehensive Plan included environmental standards to protect and conserve natural resources. The Plan states: Clearing, grading, building, cropping or overgrazing of critical slopes can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and rock; excessive stormwate~- runoff'; increased siltation and sedimentation of natural and man-made bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource and in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent. The 1989 cc;mprehensive Plan states that, Natural, scenic, and historic resources are essential to Albemarle County's rural character, economic vitality and quality of life. The Plan notes the strong relationship between these environmental resources, 'water supply protection, and agricultural/forestry, preservation, which are the major resons for protecting the Rural Area. The Plan also notes the interdependency of environmental resources, For example, the maintenance of forested areas protects surface water quality, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, groundwater recharge areas, and air quality. The I989.Plan also discusses design standards for scenic resources. In a county with as much varied topography as Albemarle, the' natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual 'characterof an entire area, The Plan recommended adoption of an Open Space and Critical Resources Plan, to identify and to develop protection measures ~for significant natural and scenic resources, including critical slopes, important wildlife habitat, wooded areas of environmental importance, and hilltops and ridges. The Open Space Plan, adopted July 15, 1992 as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan , identifies Mountains as one of four major open space systems which are the most important open space lands to protect. It lists resources associated with mountains: critical slopes, scenic views, wildlife habitat, extensive forests, unique soils for orchards,, natural areas (including.. geologic features, and habitats for rare and endangered plants and animals), and headwaters. The Open Space Plan defines mountains by a designated elevation contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. The Open Space Plan recommends the following strategy which was also added to the Comprehensive Plan action agenda: "Develop a mountain protection district to protect the scenic and aesthetic values associated with mountains, and to further protect their environmental characteristics." The Plan states: Visual concerns related to mountains center on diSruption of the relatively pristine wooded character which provides a sense of continuity, natural beauty, and wilderness. Extensive critical slopes, .combined with high elevations, result in a prominent display of changes to the mountain landscape. Activities whiCh alter the continuity of the ridgeline or result in excessive tree removal should be discouraged. 10 Environmental concerns include the loss to development of a unique and beneficial natural environment, and disruption of the natural balance of soils, slope and vegetation. While detailed studies have not been undertaken at this time. it is anticipated that due to the location of generalt.x unspoiled and extensive forests, together with a relatively small human and domestic animal population, mountains may be areas of comparative significance as "natural areas" and "wildlife habitats." Mountains also provide areas of unique soils suitable for orchards and vineyards between elevations of 800 - 1800 feet. Environmental benefits of undisturbed forests often associated with mountains include increased groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and climate modulation. In addition, concerns regarding disturbance of steep land become pronounced in mountainous regions due to generally shallow soils and length of grade on side slopes. Issues related to soil erosion, surface water runoff, and septic system contamination are amplified in these areas. EXISTING LAND USE REGULATIONS The mountain land is largely within the RUral Areas Zoning Classification which permits 5 small lot divisions per parcel with residual acreage divisible into lots of 21 acres or larger. Building requires a 30,000 sq. foot site of less than'25% slope; there are no current regulations limiting the slopes upon which driveways may be built or the steepness of driveways. The Southwest Mountains are recognized as a National and State Rural Historic District. No land use regulations accompany that designation. The Open Space Plan identifies the mountains as one of four major open space systems and defines the mountains by designated elevation contour lines. The Plan recommends adoption of regulations to protect mountains. 11 o: MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT ELEVATIOI~ 1000 Ft. OR MORE 900 Ft.. OR 800 Ft.. OR 700 I~L. OR MORE U~GS QUIDRANGLE~ 1:240~ ~ Gi,APH]CS IHV1SIO~.Dff*~T OY PLAIflfllIG r, COIhlUXtTT RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations for a Mountain Overlay District and Lighting Ordinance require specific amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. County Code. Subdivision Ordinance and Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. The legal basis for the proposed changes is Virginia Code Section 15.1 - 489, "Purpose of Z0ning Ordinances" (see Appendix-2). 1. MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT AMENDMENTS TO ZONING ORDINANCE Section 30.7 MOUNTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT I. Des~ as .Mountain Overlay District ~hese ]ands identifie___ d on the Concept Map of the 1992_ .Open Space Plan as '.'Mountains" and listed in the Table entitled "Mountains."(See Appendix 1 ) Purpose and inieni: The purpose of designating a Mountain Ov~ri~/~~ District is to identify those areas of the County within which it is in the public interest to enact supplemental ~egulhtions or review in order to protect those resources characteristic of or dependent on the mountainous regions of the County: public safety, water quality,-public drinking water reservoir capacity, soil conservation, forest resources~ plant and animal habitat, scenic values associated with the mountains and their economic impact, and tourism. Application: The boundaries of this District are intended to encompass, mountain areas of critical slopes and areas above such critical slopes that are highly visible and may be dependent for access on the areas of critical slope beneath. The District's boundaries are delineated by contour line in the map labeled Mountain Overlay District and attached hereto and also found in the ~ Coun .ty Open Space Plan; the mountains to which the District is applicable and contour line above which the District applies are listed i~ the table entitled "Mountains." Definitions: For,purposes of this section, "Ridge" and "Crest" shall be defined as in the N.C. Gen. Stat. Sect. 113A-206: North Carolina's "Ridge Law" (1983): "Ridge": the elongated Crest or series of crests at the apex or uppermost poini of intersec'tiOn between two opposite slopes or sides of a mountain, and includ6s all land within 100 vertical feet below the elevation of any portion of such line or surface along the crest" as shOWn on'attached map. 13 "Crest": the uppermost line of a mountain or chain of mountains from which land fails away on at least two sides to a lower elevation or elevations." Permitted Uses: R-'-'L:~gm Uses permitted by fight shall include alt uses permitted by fight in the underlying districtsBY in accordance with the provisions hereinafter delineated. By Special Use Permit: Uses permitted by special use permit shall include all uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying districts in accordance with the provisions hereinafter delineated. Exceptions: 1) Agricultural buildings and associated farm and timber roads 2) Buildings of l':ess than 500 square feet of interior space not including porches. 3) Structures other than buildings of a height less than 20 feet, such as gazebos, water towers. Notes: Communication towers are currently permitted by Special Use Permit. discourages towers in the Mountain Overlay District except in existing tower farmS, requirement of a Special Permit. The Committee and supports the Regulations': Overlay District, Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during construction in these areas are particularly acute. Making all driveway construction meet the criteria of the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and comply with the provisions of that ordinance will substantially reduce on-site erosion and off-site deposition. Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and if necessary a soil erosion plan are required to be submitted for the construction of any Single family dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and 'would include the'driveway with the house; however, field staking of driveway centerlines and culvert locations will be acceptable iristead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance is included for clarity in these recommendations. Benefit/Cost: Erosion control does add to construction cost, but this cost, as in other areas where erosion control is required, is simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protection for future generations far outweighs the cost of these temporary consfruction measures. 14 r r h -nm m n inr r h n i I rn iv r nl h r isn !~--- 1- _= ~i_n n ih_ Ri =-- This provision is intended to prevent the development of concentrated runoff high on the mountains which may have negative impact on soil stability and water quality below. In addition. preservation of the natural horizon is a stated objective of the County's Comprehensive Plan (p.87) and is consistent with Va. Code Sect. 15.1-489 which includes "facilitat[ing] the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community" and p eservat~on of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment" among the enabled purposes of zoning regulations. Benefit/Cost: Little economic impact will be felt because most of the areas defined as Ridae are not curren0y accessible for building activity. The small economic gain of the building on the ~idge is offset many times by the damage inflicted on the lands of those below. c) Building sites: Building on parcels partially inside the Mountain Overlay District shall occu,' on the portion of the parcel outside the District unless it is demonstrated that a buildin~o site not available outside the DistricT, - This provision is intended to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive and visible portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without affecting the number of development rights on the parcel Development in remote locations is most costly to the County in terms of providing services. Benefit/Cost: This provision would benefit soil conservation, water quality and scenic resources by directing development away from environmentally sensitive areas, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways traversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and landslide. Administration would require a minimal amount of added staff time. d) Allocation of Development Rights: Subdivision of a parcel partially inside the Mountain Overlay District shall allocate all development rights for small lots to the portion of the parcel outside the Mountain Overlay District unless it can be demonstrated that legal buildine site:; outside the District do not exist, ' - - This provision is intended to direct development away from the most environmentally sensitive portions of those parcels partially within the Mountain District without .affecting the number of development rights on the parcel. Benefit/Cost: This provision would benefit soil conservation, water quality and scenic resources ' by directing development away from environmentally sensitive and visual portions of parcels, and lessening the length and impact of private driveways traversing steep slopes. It would limit the danger of wildfire and I andsli de. 15 r ! hi h r I I i n f m 111 i h Di ri This provision is intended to. prevent what would otherwise be avoidable impacts to public safety and welfare by creating situations in which there would be no alternative but to build m contradiction with the intent of this ordinance. AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ~yithin the boundary_ surve.~. Buildable areas shown on preliminary plats are not presently shown on the final plat. Therefore, the building inspector has no way of knowing if a house is being built in the area designated on the preliminary, plat because the building permit is issued according to the final plat, which shows no topography and does not locate the area designated as buildable on the preliminary plat. Further, the buildable areas are often identified on preliminary plats from County topography, which is 20-foot contour interval, interpolated to 5 foot contour interval -- too general to be reliable for this use. Benefit/Cost: The minimal expense of showing the buildable areas on the final plat would be offset t~y the assurance that the law can be efficiently enforced. AMENDMENTS TO EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ORDINANCE Overlay District. Because construction of driveways often disturbs large areas on steep slopes, the effects of erosion during construction in these areas are particularly acute. Making all driveway construction meet the criteria of the ~Erosion and Sediment Conn-ol Ordimmce and comply with the provisions 'of that ordinance will' substantially reduce on-site erosion and off-site deposition: Currently, a soil erosion agreement, and if necessary a soil erosion plan are required to be submitted for the construction of any single family dwelling. This proposed ordinance would require a plan instead of an agreement to be submitted, and would include the driveway with the house; however, field staking of driveway centerlines and culvert locations x~ill be acceptable instead of driveway plans and profiles. Identical amendment to the Erosion and Sediment Control 0rdinanc~ is included for clarity in these recommendations. 16 Benefit/Cost.. Erosion control does add to construction cost, but this cost, as in other areas where erosion control is required, is simply a part of the cost of building responsibly. The benefit to downstream water quality and soil protecti'on for future ~enerations far outweiahs the cost of these temporary construction measures. r m n r h r. iliz i nm r i h n En in r r m I This provision is intended to minimize soil erosion and prevent landslides. The ratio of 2:1 is the steepest slope permitted for bank construction by the County, and by VDOT in the subdivision street standards. Slopes that are steeper are not stable and can result in erosion, sedimentation of streams and water supply, as well as damaee to life and property through landslides. For reasons stated above, thes~ problems are particula~y acute in the mountain areas. In areas of predominantly rock this gradient may be increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. Benefit/Cost: This provision should assist in controlling the amount of sediment flowing into downstream waterways including reservoirs, and thereby improving or maintaining water quality throughout the County and beyond, and minimizing the danger of mud slides in mountain areas. In the steepest areas, retaining walls or revetments may be a more viable alternative to increased width of grading. Such walls add to the cost of construction. These areas are likely to be the least suitable for development due to inaccessibility, cost of services and other construction costs. c) Run-off Control: Water from ditches, storm-drains and rooftops and impervious surface~ shall be released into, natural streams or watercourses as defined as "adeauate" ne~ thc "Virginia Erosion and Sediment Handbook," This provision is intended to control flooding and soil erosion and creation of gullies caused by swiftly moving, and therefore highly eroding water un-off, as well as to minimize deeradation in water quality and deposition of sediment downstream. ~ Benefit/Cost:. This provi'sion would reduce the deposition of sediment onto downstream properties and into the reservoirs. The latter diminishes their capacity and reduce the amount of treatment needed for drinking water especially during rainy weather. The cost of engineering un-off control so as to comply with this provision should be more than returned in prot~ection from property damage caused by.swiftly moving water. d) Driveways within the Mountain Overlay District shall be built with side slopes on cut an; fill slopes at 2;1 (horizontal slope: vertical sione} or flatter The steepest allowable side slopes (except in rock cuts) on subdivision streets to be accepted into the State Secondary Road system is 2:1 (i.e., 2 feet of horizontal distance for each one foot of vertical rise or fall). Slopes steeper than this have proven to be unstable over time. Unstable side slopes lead to erosion, deposition of sediment downstream, and in extreme cases, dangerous conditions. These problems are particularly acute in the mountain areas. Where 2:1 side slopes are 17 not feasible, retaining walls, revetments, or other slope stabilization methods acceptable to the County Engineer must be employed In areas of predominantly rock this _~radient may be.increased to 1.5:1 where acceptable to the County Engineer. · e ti/Cost' Building roads and driveways with side slopes of 2:1 or flatter may cost more Ben '.fi · · · ~ -' ...... ~,,.'e damaoe are taken into account, it is cheaper to initially If long-term maintenance ano uu~--~,-,-,v = build with stable slopes from the start. ~- - r,_ ~r --f r-.:- and driveways shall bt 40 feel Any curve tighter than 40-foot radius on center-line is too tight for straight-bodied trucks, and fire trucks-. Access to residences in mountain areas, is of great concern to adjacent mountain property owners and the general public, because fires in wooded mountain areas can spread quickly, with catastrophic results. Mountain areas usually present no alternatives to a single driveway available to an emergency vehi cie. Benefit/Cost: Providing access to straight-bodied emergency vehicles is an overwhelmingbenefit when compared to the small and short-term saving of constructing curves of tighter radii. !) DrivOVays shall disturb no more than 65 feet in Cross-section. ..... If a ten-foot wide driveway is built on an existing 3:1(33%) side slope, with 2:1 cut and fill slopes, "~( will disturb approximately 65 feet in cross-section. (See illustration below.) The disruption of large areas of land is particularly dangerous in mountain areas because the mountains form a large system of steep, usually forested land which may be affected far beyond the limits of individual construction sites. Benefit/Cost: Generally, locating roadways in areas not requiring a large amount: of grading is both less expensive, and less disruptive. In those .cases where additional measures (e.g., retaining walls) must be taken to avoid large cross-sectional grading; the long-term stability and protection of forest land will outweigh the short-term cost. 1 O' Drivezua~ cvr~c~ ]~'iti 18 g) L n i in I r i n n riv h lin x 16% The Virginia Department of Transportation maximum longitudinal gradient allowed in mountainous terrain is 16%. County private road standards for 3-5 lots is 16% maximum. Slopes steeper than this are a danger to ail who must use the driveway, including fire. police, other emergency vehicles, and delivery vehicles.~ While the Committee believes that the County would be wise to institute such a regulation County-wide, there is an especially urgent need to restrict the steepness of driveways in mountainous areas In the Mountain Overlay District steep gradients are likely to be much longer and the associated accidents more problematic because of the steep side-slopes and remoteness of driveways. Benefit/Cost: Every effort should be made to locate driveways to minimize grading, length, and impact on existing trees; however, the risk to human life in gradients too steep for safety, is too great to consider the relatively small savings of alignment going too directly up a steep slope: 2. COUNTY-WIDE LIGHTING ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT TO COUNTY CODE OR ZONING ORDINANCE Adopt a county-wide ordinance with the following provision; All exterior ~ fixtures above .5000 lumens shall be fully shielded. 1~ a 100 watt bulb gives off 1500 lumens). " - ..... Definition.'_ _Fully shielded fixture: means a.~n outdoor 12g_bX fixture shielded in such a .manner t. hat all 12ght emitted b_~ the _fixture, either directly from the lamo or indirectly from the fixture projected below the horizontal -- ~ -- - - STUDY AND FUTURE ADDITION TO LIGHTING ORDINANCE: Determine maximum allowable foot-candles for each category of use and implement regulations prescribing maximum foot-candles for each category. Note: Action on the above ordinance should not be delayed pending completion of this study, but rather amended when the study is complete. ' 19 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION: Develop resolution for Board of Supervisors asking power companies to cease promoting unshielded and inefficient outdoor lighting in the CounD'. The cumulative effect of light pollution from the urban and developed areas, of the County has the effect of degrading the dark sky in the mountain areas of the .County. This natural resource is particularly important for the research conducted at the Observatory on Fan Mountain. Individual unshielded lights in the mountain areas contribute to the degrading of the dark night sky and are also highly visible and therefore detrimental to the scenic quality of the mountains. For these reasons the Mountain Committee finds that a lighting ordinance which is county-wide in scope is necessaD: to protect the mountain resource of dark night sky. · Energy wasted nationally from poorly designed outdoor lighting amounts to more thin a billion dollars a year. · ' or li~htin~ creates glare, which, compromises, safety. · Poorly .~e~g_ne~d~;.,°~Urtsd°~e,,ra~des t~e quality of the entrance.corridors leading .esp.ecl~.y~_ __.~ .~ .... a,, e nuali of the budt environment. to me t~lty anu uv~-,,,~,~S th -, ty . · llution in the night sky adversely affects tourism by negatively · .Light ~p_o~ .s. .... *urnal viewshed; for ex_a.m, ple,..th~ ~i.ew to and from lin Lilt: ~mpac g ..... ,-,:~--~ pork Blue RiOge rargway. Monticello, Sl~enanooan · Poorly designed lighting permits light trespass upon ,neighbors, which is no less intrusive than excessive noise. · Excessive outdoor lighting adversely impacts UVA.'s Observatories, which constitute a unique reSource on the east coast. · , , ' resource enjoyed by all County residents for whose · . The dark sky !s a sc.emc ____-:~'~ ~,,,momic iustit~cation. Rather,_ t.he degradation tl~ere is no compcm,,~ ~ o economic benefit of efficient energy use would complement protection o[the resource. · Eas~. solutions to the problem of poorly designed outdoor lighting are avadable commercially and are inexpensive..In the long run they save money. ADDITIONAL PLANNING TOOLS The mountainous areas of Albemarle County are not only prominent pnysmm },ossess.n, features critical natural resources, but they are also important parts of many human and natural systems in the County and region. Like other County human, cultural and natural resources, they therefore require of larger planning issues. Though the Mountain Protection consideration, as components recommendations for the protection of the mountains of the County, Committee s task is to develop the Committee feels that it fails to complete its task if it does not suggest that planning for the · ,rotection of discrete areas or resources, such as the mountains, the urban areas, or the watershed 20 -must be integrated with a more systematic approach which provides for the protection of resource systems, such as drinking water, economic vi abilirv of urban areas, or transportation networks. Some of'the County's land use regulations developed with a compartment~alized approach to land planning may have unintended consequences for protection of its natural resources and other comprehensive planning goals of the County. Rural residential parcels (5-20 ac.) too small ro farm or timber or serve as habitat, increase sprawl, put unintended pressure on mountain and agricultural lands. Areas of the County possessing critical resources may require different types of land use restrictions to protect the resource. Segregated land uses may unintentionally increase housin~ costs, and increase pressure on transportation systems and on agricUltural lands in the path o'~ proposed new roads. Discussion of natural resource protection, that is, may not be broad enough in scope to suggest effective or equitable solutions. The recommendationS which follow attempt to point toward a systematic approach to resource protection for Albemarle County. Develop brochure detailing design recommendations in Mountain Area,x Based on the model of Rappahan.nock County's brochure~ "RidgetoP Development," Albemarle should make available to anyone constructing a residence in the Mountain Overlay District a brochure which encourages sensitive site planning. Prospective mountain residents should be educated regarding both aesthetic and safety considerations. "Being considerate and preserving tho gentle, natural: beauty that has drawn us to this County," Rappahannock's brochure suggests, "should be paramount in all our minds." See attached brochure in Appendix 3, Coun _ty of Rappahannock: Ridgetop Development. The Mountain Protection Committee is willing to draft such a brochure based in part on information which it has compiled. Inventory Albemarle County's Natural Heritam, Current knowledge of the critical elements of Albemarle's natural resources, including its biological commtmities is spotty and speculative. An inventory of the County's. critical natural resources including rare and unique natural resources is needed to provide property owners, planners and County staffwith the information to make wise land stewardship decisions. Methods of' conducting this assessment and evaluation should be pursued. The Open Space Plan recommends a Nhtural Areas Inventory of designated areas for significant natural communities, their sensitive plant and animal habitats, geologic landmarks, and other natural features. TJSPARE proposed such an inventory for the five localities of the Planning District. Cover Type Analysis and Habitat Evaluation Procedures assessment are also suggested in the Open Space Plan, which cites the lack of informati on available about wildlife and aquatic habitat in Albemarle. ,Support Land Use Assessment Tax The concept of land use assessment tax for forest land, agricultural, horticultural and open spacelands should be continUed and defended. · · 21 ' Rural land in Albemarle County costs taxpayers only $0.21 in county services for evers.' $1 00 iT generates in county real estate tax revenues. Since residential land costs taxpayers more m services that it generates in tax revenues ($1.16 in costs for every $1.00 in revenues), the tindeveloped rural land substantially subsidizes residential use in the county. (Source: Fiscal Impact of Maior Land Uses in Albemarle County; PEC, Tamara Vance, 1984) Transfer of Development Riehts (TDR~ The County should continue to request enabling legislation in the General Assembly to permit a TDR program. While the creation of a Mountain Overlay District and proposed revisions to the Subdivision, Erosion Control, and Zoning Ordinances will reduce many of the problems associated with velo ment in mountain areas, the large number of development rights in the these areas continue deto threaten' P ....... me resom~S of the mountains. Transfer of Development Pdghts' will Provide a means for shifting development rights out of the mountains and other Rural Areas while providing rural landowners with a means of profiting fairly from the transfer. George F. Allen, in "Three Proposals Affecting Forestry And Development;" Virginia's Forests, Summer, 1991, explains TDR's through the following example: "...a landowner in a rural zoned area with 400 acres may be allowed under current zoning to divide his 400 acre parcel into five 2 acre lots and as many 21 acre lots as can fit into the residue, being 18 lots fora total of 23. ' 'n ' then the landowner's property were in a designated TDR send~ g area, "If this rura! . ' al situation, could voluntarily sell to a developer some of his landowner, ~n. an. ~d~e ......... develoner buys 10 of the 23 such TDR s fro.m o p:nV~lo~ff~ re, nsf ~g0nraSc r e ~dr ~ e; "~o; ri$. 2 ~t0s 01 !~tc oh~ f~ ep rrUor~ r~n d ~ en err u~a~ t~ladn ~eoC;~V~ ~ ~ ~:~:~1 ~and have only 13 development g ' would Probably have a lessened market Value, but that is the landownerds choice as to what to do With his or her land. Meanwhile, the developer could use these 10 development rights to increase the density to pack more houses or: apartments on land designated as a receiving zone. "The foregoing example is the ideal, positive way that a TDR program would operate. It would be voluntary and to some extent allow the free market concept to operate in a govemmentxcreated system of land rights." Purchase of Development Ri_~g_h_~ The County should develop a program to purchase development rights for preservation of agricultural and forest lands, significant plant and animal communities and areas of significance to tourism and recreation. Such a program might be funded from real estate transfer tax, cellular phone tax, meals or lo2d2ging tax, grants, or private Contributions. Such a program would allow landowners to choose moneta~, compensation for protecting natural resources of public value. Land in such a program would remain in private ownership and on the tax rolls while serving a public purpose. Virginia Beach has initiated such a program, aimina to acquire development rights from 20,000 acres of agricultui'al lands funded by 1.5 cents-of th~ property tax rate and a cell ular phone tax. ' The scenic-mountain landscape has been stated as a factor in the Albemarle and Charlottesville tourism industry. According to state Division of Tourism data, visitors to Albemarle Count3, spent $109 milli on in 1994. A one percent lodging excise tax would generate $150,000 a year to purchase development rights or conservation easements. ..Full Cost Accounting and "Revenue Sharinp" ,. Discussions of revenue sharing between the County and City should involve a comprehensive approach and include the flows of benefits and costs in both directions. The City and urban area benefit economically from ecosystem services, notably watershed protection and air quality, provided by rural land of the County. Major economic contributions accrue to the people of Albemarle and Chadottesville as a result of the natural functions of the. forests. A disproportionate share of these values are provided by. the mountain forests. For example, forest landowners in the county provide watershed protection for the City\County water supply reservoirs. Without the protection of forest cover, particularly on mountain slopes, City and County users of public'water Would be required to divert hundreds of thousands of dollars from other uses to maintain the same level of water quality. Full cost accounting of the public water resource would show that rural mountain' landowners, who receive little or no benefit from the resource, are bearing (subsidizing) this cost for urban resi dents and users of the public water. Similarly, the mountain forests play a significant role in filtering air, sequestering carbon and other air pollutants and improving air quality. Due to climatic patterns, the mountain forests play a greater role in this function than lowland forests. This function benefits the local economy by reducing expenditures for health care and for anti-pollution measures that would likely be required in the absence of these forests. Albemarle's forests currently store an estimated 19.7 million tons and annually remove 300,000 additional tons Of carbon, as well .as numerous other pollutants. Achieving this same level of atmospheric cleansing through anti-pollution measures ~would cost citizens an estimated $8.4 million dollars that those residents have available for other services and investments due to the role that the mountain forests perform. Efforts that significantly affect the value of mountain forest land for the primary purpose of benefiting the urban area should include incentives, or other strategies. Such full cost accounting is now gaining in recognition in other cities and regions such as New York State. 23 Change in Large Lot Division Size Large Lot Size within the Mountain Overlay District: Change the large lot division size from a minimum of 21 acres to a minimum of 42 acres in the Mountain Overlay District. This provision is intended to reduce the fragmentation of habitat and of viable landscape resource base. Due to the extensive fragmentation of the lowland landscapes into smaller and smaller parcels~ the large blocks of forest common to the mountains are growing in importance, especially for "forest areas of forest in which to breed and forage. Many of ~nteno species of wildlife that require large , these species are neo-tropical migratory birds which breed in Albemarle s forests and migrate to tropical regions for the winter months. Recent surveys of these species reveal that many are declining in number. While a number of facto}s are at play, the fragmentation of forests into smaller blocks is seen as a potential problem for the long-term sustainability of these populations. With respect to forestry, the Agricultural/Forestal Industries Support Committee s report states, "Continued forest fragmentatioii is Probably the biggest threat tO the future viability of th~ forest industry in Albemarle County .... As parcel size declines, operability for timber harvesting decreases. Forest sizes below 40 acres are difficult to manage economicallY. The proximity of houses and other structures escalates the problem." The U.S. Geological Survey's report, Landslide and Debris-Flow- Hazards Caused by the June 27, 1995 Storm in Madison County, Virginia, states that as non-structural hazard mitigation, "Land-use regulations can be used to reduce hazards by limiting the type or amound of development.in hazardous areas. A community can zone hazard-prone areas for open space uses' like parks, grazing or certain types of agriculture." The report cites as an · "' ' t" Mateo County, California, which example a "resource management zoning msmc created by San limits'the number of dwellings to one dwelling unit per 40 acres. Benefit/Cost: This provision would have significant benefits to wildlife habitat and forest resource base and a minimal impact on the value of parcels lying entirely within the Mountain District whose topography includes sufficient land below 25% in grade to allow for maximum use of division fights. Subsequent Revew This committee recommends that it reconvene in two years to review the efficacy of the ordinances recommended in this Mountain Protection Plan. 24 APPENDICES Appendix 1 MOUNTAIN CONTOUR LIST The following named mountains and other unnamed mountains are dehneated'on the attached Mountain Overlay District map. (USGS quad sheet locations are noted if names are duPlidated). They are defined by a designated elevation Contour line, based generally on location of critical slopes and areas of visual impact. 700 Foot 'Contour Stillhouse Mountain Lewis Mountain Mt. Jefferson SOuthwest Mountains TreVilhan Wolfpit Long Sugarloaf Lonesome Broadhead Hightop (Keswick Quad) Walnm Dowell Peters Goodlow Carters Mountain Monticello Patterson Round Top (Alberene Quad) 800 Foot Contour Buck Mountain Piney Mountain (EarlysvilleQuad) Dudley Mountain Britts Piney (Alberene Quad) Ragged Mountains Round Top (Charlottesville West Quad) Bear Den (Charlottesv/lle West Quad) Newcomb Woodson Gibson (Alberene Quad) Gillums Mountain Tumer. Mountain 900 Foot Contour Tayior's MoUntain Martin's'Mountain (Crozet Quad) Sprou~e MOuntain Israel Mountain Tom Mountain Gay Mountain Ammonett Mountain Cook Mountain Persimmon Mountain Fan Mountain Mount Oliver Appleberry. Mountain Shiloh Mountain Brash Mountain Yellow Mounrmn Hams Mountain Green Mountain (Free Union Quad) Cherry Mountain 1000 Foot Contour Boaz Mountains Walnut Top Mountain Heard Mountain Mill Mountain Chalk Mountain Castle Rock Mountain Moses Mountain Massies M0u~in Long Arm Mountain High Top (Covesville Quad) Burnt Mountain Sharp Top Ennis Mountain Round Top Moumain (Waynesboro East Quad) Turks Mountain Blue Ridge Mountains ScOtt Bear Den (Waynesboro East Quad) Calf Bucks ElbOw Little Yellow Beaver Creek Middle Pasture Fence Pinestand Cedar Big Flat Little Flat Loft County Line Mountain Lick Mountain Fox Mountain Gibson (Brown's Cove Quad) Martins (Brown's Cove Quad) High Top (Brown's Cove Quad) Currant Pigeon Top Mountain Appendix 2 ENABLING LEGISLATION: Sec. 15.1-489 Va. Code: Purpose of zoning ordinances: Zoning ordinances shall be for the general purpose of promoting the health, safety, or general wdfare of the public and of further accomplishing the objectives of S.15. 1-427. To these ends. such ordinances shall 'be desi'gned to give reasonable consideration to each of the ~f011owing purposes, where applicable: (i) to provide for adequate light, air, convenience of'access, an~d safeD' from fire, flood, crime and other dangers; (ii) to reduce or prevent congestion in the public streets; (i~i) to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious communit37; (iv) to facilitate the provision of adequate police and fire protection, disaster evacuation, civil defense, transportation, Water, sewerage, flood prote.ction, schools, parks, forests, playgrounds, recreational facilities, airports and other public requirements; (v) to protect against' destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas; (vi) to protect against one or more of the following: overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities e~risting or available, obstruction of light and air, danger and congestion in travel and transportation, or loss of life, health, or property from fire, flood, panic or other dangers; (vii) to encourage economic development activities that provide desirable employment and enlarge the tax base; (viii) to'provide for the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and other lands of significance for the protection of the natural environment; (ix) to protect approach slopes and other safety areas of licensed airports, including United States government and military air facilities; (x) to promote the creation and preservation of affordable housing suitable for meeting the current and futUre needs of the locality as well as a reasonable proportion of the current and future needs of the planning district Within which the locality is situated. Such ordinance may also include reasonable provisions, not inconsistent with applicable state water quality standards, to protect surface water and ground water 'as defined in S. 62.1-255. (Emphasis: references relevant to protection of Albemarle's mountains) A-2 .Appendix 3 County of Rappahannock Ridgetop Developmem Brochure A-3 A-4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ATTACHMENT E AGENDA TITLE: Impact Analysis of Proposed Mountain Overlay District Ordinance SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Impact Analysis Report for Information Purposes STAFF CONTACT(S): Mary Joy Scala AGENDA DATE: May t9, 1998 INFORMATION: Yes ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors has requested that all proposed County ordinances be evaluated for impacts to (1) housing costs: (2) County staffing needs; and (3) development review time. In addition, staff has 'evaluated other related costs and benefits. including reductions in time and expense commitments. Many costs and benefits cannot easily be quantified. The proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) would apply to approximately 84,000 acres, including 15,000 acres in the Shenandoah National Park. Excluding the Park, the proposed District includes approximately 15% of the total County acreage. There are approximately 1900 parcels which would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Almost all are currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. The only designated mountains in the Development Areas are in Urban Area Neighborhood Six: Stillhouse Mountain, Lewis Mountain, Observatory Hill, Round Top and several other unnamed peaks in the Ragged Mountains. Since 1991, between 9-17 dwellings per year have been constructed on parcels totally or partly within the proposed Mountain Overlay District. This number is expected to Continue and to escalate. The potential exists for many parcels and dwellings in the mountains, both on 2t+ acre parcels and on development right lots. In a 1996 staff report, it was estimated that there is poptential for as many as 3,000 devlopment right lots and 1,300 parcels of 21+ acres within the Mountain Overlay District. Currently, dwellings may be constructed in the mountmn areas provided building sites~exist. Private driveways are not regulated. on critical slopes. SUMMARY: The ordinance impacts on housing costs, staffing needs and review time will be slight to moderate: The ordinance will add moderately to the cost ora Single family dwelling in MOD areas. Less expensive, affordable housing should not be significantly impacted because it is unlikely that housing in this cost range would be built in mountainous areas. Stafftime necessary for special use permit and subdivision reviews by Planning will increase based on the number of applications received.. Stafftime will increase slightly for review of building Permit applications m~d enforcement. primarily by Building and Zoning. Staffing needs will be impacted moderately for inspections in the MOD by Engineering, and staff time will be increased slightly for review and inspection of erosion and sedimentation plans (rather than agreements) in the MOD. Review times for building permits on parcels which have been approved under this ordinance will increase slightly. Review times will increase more significantly when a building permit is applied for on a parcel which has not been subdivided under the current ordinance. In that case, a building site must be verified by an engineer or surveyor as meeting the ordinance. Also, ?lanning and Engineering must verify that the ordinance requirements are met,. which additional steps could add to the length of time of approval. The ordinance should provide positive impacts in terms of public road maintenance costs, emergency services response times and, costs, school busing times and other bus transportation isSUes, soil erosion and water quality impacts. DISCUSSION: I. Housing Costs Im pact on Single Family Dwelling: Additional costs which the proposed Mountain Overlay District would add to the cost ora single family dwelling may include: (1) Additional grading or stabilization measures to meet the requirement of maximum 2:1 side slopes on a driveway or building pad; (2) Additional grading or stabilization measures to meet the requirement of maximum 2:1 side slopes and 40 foot minimum turning radius on a private road; (3) The fee charged by a professional engineer or land surveyor to show a building site location on either a final plat or boundary survey and written verification that the site complies with the ordinance; (4) The cost ora special use permit application ($990) ifa property owner chooses to apply for a special use permit for a smal] tot rather than use a 21+ acre parcel by right; (The Planni. ng Commission recommended deletion of a special use pemit requirement for small lots.) (5) The cost to have an Erosion and Sedimentation Plan prepared if required rather than an agreement. Impact on Affordable Housing: Extra costs normallv associated with building in a mountainous area would make it unlikely that affordable housing would normally be built there. There is need for meaningful opportunity.for affordable housing to be provided in the County. A "m~aningfut oPportunity" may be best defined as Closeto schools, jobs, and public services, rather than in the most remote and difficult terrain of the Rural Area of the County. Mountain areas are not condu~cive to providing such conditions. Building a house on a mountain is generally more expensive than on flatter land due to the length of the driveway required; the difficulty in locating a septic system on shallow soils; the additional grading and stabilization measures which may be needed: and the driveway maintenance which:is an ongoing expense. H. Staffing Needs Additional staffing needs relate to: (1) Special use permit and subdivision applications (Planning); (The Planning Commission recommended deletion of a special use pemit requirement for small lots.) Attachment A is April 1, 1998 memo from Planning Chief, Ron Keeler, which notes additional stafftime wilt be necessary to review an unknown number of special use permits. He indicates that most mountain subdivisions would be administrative, and that additional time to explain the ordinance to the public would be needed, especially when the ordinance is first adopted. The Planning Division currently has a full work load. However, the proposed Mountain Ordinance alone would not necessitate another staff position. (2) Administering building permits (Building and'Zoning, Planning and Engineering); Attachment B is May 12, 1998 memo fromthe Zoning Administrator, Amelia McCulley, which notes that the proposed ordinance will require an additional 30 hours of staff time per year. Planning and Engineering would be assisth~g Building and Zoning in verifying that all ordinance requirements have been inet prior to issuance of a btlilding permit. Staff would note that, if a final plat is approved under the current Ordinance, the process will be simplified. If a building permit is applied for on an older, existing parcel, then the applicant will need to obtain verification from a survevor or engineer that the proposed building site meets the ordinance. (35 Enforcement (Building and Zoning); Building and Zoning have not made estimates of staff time needed to pursue compliance in cases of violation. (4) Inspections ( Engineering); Engineering has noted the need for additional staff time to inspect building footers to insure they are within the designated building site, and/or confirm that they are not within the Mountain .Overlay District; to inspect private roads/driveways for compliance with 2:1 slopes and inspection of private roads for minimum 40 foot turning radius; and to inspect revetments/mitigation to permit slopes to be steeper than 2:1, and to insure proper completion of revetmenOm itigation measures Engineering has also noted inspection(st~fftime to address complaints and violations of these items. (5) Erosion and Sedimentation Plan review and enforcement (Engineering). Attachment C is from the Cost Impact Analysis of the Water Ordinance. The Water Ordinance adopted in February. 1998. defines a ~'land disturbing activity" within the MOD as 2,500 square feet or more; outside the MOD it is defined a sl0.000 square feet or more. Within the MOD, it is more likely that a soil erosion control plan will be required rather than an agreement. The additional 250 man-hours are based on review of 15 permits per year. The additional staffcost equals 250 ~,. $20/hr or $5,000. The revenues are estimated at $1,950. III. Review Time Subdivision and special use permit review time for projects in mountain, areas would be in accordance with existing schedules. Attachment B from Building and Zoning indicates an increase in review time of 1-4 weeks for a building permit located within a MOD area, with the most time taken by a survey completion. This assumes that the customer is unfamiliar with the ordinance. and is first informed of the need to verify a building site at the time the building permit ~s~ applied for. Piat~ which have been approved under this ordinance will already have the building site shown on the final plat. and will require less review time. The Building Official has noted that, including Planning in the permit review~rocess to insure that mountain-related requirements are met, is a change in the process, with likely consequences related to turn-around time. Staff would note that the ordinance is estimated tO impact only approximately 15 building permits per year. Erosion.and Sedimentation permits in a MOD area lllay necessitate revie~ ora plan rather than an agreement, which approval may take several weeks. IV. Other Impacts Road-related hnpacts Road maintenance expenses - public roads extended into mountain areas can be ~xpected to carry higher,maintenance costs than those in less hilly terrain. Homes in mountainous areas often require longer roads to reach the residences than those in -non-mountainous area. Road maintenance exper/ses that are paid from public funds can include repairing road surfaces, installation of guardrails due to steep side slopes, snow and ice removal, clearing trash and brush, erosion control, mowing rights-of-way, maintaining road signs and related expenses. Even on exi sting mountain roads, increasing numbers of residences may require increased maintenance needs, as well as demands for paving of gravel roads, requiring public funds. Public safety-related Impacts . Emergency response times - houses within the mountain overlay district can be expected to require longer emergency response- times than those Outside of the mountains, due to longer roads, conditions of roads that are less conducive to rapid response, and other factors. In some cases, roads and driveway_s may not be'adequate to accommodate the passage of large emergency vehicles. Police response - probability of arrest for response-related incidents declines dramatically for every five minutes of police response time, becoming a small probability for response tim.es of thirty minutes or more. Mountain development may have lengthy response times, particularly in comparison to developments in non-mountainous areas that are easier to access. Relatively more time can be presumed to be spent by county police to serve a call in the mountain ous region than in the non- mountainous region. Fire response - average time to reach locations of fires in mountainous regions far exceeds that in non-mountainous regions. In addition, mountain fires, whether or not associated with structures, typically require obligation of personnel and equipment for longer periods of time than fires outside of mountainous terrain. Mountain fires are more likely to require commitment of specialized and expensive fire fighting equipment such as helicopters, particularly when mountain houses are potentially at risk. Mountain fires are also more likely to lead to evacuation of homes than fires in non-mountainous rural areas, with the additional commitment of county emergency services. Emergency_ medical response - time to respond to emergency medical calls is similarly increased in mountain homes compared to rural, non-mountain homes, due to the increased road distance, conditions of roads.and relative isolation of typical mountain home development. Besides the risk to public welfare and the ~eater time required bf emergency personnek increased demand may be placed on the county for provision of additional services or commitment of funds for. road improvements to improve the level of service for mountain homes. School-related Impacts Busing times - to the extent that homes and roads are kept out of the mountain overlay district, it is reasonable to assume that bus routes will be shorter and rune required to bus children to schools will be shorter. This time margin may not be trivial (every five minutes of additional busing time means each child will be spending the equivalent of four more school days a vear just riding a bus). When some rural areas already experience bbs rides of up to one hour to and from school, extended routes on new mountain roads - typically with more difficult travel conditions and longer road lengths per house served - may add significantly to the duration of the ride or require new bus routes at additional ex, pense to the county. School closings due to road conditions - mountain roads can experience winter conditions that are relatively more harsh than roads outside o,fthe mountains. A significant increase in mountain roads'could affect county school policy for closings, delayed openings and early dismissals due to adverse weather,- as well as bus transportation issues. Due to the nature of mountain roads. costs for road maintenance would be expected to ,be higher per mile than the average rural road. The impact of the mountain pro{ection Ordinance will likely be reduced demand for county and state public resources and a favorable fiscal impact compared to the option of continuing county development without the ordinance. Water-related Impacts Development. in the mountains typically results in higher erosion and sedimentation rates than development outside of the mountains, all else being equal. Construction outside of the mountain overlay district can be reasonably expected to requ ire less time of county inspectors than similar construction within the mountain district, due to reduced time traveling access roads and more manageable conditions for dealing with erosion control. Since mountain development, by the nature Of the topography that must be traversed by road's and building sites, Would generally exceed the 10,000-square-foot threshold for the erosion and sedimentation control requirements anyway, the few additional'sites that would cross the 2,500- square-foot threshold but are less than 10,000-square-feet 'would result in a minor increase in county staff time for review and inspection. Soil saved and kept out of the water supplY reservoir due to the erosion control provisions as well as the location of houses outside of the mountain regions would save county and city resources that would otherwise be devoted to water treatment, eventual replacement of water supply, or alternative water supply approaches. ATTACHMENT A To: WCILIMB (Wayne Cilimberg),David Benish. Mary Joy Scala From: Ron Keeler Subject: Re: Fwd: Mtn. Ord. Impact Analvsis Date: 4/1/98 Time: 3:08PM Originated by: JKELSEY ~ ACVA on 4/1/98 I2:06PM Forwarded by: MSCALA ~ ACVA on 4/1/98 1:02PM (CHANGED) Replied by: WCILIMB _~ ACVA on 4/1/98 l:26PM R~plied by: RKEELER ~ ACVA on 4/t/98 3:08PM It is difficult to analyze the staffing needs for Planning. If the maps were complete, it may be possible to provide a better 'gudsstimate.' As xwitten, the ordinance would require staff time for special use permit review, subdivision review, and issuance of individual building permits. 1. SUBDIVISION- Both Johrl Shepherd and Maynard Sipe have accrued comp time in the Planner position, indicating the n~ed for assistance. The MOD will increase that need as most mountain subdivisions would probably be administrative. It should be emphasized that conside/*able explanation time to the public is likely.' 2. SPECIAL USE PERMITS- As to special use permits, presumably, these would be handled bY Senior Planners or Chiefs. Volume of applications is un 'lqmwn but if mapping were c0mplefe, We could see how many properties would be involved. As vou know. it has been difficult to meet timelines for the Work Program largely due to current development reviews. 3. BUILDING PERMITS- This Department is not currently involved in issuance of building permits for single family dwellings. I believe Amelia has been making effort to shorten turn-around time on building permits and bringing another department into that process should be discUssed.' It may be better to,leave the detemfinations required by 31.2.2 to Zoning and Engineering (Zoning cuk, renfiy makes determinations required by 4.2 I. If this department is involved, it would need robe a staff memmber who could provide such review in a very short nme period. Mary. Joy Scala From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: ATTACHMENT B Amelia M¢Cultey Tuesday, May 12, 1998 4:47 PM Mary Joy Scala: David Benish Ben Blankinship: John Shepherd: John Grady; Jay Schlothauer; Bill Mawyer Mt Protection Staffing We didn't concentrate on the cost to the applicant in terms of providing the necessary submittal info. I understand that others will check with a surveyor. We are presuming that inspections will be done by the Engineering Dept. I've estimated that it will take an additional 30 hours total of staff time for each year, to administer the ordinance. This does not include pursuing compliance, in cases of violation. That time is difficUlt to project. 1. We worked, with a determination of the nu tuber of building permits (single family and accessory buildings single family) and an assumption of about 5 minutes per permit to. check for the MOD overlay. This amounts to about 8 hours of staff time. 2. There will be about a dozen cases or so in which property either lies within or very close to the MOD. I't can take about I hour to receive and review all the necessary info. This amounts to about 12 hours of staff time. 3. There is an estimated 10 hours of staff time involved in discussion and actions relating to explanation and enforcement of the MOD. Any given case of violation would easily take 15 hours. In terms of the impact on the process ti.me for the applicant within or near the MOD, the ~ncrease is a factor of: time delay in needing to be informed of alt necessary info req'd for submittal time delay in waiting for surveyor to complete plan time involved in field inspection by Engineerin§ Dept. This could add 1-4 weeks to a permit, with the most time taken by the survey completion. Let me know if you have questions. ATTACHMENT C PAGE 1 Stormwater BMPs Can Increase Property Values: A final point about the cost impacts of providing water quality treatment through BMPs is that the literature makes note of the fact that certain BMPs can provide economic benefits. A recent EPA report claims that: Even though urban runoff management costs money, properly designed runoff systems can provide economic benefits that counterbalance or even outweigh those costs... When designed and sited correctly, artificial lakes or wetlands can help developers reduce negative environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value of the property. ~ While not all BMPs will be capable of providing these types of benefits, the opportunity does exist in some cases to offset increased design and construction costs. SUMMARY OF COUNTY STAFFING & REVENUE EFFECTS The potential impact of the proposed ordinance on Engineering Department staffing and additional revenues from user fees have been evaluated based on collected data and expectations of future demands. The critical components conSidered in-the evaluation were plan review, administration, and inspection. The results are summarized below and are presented in terms of additional manhours and additional revenue generated by user fees. The support documentation for these figures is available upon request. Summary of Additional Manhours Mountain Overlay District prOvisions E&S Plan Review & Administration: 120 Inspections (construction & complaint based): 130 Total For Mountain Ove.rlay Provisions 250 (additional manhours) Stormwater BMP/Mitigation Plan Provisions Plan Review & Administration: 300 Construction Inspection (new facilities) 250 Semi-annual. Maintenance InspectionS (new facilities) 480 Total For StOrmwater/BMP Provisions 1030 (additional manhours) 250+ 1030 manhours = 1280 manhours @ $20/hour (avg) = $25600 Additional Staff Cost To Implement New Ordinance. 12 ATTACHMENT C PAGE 2 This cost does not include inspections for existing stormwater facilities constructed in accordance with the current ordinances. To conduct semi-annual inspections of existing stormwater facilities would require an additional 800 manhours, or $16000. Adding this service brings the total staff cost to $41600. Summary of Additional Revenue From User Fees Mountain Over'lay District Provisions E&S Plan Submittals, 15 plans @ $40 E&S Inspections' in Mountain District, 30 @ $45 Total For Mountain Overlay Provisions $ 6O0 $1350 $1950 Stormwater BMP~litigation Plan Provisions E&S Elan Submittals, 90 plans @ $50/plan additional $ 4500 E&S Inspections, 80 @ $15/inspection additional $ 1200 Stormwater/BMP Plan Submittals, 80 plans @ $100 $ 8000 Requests for Exceptions, 5 @ $190 $ 950 Mitigation Plans, 25 @ $50 $ 1250 SWM Facility Construction Inspections, 60 @ $45 $ 2700 SWM Facility Maintenance Inspectigns. 120 @ $2~5 $ 5400 Total For Stormwater/BMP Provisions $24000 Program Total Additional Revenues $25950 Net Cost Impact (Difference Between Additional Staff Cost & Program Revenues) = +$350 If Inspections of Existing Stormwater Facilities is Added: Net Cost Impact = - $15650 ENDNOTES 1. Brown, Whitney and Thomas Schueler, Thc Economics of Stormwater BMPs in the Mid- /MIRaiigA~tgJ_~, Center for Watershed Protection, prepared for Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc., August. 1997. 2. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Benefits of Runoff (:ontmls, EPA-84 I-S-95- 002, Office of Wetlands, Oceans. and Watersheds, September, 1'995. 13 June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) 000~11 the Board is not precluded from making an additional legislative request later in the Summer. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the whole issue of TDRs, PDRs, growth management, etc., needs to be reexamined comprehensively. He said the ability of the current legislation to deal with the issues the County is facing has been out paced. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:35 a.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into executive session pursuant 5o section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) 5o discuss personnel matters concerning the status and/or assignment of two specific employees; under subsection (1) ~o interview and discuss appointments 5o boards and commissions; under subsection (1) to discuss an administrative evaluation; under subsection (7) 5o consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating 5o a service agreement; under subsection (7) to consult w~th legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating 5o a cooperative agreement; and, under subsection (7) 5o consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating 5o the transition of CharloLtesville to town status. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Certify Executive Session. At 1:41 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that Lo the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carrie'd by the following recorded vole: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, MS. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item NO. 13. Appointments. There were no appointments to be made today Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Mountain Promection Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said Mr. David Tice would make a slide presentation, followed by Ms. Mary Joy Scala making a presentation regarding the ordinances, Comprehensive Plan amendments and the Planning Commission,s recommendations. Three other presentations will follow, one regarding EMS, one regarding forestry issues and one regarding land values. Mr. Tice said it was about one and one-half years ago that the Board first heard recommendations from the Mountain Protection Committee so he would take ~ few minutes to review the history of the Issue. Efforts to preserve mountain resources go back to the 1971 Comprehensive Plan which identified the mountains as conservation areas. As the CounLy has worked through Plan revisions, the mountains have continued to play an important part in conservation. In 1989, the Comprehensive Plan recommended development of an Open Space Plan, which the Board held hearings on and adopted in 1992. The Open Space Plan recommended that the CounLy develop a Mountain Protection Ordinance. One reason was that as designated growth areas began to fill ouL, it was assumed there would be building activity in the mountains. Ashcroft is an example of a well-planned development in the mountains. In the last few years, many individual homes have been built in the mountains, as well. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 00033.2 In 1995, the Board appointed the Mountain Protection Commitsee made up of 12 members, including mountain landowners, Realtors, .foresters and Chamber of Commerce members. They were to look at the issue of what the build out of the Coun5y means and what the implications would be on the mountains. At the time the committee met, they did not have the benefit of the Thomas Jefferson Plannin~ District Commission's analysis, which maps he then showed 5o the Board as a slide presentation. The map on the left shows a schematic map of the current density of the Planning District, with colors ranging from dark green with no houses to red being dense housing. The map on the right'is a map of what would develop with current zoning, regulations and environmental restraints. The short of it is that if you superimpose the areas of mountains, with the current zoning in place, mos5 of the mountain areas can be developed at a density comparable to Barracks Road out toward Foxfields or the area within Glenmore or around Earlysville. Most of the mountain overlay area consists of critical slopes, slopes that are 5oo steep to build on. So, if you take the same density as suggested by the maps on the right and reduce it to those areas on the mounEain overlay district that can actually be built on, you are looking aT a much higher density within those areasl There is no good answer as To how many development rights there are. On a strictly theoretical level, the best estimate is approximately 7000 potential developmenE rights within the mountain overlay district. From a practical standpoint, many of those would probably never be used because of the constraints of property lines and critica5 slopes. The number, however, is not important, but the impacts are. There are a number of concerns associated with housing development in the mountains. The point about developmen~ rights is that, no ma~ter the number, if you have a concentration of them in one area, there are questions of the impacts both from an environmental and economic standpoint. Mr. Tice said the Committee developed a Mountain Protection Plan with three basic parts: (1) the proposed Mountain Overlay District', (2) the lighting ordinance, and, (3) areas suggested for further study by the County, such as PDRso There were several recommendations from the committee for the Mountain Overlay Districts, one was that, because of the unique nature of the s~eep slopes, the County should establish a higher level of scrutiny for erosion and sedimentation control within those areas. Secondly, it recommended that houses be allowed on ridges only if those are the only building sites on that parcel. It also recommended further restrictions on building sites and parcel developments and that the final plats show the building sites so that the County's zoning and building inspecsors know where the building sites are. The committee also recommended driveway standards because of concern about erosion and sedimentation and also for emergency vehicle access. That pare of the committee'~ recommendation, based on advice from the County Attorney's office, was not part of the Ordinance. Water quality and soil erosiDn are the most important reasons for looking at mountain protection. Mountains are inherently unstable, as illustrated by large debris flows. More often, this is seen in minor erosion and soil stability problems that.cumulatively can .affect waser quality. The watersheds depend on the quality of the water that comes out of the mountains. The driveway standards were brought up because the committee was concerned about the ability to maintain ssable side slopes on private roads, which is why the Ordinance has a requirement that side slopes be no steeper than 2:1. The committee was concerned about tight curves and the grade of roads within the districts and the implications for access of emergency vehicles. Mountains tend ~o be fire-prone, and fire in mountains behaves differently than fires in level areas and access can become a problem. The mountain areas are some of the last undisturbed blocks of land in the County and for that reason, tend to be important for a number of species, such as the black bear. Of very high importance is the recognition that mountains are ~mportant for the economic vitality of the region, both for the direct benefi~ of forest products, agriculture, orchards and vineyards, and also the indirect benefi[s on tourism. Of grea5 importance to continued growth is the attractiveness of the re~ion. The local economic importance of Albemarle's mountains is as raw materials, indirect economic benefiEs and non-commercial, non-recreational benefits. Mountains are key to the region,s socio-economic and environmental viability. The Committee recommended the Plan two years ago. The Board sene the Plan back to the Planning Commission and asked them ~o be~in developing a proposed Mountain 0rdinance~ The Planning Commission held three work sessions June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 39) in the fall of 1996 and then directed staff to begi~reparing an ordinance. Over the nex5 year, staff, in con]unction with members of the Committee, Commission and local groups, looked over a wide range of alternatives. It is probably safe to say that alt possibilities have already been considered. The Ordinance then came before the Commission. In response to an enormous outpouring of concern from the public, the Commission made some major changes. If what came from the Commitsee was compared with what came from the Commission, the 5wo ordinances are very similar. Ms. Scala began by talking about the three proposals before the Board. She said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1998, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of CPA-98-01, Mountains, and ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District, both as proposed. They also recommended approval of ZTA- 98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions, with some changes. (see staff report for lisE of changes). She said the first Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. CPA-98-01. Mountains is an amendmen~ to ChapEer Two of the Comprehensive Plan, "The Natural Environment," to include a section on "Mountains,,, including a list of mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concep~ Map description of mountains by contour elevation. This is important because if the Board adopss any provision that requires a special use permit, that language in the Plan would be looked au for ~uidance. The second is an Amendment to the Zonina Ordinance Text, ZTA-98~05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions. An amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and 5o amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in mounEain districts, includin~ a requirement ~o obtain a special use permit to subdivide lots under 21 acres, and restrictions such as allowing no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, amendments to Chapuer 20 would apply County-wide: An amendment to add Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related Code provisions, including Section 3.~, Definitions, Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, and, Section 31.2.2, Building Permits. The third is an Amendment to the Zoninq M~p, ZMA-98-10. Mountain Overlay District. This is an amendment to the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation uo ceruain properties which are located above designated con~our elevations and described as Mountains in proposed Section 30.8, Mountain Overlay District, and in the Open Space a~d Critical Resources Plan. Ms. Scala then spoke about District Boundaries. She said a Mountain Overlay District (MOD) boundary for each mountain has been identified by a specific con, our line elevation located in the area where the critical slopes be~in on a particular mountain. (For example: The MOD boundary for Fox Mountain begins at the 1200 foot conuour elevation.) ~The intent is to pro~ect the mountain resources above this elevation, where the mountain becomes visually prominent, and where development ~s more difficult due ~o concentrations of critical slopes." Within the MOD boundaries, Ridge Areas have been delineated (In no case does a Ridge Area extend outside a MOD boundary). The Ridge Area is the highes.t and most prominent part of a mountain, defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the mountain ridgeline and peaks. The intent of the ordinance is to keep developmen~ off the Ridge Area as much as possible. The proposed MOD boundaries and Ridge Areas have been shown on ~opographic maps and on tax maps, which will become the official Mountain Overlay District zoning maps when adopted. As far as what the Ordinance specifically does, the Mountain Overlay District (MOD) overlays the original zoning district. In almost every case, this is a Rural Areas (RA) zoning district~ with f~w exceptions. The proposed MOD overlays the RA district and currenEly that means the owner has to already have development rights for small lots or do minimum 21-acre parcels. Also, he cannot build unless there is a building site defined as 30,000 square feet with a minimum 25 percen~ slope, and the property must meeu subdivision ordinance requirements. Many mountain properties are already limited by development rights, building sites or access. These requirements of the MOD will be in addition to the requirements in the underlying zoning district. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 40) 0003 4 Ms. Scala said the Rural Area requirements and the critical slope requirements were pus into effect in 1950. The critical slope requirements require a building site, while the house, septic fields and the driveways are not regulated. The Committee's version of the ordinance required a special use permit for the small developmen5 right lots. Under the Planning Commission's version, they have done away with that requirement, so the 21-acre parcels and small development right lots would be allowed by right in the MOD, but not on the ridge area. The original ordinance and the Planning Commission's version both kept the requirement that building could not occur on the ridge area. There is one exception, and that is that if there is no other place to build on the parcel, the owner is allowed to build one house. When the Planning Commission made its recommendation, they said the Board may wane to look into allowing a limited amount of building in the ridge area, perhaps by special uss permit. There are listed exceptions in the ordinance for the ridge/no-build area, one being production/agricultural, so a barn could be built; another is an accessory structure of less than 500 feet a hunting cabin could be built, but nor ~ dwelling. Another is a saructure, but no5 a building, of less than 20 feet in height, like a gazebo. Towers are also exempted. The Committee said it did not want to see Lowers in this area, but there may be existing towers. The Ordinance exempas rowers, but they still require approval by a special use permit. In order no gee a building permit in the mountain area, the owner has 5o show where the building will be on the building site. They can do this by either submitting the final plat showing the building site or by showing the building site on a boundary survey. Water ordinance provisions define the disturbed area within the MOD as 2500 square feet, but they are described in other areas as 10,000 square feet so that would be one impact of this ordinance. If 2500 square feet were disturbed within the MOD, an erosion control permit is required. Most people building a single-family home get an agreemen5 in lieu of a plan for an erosion control permit. Under the MOD, the Water Ordinance says special consideration should be given no properties in the MOD; probably, a plan would be required more often than an agreement because there may be concern about erosion. As to Constructed Embankments, the Ordinance specifies that there shall be a maximum 2:1 slope ~o all driveways and building pads throughouE the County. PrivaEe roads are currently restricted to 16 percent grade by the existing Subdivision Ordinance. Privaae road in the MOD, which would be for three or more lots, are required to have a 2:1 side slope and a minimum 40-foot turning radius for horizontal curvature ~n order t~ allow emergency vehicles Eo ge~ Lo dwellings. The Committee's ordinance did not talk about existing residences. The Planning Commission, in their other major change no the Ordinance, recommended tha~ a grandfathering clause be added so additions could be pun on existin~ residences, and if they were destroyed by fire they would non become non-conforming, and could be replaced. Ms. Scala said the two major changes made by the Planning Commission to the original proposal were: (1) they deleted the requiremen~ for a special use permit for small lots and made it all a use by right, except on the ridge area, and (2) they added the grandfathering clause for existing residences and then said that the Board should consider some mechanism, such as the special use permit, 5o allow some building on ridge areas when it can be shown that building on the ridge would be less damaging environmentally then building below the ridge area. Deleting the requirement for a special use permit for small 10ts goes back to the Committee's original recommendation. The Planning Commission provided wording for the Board if i~ wanes to allow some developmenE on the ridge area by special use permit. They only considered allowing single-family dwellings on the ridge area by special use permit; the Board may wane to discuss other uses on the ridge, either by r~ht or by special use permit. MS. Scala Said she had a list of approximately nine subdivisions which are currently in the approval process in the MOD. A question often asked is about rural preservation developments (RPDs), which would be allowed as they are now, excep5 in the ridge area. If the Board approves the ordinance recommended by the Committee, the only way the clustered ~PDs would be allowed is through a special use permit. Ms. Scala said there is an impact analysis which evaluates housing costs, staffing needs and developmenE review time. Other related costs and benefits, were also evaluated including reductions in time and expense commitmenEs. The proposed MOD would apply to approximately 84~000 acres, June 3, 1998 (Page 4t) (Regular Day Meeting) including 15,000 acres in the Shenandoah National Park. Since 1991, there have been between nine and 17 dwellings per year coh~ructed on parcels totally or partially within the MOD. This number is expected to continue to escalate. In summary, the housing costs, staffing needs and review time will be slight no moderate; the Ordinance will add moderately to the cost of a single-family dwelling in the MOD areas. It was the Commission's opinion that less expensive affordable housing should non be significantly impacted because it is unlikely cha~ housing in this cost range would be built in ~he MOD. As to staffing time, the main impact will be a moderate increase in inspections in the MOD, particularly by engineering deparument staff. Review times for building permits would increase significantly only when the parcel has not been subdivided, and hence, they do hOC have a plat in hand. The Ordinance should provide positive impacts in nerms of public road maintenance, emergency services response time, school busing times, soil erosion and water quality impacEs. Ms. Scala said there were many guest speakers presenE today. She then introduced MS. Kurt Ellison, the emergency and medical services person oun of Culpeper, Mr. Joseph Samuels, an appraiser, and Ms. Cindy Frenzell, Department of Forestry. She said each made important additions to the staff reporn. She then offered to answer questions. MS. Thomas noted that on Page 2 of the staff's report it is noted that the Engineering Departmen~ staff would have to inspect driveways, but there is no regulation in the ordinance for driveways. Ms. Scala replied that they would have to inspect the side slopes, but not the grade of the driveway; all other private driveway requirements were taken out. It is expected that they would do this at the same time as they looked at the building pad to make sure building is occurring on the approved building site. Mr. Marshall questioned a statement made by Mr. Tice that the primary reason people are attracted to Albemarle is due to the beauty of the mountains. Mr. Tice said that snatement was actually made by the director of the Thomas Jefferson Economic Partnership au a recen5 meeting. Mr. Marshall said he disagrees, and thinks the primary reason is the University of Virginia, second, %he County's schools, and third, aesthetics. He feels the main reason people move co Charlottesville and Albemarle is its people. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Samuels to explain how he goes about appraising land values. Mr. Samuels said his specialty is the appraisal of rural lands, particularly with partial interests. A fee simple value is a bundle of rights. His specialty is the value of land if you remove one or more of those rights, by comparln§ it with other similar properties. Mr. Samuels said he reviewed the documents related to the proposed Ordinance. The implications of the Ordinance, particularly as it applies to land value, cannot be considered in a vacuum. The intent of the Ordinance was to sneer new construction away from the ridge~ops. Existing lots in the MOD may be used; existing houses in the MOD can be used, expanded or replaced, and the ridgetop can be used when no other house site exists. Relative no application, the proposed ordinance is inclusive of all properties with certain mounEain characteristics and individuals are not isolated in the implications of the ordinance. He said even distribution is important in the consideration of value implications. Mr. Samuels said an argument might be made that owners of mountain land are being singled out and it is important to recognize that mountain properties have always been a separate market segmenn within the RA district, just as all river or forest properties, and they are segregated for various characteristics. The ordinance, therefore, does not creaue a new separation of these properties. Relative co scope, the ordinance applies to all mountain areas in the County with elevation ad]usuments. There is no favorable treatment of some areas of the County over another. Albemarle's unique position in the Central Virginia area ensures that the market for these properties will non radically alter with the passage of the ordinance. Mr. Samuels said he gathered Albemarle County sales no guide him in finding out how the current market perceives these properties. He used the local MLS system and his own records. He collected data only from January 1, 1995, when the.Mountain Protection Committee was formed, simply co reduce the amount of material to-go through, and it was likely that anyone looking au mountain property since that time had an idea that something was happening. Because the ordinance addresses new lots and new construction, he limited his 0003~6 June 3, 1998 IRegular Day Meeting) (Page 42) search to unimproved land and to improved land where a sizeable portion of the land was in the MOD. He did not research sales in Ashcroft and Rosemont. Mr. Samuels said he gathered sales data no determine if there would be any implication on the value of land from passage of the ordinance. He found 30 sales totaling 8000 acres where most of the land was in the MOD. The distribution was fairly geographically even. Only six sales were of less than 21 acres, and all of these were unimproved lands. Two hundred and fifty-eight acres were purchased where some house sites are now being marked as above the MOD elevation lines. Alternatively, there were 997 acres in three nracns, purchased subject 5o conservation easements, with an average density of 111 acres. Of the remaining sales, brokers and/or owners confirm that the sale was no~ motivaned by anticipation of utilizing the area for anything except foresting or recreation. The importance than might be gleaned from this informasion in that there is a market for properties with restrictions on development, and passage of the ordinance as proposed cannot automatically be considered a detriment to land values. Mr. Samuels said value is enhanced by utilizing land at its highest and best use. In this case, it might be argued that value is enhanced when the consistent highest best use is applied. These sales suggest the broader market assigns a hignes5 best use and value to the mountain land for the scenic or recreational amenities it offers. Building sites on ridgetops are not a critical component to the overwhelming majority of investors in mountain lands. A minority use inconsistent with the best use has the potential 5o erode value to the remainder because of the inherent high profile. Lastly, and perhaps least important, the data suggests that purchasers seek mountain land in quantities to compensase them in privacy for the loss of convenience. Value is not an absoluse, it is relative in measure against others of its kind. Mr. Samuels said a careful reading of the proposed ordinance and the proposed revisions shows a fairly flexible document. There does no5 appear to be a single rigid element of the ordinance that absolutely eliminates a property from residential use. In one of the documents circulated recently, landowners said they will have a 50 percent loss of value from the ordinance. From his experience, a value loss of that magnitude is encountered only when the highest and best use of the land is for developmen~ and you cannot build a single house on the property and equally important, the neighbors are non similarly restricted. To argue a loss of property value by virtue of the ordinance assumes the properEy cannot be built upon at all or that denial of the ridgetops as building sites will irrevocably alter the market. In hi~ opinion, neither is true. The old adage, "Location, location, location" seems appropriate. There is no alternative 5o Albemarle County mountains with respect to convenience to the larger work centers or the University of Virginia and the other amenities offered inside the County. Mr. Samuels said that in the foreseeable future, he does not envision buyers driving no other counties away from the centralized amenities in order to build on a mountaintop. This is especially true when you consider that the ordinance leaves a certain flexibility to find elevated settings that cannot be found outside the County and circumstances where even a mountain5op can be found with the right combination of elements. He appreciates that there are those for whom the proposed ordinance appears, in the abstracn, as a loss of property rights. A closer examination reveals a fairly flexible document tham will support the broader higher and bess use as defined by the market in a consistent manner sustaining value for all as a consequence. There is no scientific or empirical evidence to suggest that there is a loss of property values ~o those affected by the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Mr. Samuels brought any biases or prejudices to his analysis. Mr. Samuels said he took on the role that the Board was hi~ client and that he wanted to be as objective as possible. There was no intent to show bias. Mr. Marshall asked whether this ordinance would constitute a taking of anyone's land, and if so, is the County prepared to compensate. Mr. Davis replied that legally, there would non be any taking of the property, since all property still has a reasonable use as residential use or other uses that are non affected. A taking of properny has been defined by the courts of Virginia as leaving no reasonable use of the propersy after a regulatory process has taken away some rights. That is non the case with this ordinance. June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 43) 000al7 Mr. Marshall asked about an individual who purchased property and wanted to build a home for retirement purposes on a mountaintop; would the County no~ be taking away that person's right co buil~ a home. Mr. Davis said there is a distinction between someone bein§ able to maximize the valu~ of their propersy and having a reasonable use of the property. Courts have not viewed re~ula- tory efforts of government to be a taking unless you have so restricted the use that there is no reasonable use left for the property. Simply taking away the maximization of use of the properny is not a taking. From a strictly legal viewpoint, this has never been a taking of property, and ia not something a government has been required Eo compensate someone for. From a philosophical viewpoint, you could view this as taking away some rights, but it is not a property right taking that would require compensation. Mr. Marshall said he was referring to a case in South Carolina where an individual who had oceanfron5 property who wanted to develop it, took it to the Supreme Court, and he won the case. Mr. Davis said in that case, the court found that there was no reasonabie use of that properEy allowed after the government imposed the regulations because they basically said ~you cannot use this proper~y for anything' and thac is not what this ordinance proposes. Mr. Marshall said the county would be taking away a right from an individual. If an individual buys property to build on, and then at this point cannot build because of this ordinance, the Counsy may have no legal right 5o compensate this individual, but does it have a moral obligation to compensate the individual. Mr. Davis replied the Court decisions do not deal with moral rights; as a legal basis, that is not a taking'of the property, and is not anything any court would make the County compensate the landowner for. Mr. Samuels noted that there is an even distribution of the implications of the ordinance. Landowners are not isolated; their neighbors are treated equally. There is no loss in value 5o the property, and to the money invested in the property by virtue of the ordinance. If the only building site is on the ridge, he can build on it. He said the broader market recognizes the lower elevations as being equally important. It is a minority part of the market whizh looks at the ridge top as the best place to build. It is that minority profile which creaEes an inconsistency in the highest and best use. The ordinance has the potential to solidify that. Mr. Martin asked whether Mr. Samuels was saying that the property had not necessarily lost value, just changed use. Mr. Samuels said ~yes." Ms. Thomas asked whether family subdivisions were still allowed in this ordinance. Ms. Scala said that ~yes," they were still allowed, but they would have to conform ~o the r~quirements of not building on the ridge, etc. If they have developmen~ r~ghts, buildin~ sites, and can meet those requirements, they are still allowed. Mr. Martin said most mountaintop property is in the Rural Areas, except for exceptions, such as Lewis Mountain. Any subdivisions would have to be based on current Subdivision Ordinance regulations. So, if someone owned 50 acres, under the current ordinance, they would have three division rights. Ms. Scala said that with 50 acres, cwo, 21-acre parcels could be divided, and that would leave eight acres, so there could ~ossibly be four division rights, and two large parcels under a maximum division. Mr. Martin asked if this new ordinance is adopted, what has changed? Ms. Scala said it would depend entirely on where thac ridge area falls on that parcel. Mr. Martin said to assume that of 52 acres, 48 of those acres are in MOD and th~ ridge area. Ms. Scala said on a parcel tha~ straddles the ridge area, the MOD and is partly outside of the MOD, they can do anything that is normally allowed outside of the MOD. Within the MOD, they can do their 21-acre parcels and, if i~ is done as the Commission recommended, the small five, cwo-acre 10ts. The caveat is that there would still have 5o be a buildin~ site. If they do no~ have enough building sites ousside of the MOD and inside of the MOD 5o use all of their development rights, they would lose those development rights. The only way they could build on the ridge would be if the entire parcel were on the r~dge or if it s~raddles the MOD and the ridge, and everything outside of the ridge is steep slopes, so the only building site is on the ridge. That is an extreme cas~ where one house would be allowed if there were no where else to buil~. Mr. Martin noted that the Commission recommended the Board allow special use permits that would allow some flexibility even in those kind of situations. Ms. Scala agreed and noted that the Committee discussed that in their initial recommendations. They thought it would be good [o have flexibility on the ridge. The Committee was June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 44) 000~.$ concerned about what might be allowed. The Commission suggested the Board look at some mechanism such as a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said what he has been hearing from people is the objection that someone builds a white houses on a bare spot on top of a mountain, making it visible for miles. He thinks they should be required to build uszng earth nones, and screen it with as many trees as possible. He asked if the Board could regulate that practice. Ms. Scala said she did not think that a person could be made to paint their home a particular color, but under the special use permit process, such things could be addressed, based on what is listed in the Comprehensive Plan. Currently, a site plan cannot be required for a single-family home; the only requirement is that they build on a building site, the driveway can be any steepness. This ordinance does allow the Board to look at development on the mountain much more critically. Mr. Perkins asked whether anyone had tried to calculate what this ordinance will cost the average person who wants no build a home, for permits and extra construction. Ms. Scala said there are four main changes. They might have to make the driveway wider. They need a soil erosion plan instead of an agreement, which could cost up to $1000. The benefit of having the plan is that it will control soil erosion much better in steeper areas. The written agreement tha~ most homes have now just-says that they agree not to cause soil erosion. They would have to show that they have a building site, either through the normal subdivision process where they'd show it on the final plat, or by a boundary survey to show that they meet the ordinance; a survey which might add $400 5o s2500 no the costs. Also, the final driveway and building site would need 5o be verified before construction begins. The cost would be variable, depending on the fieldwork involved; the estimated cost range is $300 to S1000. Ms. Thomas asked if it would be a fair summary of Mr. Samuels' report no say that since rural land and mountain land have a particular niche in the market, it will retain its niche and value for rural residential land because it is a limited commodity and it has its values because it is close to Charlottesville. Mr. Samuels said that statement was essentially correct, but his analysis was based on how the market perceives the land and if the market saw the land as useful for development purposes, that is how he would have reported it. For the vast majority of the land he looked at, people are using the land as a recreational or scenic amenity. There is a high minority profile that looks at it as building sites, but by and large, the market does not perceive it as such. So, for the reasons Ms. Thomas listed, he does not believe the value would decline because of passage of the ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Samuels saw any increase in people from outside the area coming in and wanting no build on prominent ridge tops. Mr. Samuels said than a minority have taken that opportunity, but it is very much a minority use, but by the very nature of the property, it is high profile. Mr. Martin said his concern was more with the pezson who owns the property in terms of division rights and retention of value. Mr. Bowerman asked if, since Mr. Samuels had referred to the Board as his client, had they paid him, to which Mr. Samuels replied ~no." Mr. Bowerman said he found the presentation very persuasive, refuting the main argument against the ordinance, which is a decrease in land value~ Because this is the main issue, Mr. Samuel's credibility is very importan~ If, of the 85,000 acres, only 6000 of the 7000 division rights could be used, is it the argument ths~ all 6000+ would be higher after adoption of the ordinance. Mr. Samuels replied that he did non think a lot will move significantly in the present market. Evidence suggests that people do not view the mountaintops as viable or important building sites. In the broader marke5, there is a high profile minority that desire these sites. In the nine subdivisions that MS. Scala mentioned briefly, he suggests that this might be changed. Mr. Bowerman asked if the value of a lot would be the same. Mr. Samuels said he did non anticipate a significant change, but it depends on the numbers given. Mr. Kurt Ellison, regional coordinator with the Virginia Department of Emergency Services and nationally certified emergency manager, said he deals with emergency management in highly urban areas to highly rural and has 25 years experience in emergency management. Just recently, Roanoke Valley was announced as a candidate for the newly-formed Project Impact, a highly publicized mitigation program. The push is mitigation and when you have structures than are located up in mountainous areas, it makes sense that it is difficult to get services to them. It used to be than there were no problems June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) lPage 45) with people near rivers, oceans or mountains. Peop~ just did not live there because they saw rivers rise or hurricanes hit beaches. The number one killer in Virginia is flooding. More people died in Nelson County from a hurricane than have ever died on the oceanfront, and it was as a result of flooding. He was intimately associated with the Madison operation during the flood some years ago and the number one problem was access. It is still, and always will be, a major problem in flooding, debris flows, fires and snowstorms. Driveways and access roads wash out during s~orms and people are stuck in their homes. There are no statistics on how many people have died because of lack of access, but it has caused major hardship in areas. People who live in mountainous areas tend to be self-reliant, knowing that such problems happen, but when they need help, they ask for help and people cannot get ~o them. Mr. El!ison said he is concerned about driveways and access roads; f~re trucks and ambulances are usually quite high, in addition to width and drainage, these vehicles are quite heavy and the roads often cannot bear their weight. Today's regulations do non pay for any repairs to driveways, so if a person's private driveway washes out during a flooding event, there are no dollars to help repair it. The other issue is whether rescue personnel should be repairing these driveways. Some feel that those who pu~ themselves in such situations should not be eligible for FEMA assistance. The focus these days is on mitigation; spend a dollar today to save ten dollars down the road. The Deparnment of Emergency Services is interested in, not necessarily restricting, but controlling the kind of development so that when they do call for service, service can get there. Ms. Thomas asked for s definition of mitigation. Mr. Ellison said it is like fire prevention; doing something that prevents the impact of a future disaster. For instance, for someone who lives next to a river that constantly floods, moving the people away and not letting anyone build there would be mitigation. He noted that there were currently such projects going on in Madison County, purchasing land and relocating the residents, then dedicating the land to the County with the provision that nothing ever be builn there. Ms. Thomas asked whether he was also suggesting that there should be less disaster relief for people who knowingly put themselves in harm's way. Mr. Ellison agreed, saying that FEMA does not look favorably on applicants who place themselves where they know that disasner could strike. Mr. Marshall noted that access is not always the problem. His nenan5 house that is only 100 yards from the highway, burnt to the ground with fire trucks sitting all around it. Mr. Ellison said that fire service configuration: location, equipmenn and such, are also important issues. Ms. Thomas asked abou5 the turning radius mentioned in the ordinance. Mr. Ellison said it was added to make sure the large vehicles, such as the fire trucks, could make the curves. Mr. Perkins said this also brought up the question of whether it was the County's responsibility to protect everyone from everything. Mr. Marshall said he did non think you could, that he chose to live on a mountaintop and that it was his own responsibility. Mr. Ellison said the common opinion was that it was the government,s job to fix everything after an emergency and that they were trying no change that attitude and make people aware of what they can do 5o lessen the impact of the next disaster if they choose to live in such areas. Ms. Cindy Frenzel, from the Virginia Department of Forestry and working for the Forest Pro5ection Team, said her job was to protect forests from forest fires as well as homes in the urban/r~rat interface, bUilt near or in forests. She specializes in fire prevention programs and acnivities for woodland homes. They have been counting the number of homes and doing various projects no get an idea of what kind of risk is involved. The number of homes across the shame has increased seven- to ten-fold since 1979. The Department of Forestry fights fires; they are the quick initial response to forest fires. During the fire season from March through May, they have helicopters on standby jusn no be able to save these woodland homes quickly, It does not just happen. Homes do non just survive by luck. The main issue is access and she fully supports everything that has already been said about access. If the truck cannot get up the driveway, that is where the protection stops. Ms. Frenzel said than in Afton, there was one home that survived the full force of the fores5 fire partly because the house was made of virtually June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 46) 000,3~0 fireproof materials. Key issues are access, driveways, bridges, water for firefighters, building materials and landscaping around the home. People enjoy living in the woods, surrounding your home with 5rees, but she recommends that there be at least 30 feet of clearance between the landscaping and the home to keep the house from catching on fire from a forest fire. In Shenandoah, where she lives, at one point if lots were larger than three acres, they were exemu5 from road specifications, so they'have three large subdivisions with grossly inadequate roads. If people want to build woodland homes, there needs 5o be access. Ms. Thomas said people have suggested that roads built for logging uses be used for residential development. She asked if logging routes were adequate for access for fire trucks. Mr. Samuels said one problem was that flat roads withou5 any drainage wash out quickly. It is not so much the turning radius as no drainage ditches or maintenance. Mr. Perkins said it~ is not the initial road that is the problem. The road is adequaEe when the cement truck comes up to pour the foundation. The problem is that t~e road deteriorases and is no5 maintained. It depends on what happened to the logging roads after the logging was over. If you put ditches in, you need 5o have pipes and if the pipes stop up, you are betser off no5 having any pipes. The road would be more stable with broad-based dips than one with stopped-up pipes. Mr. Perkins then handed out a drawing showing what happens with a 2:1 slope as compared no a 1.5:1 slope. Mr. Mawyer said a 2:1 side slope requirement takes more width. If your objective is to minimize the disturbed area, you are betser off having sneeper slopes. That will, however, pus you in an erosion control loop, since you have less disturbed area, but a sseeper slope is more prone to erosion. The erosion problem has non been helped. The ordinance does allow more flexibility for the engineer's office to allow steeper slopes in cases where it is warranted. The engineer's department has been working with planning to allow steeper slopes, even up to 1:1, and would want the language in the ordinance dealing with private roads and constructed embankmenss revised to give them more discretion, if for example, a 2:1 slope would be impossible because of rock or it would require removing ~rees or a soils report said the soil was adequate. Ms. Thomas asked what would be required if there were public roads. She was told ~.hat a 2:1 side slope would be required. She asked if all public roads could be required. Mr. Mawyer noted that the 2:1 side slope requirement is County-wide, and affects everyone's embankment slopes, and said that the slope of the driveway itself is not regulated, only the side slope. Private roads only come ~nto play when you have three or more houses. He said that there were three types of roads under discussion: a public road which VD©T accepss and maintains; a private road which serve three or more lots; and, driveways which go from the lot line 5o the house where a private road goes from the public road to the driveway. Ms. Thomas noted than the MOD says nothing about the steepness or turning radius of a driveway, only the embankment. Mr. Mawyer said the embankment slopes, as well as the turning radius of a private road, have been affected by the MOD, but only the side slope of a driveway. Ms. Thomas asked if there were any limitation on the steepness of ~he private road i~self. Ms. Scala noted that a private road currently can have a maximum slope of 16 percenE. Mr. Bowerman asked whether Ashcroft Subdivision could have been built under the new provisions, and whether ~he white house (mentioned often as the big white house on the top of the mountain which sticks oun like a sore thumb) could have been built as well. Ms. Scala said that white house has a private driveway, so the side slopes would have to be 2:1. She does non know if it could be buil~ because the lot is extremely long and narrow. Mr. Bowerman asked if this ordinance would prevenn this kind of development in the future. Mr. Citimberg said there was a building site that was ac~ualty shown to the Planning Commission during preliminary approval of the subdivision plat lower on the mountain but the Commission could not restrict development to it because they had alternative building sites. This ordinance would restrict them to the building sites below the mountain line. Mr. Marshall said the most offensive th~ng, both no him and 5o those who desire ~o have this ordinance adopted, is ~ big white house sticking out in June 3, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~2'~ (Page 47) the open where everyone can see it, and the ordinahc~will noc stop that kind of behavior, so the ordinance will not have solved anything. He thinks the Board is trying to kill a fly with a cannon ~o s~op that kind of thing from happening in the future. Mr. Perkins said the mountains are protected somewhat now. He would like to see a list of all existing County ordinances which provide protection to the mountains, as well as the entire County, and how the Mountain Protection Ordinance adds to thac list. Mr. Martin said that by the time of the public hearing, he would like to see some examples of language that could be added to the Ordinance Eo allow for a special use permit for family divisions and whatever else the staff might think would be helpful. Mr. Davis said where a lot straddled the r~dge area and the building site above the ridge area was better than the site below the ridge line, the Commission wanted a special use permit process to allow substitution of the building site from below for the building site above, but not to allow additional lots to be created. Mr. Cilimberg said family divisions cannot be done beyond the owner's development rights in any pare of the rural area, so this should noc be considered in the context of mountain property either. Mr. Davis said the language proposed by staff was to simply allow a transfer of a building site, and not for creation of additional lots above the ridge area. If there is a piece of land entirely above the ridge area and there are two developmenu rights, under the proposed ordinance, only one house could be built and the land could not be subdivided to create any additional lots that are entirely above the ridge area. He thinks Mr. Martin is asking for the possibility for the Board to gran~ a special use permit to allow another lot to be created to use that development right. That is something that has not been considered by the Planning Commission. Ms. Thomas asked if this is strictly for family subdivision, and would be by special use permit, the way it is now. Mr. Martin said thac over the years he has been a Board member, the Board has only approved those that were for family divisions. Mr. Davis said in the existing ordinance there is a special provision in the RA District that allows the Board to create addi- tional development rights by special use permit in certain circumstances and the Board has done that rarely. That has been basically in a family subdi- vision situation where the Board granted an additional development right. 'Mr. Martin said he would like the Board co have the power to create those addi- tional lots. Mr. Ron Keeler noted that the additional development right which has been utilized for a family division, is not available throughout the rural areas. It is not available in the reservoir watershed. Mr. Marshall asked whether the Board wished to go ahead with a public hearing next week. Ms. Humphris said the hearing had already been advertised. Mr. Martin said he thought the Planning Commission did a good job making changes to the ordinance so it is more of a compromise everyone can live with. He wishes there were some way to gec that word out to the public before next week. Ms. Scala said she had a letter ready for mailing to the same property owners who were notified before the Planning Commission,s public hearing. There will also be an advertisement in the newspaper outlining the changes made by the CommissiDn. Mr. Martin noted that his work phone number should noc be put in advertisements, his home number should be used instead. Ms. Humphris said she thought the Planning Commission's public hearing was quite informative and she appreciates the people who appeared here today to address their concerns. Ms. Thomas said a lot of people had brought up the question of whether residential development should be preferred to forestry uses of mountainous properties. They se~ Eo think that forestry uses would be a lot worse than residential development. She said the County's Comprehensive Plan is based on the idea that agricultural, and within that, forestry uses, are what the land is intended for. She asked for an opinion on this question. Mr. Perkins noted tha~ houses are a good deal more permanent than cutting of crees. Trees do grow back, so that is temporary. He feels that many things are altered when a house is built. It disrupts the migratory routes of animals and birds, etc., and disrupts the natural flow of water. It June 3, 1998 '(Regular Day Meeting) {Page 48) does have a permanent and more severe lmpac~ on the environment than just cutting timber. Mr. Marshall agreed with Ms. Humphris that the staff had done an excellent job. He commended Mr. Jared Loewenstein on the way he conducted the Planning Commission's public hearing. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters no~ Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker noted that every year the JAUNT Board asks their stockholders to meet and approve the appointment of board members. Each year he asks the Board of Supervisors 5o appoint a proxy so the Board members do not need ~o attend. He requested that Ms. Roxanne White be appointed as proxy To the JAUNT Board un~il August 30, 2000. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to appoint Ms. Roxanne W. White as the Board's proxy To act and vote all of the County's shares at the annual meeting of the shareholders of JAUNT, Inc. through August 30, 2000. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Ms. Thomas said she received a notice that on Monday, June 8 from 5:00 p.m. To 6:00 p.m., there will be a meeting sponsored by the Metropolitan Planning Organization mo discuss commuter rails. Ms~ Thomas said she had attended the meeting the Board was invited to about Ash Lawn. She learned a lot of history that day. The main question was whether the building should be returned no the way the Monroe family had it, which would mean remdving the pillars, which is the par5 one sees when first entering the grounds. Those pillars where added in the 1920s in order to make the building look more Jeffersonian because it was for sale a~ the time. The group decided that was not a good idea, they like the house the way it is today. Mr. Marshall sai~ he has always been fascinated that a President of the United States lived in such tiny rooms. Ms. Thomas said that is what most school children visiting the home also speak about. The house was not designed by Thomas Jefferson. Ms. Thomas said that on June 9, in the evening, the Sugar Hollow Dam reconstruction will be discussed aT a meeting mo be held in White Hall. The dam is having safety repairs made on it, and one of the questions is whether any of the repairs will allow for a flow of water down the River during the Summer which it does not allow for. Ms. Thomas said she had one thing she would like staff 5o think abouE. There are many committees working on many different things and there is an issue of how they all fit together and whether some are stepping on the Toes of others. For example, the PDR Committee and the Mountain Ordinance, the Dark Skies Ordinance, the Agricultural/Forestal Committee, and the agricultural portion of the Comprehensive Plan. The interconnection of these committees is something Mr. Bob Watson mentioned recently as something the Development Committee is interested in. Whether this could be a meeting of a development roundtable; she does not know what form the discussion would take. Mr. Perkins said there will be a meeting on June 4 about the Bargamin tract in Crozeto Mr. Cliff Fox called about ~hat meeting yesterday. He is working with the property owner on the concep5, and they are trying to find a way 5o get a higher density on the proper~y. They have 51 units on less than 20 acres, and he is talking about 75+ unites. He has been working on several conceptual plans, and they are inviting the community mo let them help choose a plan. Mr. Perkins said he has a Planning District Commission meeting tomorrow night, but he has asked his wife to attend the meeting. He believes Mr. Fox has invited the Board members just for informational purposes. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) 000344 (Note: The next three items were heard ~ogether. ) Agenda Item No. 9. CPA 98-01. Mountains. PUBLIC KEARING on a proposal to amend Chapter 2 of the Comp Plan, ~the Natural Environment," to include sec on ~Mountains" described by contour elevation; & to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concep~ Map. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.) Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA 98-05. Mountain Overlay District & related provisions. PUBLIC ~EARING on an ordinance to amend Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Code of the County of Albemarle to add §30.8, Mountain Overlay District, & to amend related zoning provisions. The Mountain Overlay District estab- lishes a new zoning district to regulate subdiv & building activity above designated contour elevations in mountain districts, incl a requirement to obtain an SP to subdivide lots under 21 acs, & restrictions, such as no building to occur on the mountain ridge. In addition, the following amend- ments to Chapter 20 would apply County-wide: an amendment to add §4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, which requires that no slope be created in any zoning district which is steeper than 2:1. Amendments are also proposed to related Code provisions, including ~3.0 Definitions, §4.2 Critical Slopes, & §31.2.2 Building Permits. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.) Agenda Item No. 11. ZMA 98-10. Mountain Overlay District. PUBLIC HEARING on a proposal to amend the official zoning map to add a Mountain Overlay District desigu~ation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations & described as Mountains in the proposed ~30.8, Mountain Overlay District, & in the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 25 and June 1, 1998.) Ms. Scala said she would talk about the rationale for the maps, what the ordinance does and how it meshes with current regulations, as well as recent changes to the ordinance. The first part of the proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Pl mn to include a section on mountains including a listof mountains described by contour elevation. She noted that the contour plan is a policy documenu, and this section is especially important to the special use permit process. The second part is an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance Text. She explained that the Mountain Overlay District establishes a new zoning district to regulate subdivision and building activity above designated contour elevations in the mountain districts. The most recent draft of the proposed text is June 8, 1998. She noted that the third part is an amendment to the Zoning Map to add a Mountain Overlay District designation to certain properties which are located above designated contour elevations and are described as mountains in the Mountain Overlay District and in the Open Space Plan. She then referred to a soils map showing critical slopes based on slopes of 25 percent and greater, and she pointed out the MOD boundaries which have been identified bya specific contour line elevation located in the are~ where the critical slopes begin on a particular mountain. She noted the elevation of the critical slopes on the different mountains, and she said the intent is to protect the mountain resources above this elevation where the mountains become v~sually prominent a~d where development is more difficult due to concentrations of the critical slopes. She pointed ouu that within the MOD boundaries, ridge areas have been delineated and in no case does a ridge area extend outside a MOD boundary. She noted that the ridge area is the highest and most prominent part of the mountain, and it is defined as land within 100 vertical feet of the montain ridge line and peaks. She added that the intent of the ordinance is to keep development off of the ridge area as much as possible. Ms. Scala stated that she Would not go into detail about the background, but mountain protection was first discussed in the 1971 Comprehensive Plan. This particular ordinance came from a Mountain Protection Committee, which was appointed by the Board of Supervisors in 1995. Committee members felt that mountains had characteristics which distinguished them from other rural land, and they recommended an ordinance for the mountains to protect the environ- ment, scenic quality, economic benefits, general public safety and to promote more efficient use of taxpayer services by limiting delivery of services in the Rural Area. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) She pointed out that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this ordinance on May 19,1998 and recommended unanimously to approve all three amendmenus with three major changes. The first was to add a grandfathering clause which would allow existing residences such as in Ashcroft and Rosemont Subdivisions which are located in the Mountain District to be added on to or rebuilt. The second major change was to delete the special use permit for small lots which meant that the owners could then use all the development for small lots, as well as the large 21 acre parcets~within the MOD by right, provided they have a building site. The third change was that this Board should consider a special use permit to allow a certain amount of development on the ridge area, if the owner could show that building there would cause less environmental degradation than building betowthe ridge. She then described what the ordinance does and called attention to ~he summary on Page Two of the staff report outlining the current regulations. The proposed MOD is an overlay district and it would overlay the underlying zoning district which is largely zoned as RA, Rural'Area. There is also a small amounu of mountain area zoned R-i, Residential. She commented that currently, building can take place in the RA.District in mountain areas, if development rights exist and if a building site is available. She said a building site is defined as a minimum of'30,000 square feet of less than 25 percent slope, and the purpose of this is to allow location of the dwelling, the septic system and a reserve back-up area for a septic system. Also other zoning and subdivision requirements have to be met such as access require- ments. She said if a parcel currently has no building site, one dwelling is permitted. She noted that she has been asked by many people as to why the existing regulations are insufficient. There are a large number of development rights existing in the RA on mountains which could be used by right. She added that there are unique environmental concerns in the mountains and a site plan cannot be required for a single family dwelling, so there Ks no opportunity to review for issues such as design, safety and screening. She remarked that aesthetic requirements cannot be imposed, so therefore color is not an issue with which County officials can deal. There are no driveway regulations currently, so a driveway can be constructed across 25 percent slopes. She also noted that if there are multiple building sites on a parcel, the County cannot specify building lower rather than higher. These are some of the things this ordinance is intended to correct. She reiterated that the ordinance provides that owners can build within the MOD using all their development rights and existing residences would be grandfathered. There are three options for building on the ridge areas. She said orginially if the only available building site on the parcel was on the ridge area, or if the whole parcel was in steep slopes and that was the only place to build, then the ordinance wouldallow a single family dwelling by right on the ridge area. This was to provide a reasonable use of the parcel. She mentioned that this latest draft of the ordinance has two new sections and both would allow, byspecial use permit, additional building on the ridge area. The Planning Commission recommended this change. She went on to say additional building can be done on the ridge area if it is a case where the owl/er can show that building on theridge would cause less environmental degradation than building below the ridge area. Thesecond is to allow one or more dwellings by special use permit on the ridge area when developments would otherwise be lost by not having the right to build-there. She stated that both these options to build on the ridge area would have to meet the intent of the MOD, as well as general special use permit criteria in the Zoning Ordi- nance, including compliance with the Comprehensive-Plan. Ms. Scala mentioned that she gets a lot of questions as to whether an RPD is still required in the Mountain Overlay District, and she said it'is required, and it is probably a preferable way to develop a property that ~has a mountain resource. Ms. Thomas called Ms. Scalars attention to the facu that she had inadvertently said an RPD is still required'in the Mountain Overlay District when she had meant to say that it is still allowed. MS. Scala thanked Ms. Thomas for this correction. Ms. Scala continued with her presentation by saying that the third major change uo this draft is that the County Engineer has suggested new language in the constructed embankments and private road sections to allow greater flexibility in approv- ing constructed embankments which are steeper thana two to one slope. She explained that now private driveways must maintain two to one slopes on the side slopes, but this new provision would allow the County Engineer to approve June 10, 1998 (Re~l/!ar Night k~e~) ......... = .....~ ~"~' ~ ~.t (Page 23) ~. waivers, and now they can go to any steepne~s~ S~%mentioned Other provisions of the ordinance which would require private FO~d~ tbhavea 40 foot turning radius for horizontal curvature which is to allow emergency vehicles to make the turn going up a private road to access a mountain property. She stated that another provision is that building sites must be shown on a plat. She explained that if a parcel straddles an MOD, then the building site must be located outside of the MOD, if one is available. She noted that there is always the option to subdivide within the MOD. She then referred to the Water Ordinance which defines land disturbing activity differently within the MOD. She said it is defined as 2,500 square feet rather than 10,000, and with the MOD, it is more likely that an erosion control plan would be required rather than just an agreement. These two provisions are to ensure that soil erosion, where it is more likely to occur on steep land, would be taken care of. She next introduced Joseph Samuels, who is a local appraiser, as well as a member of the County.s Purchase of Development Rights Committee, She noted that he spoke at the Board's work session last week, and Board members asked him to speak again. She said he will speak regarding the question of property values. She said Mr. Samuels will be followed by the County Attorney who will briefly discuss the ~ssue of property rights. Mr. Samuels said he was asked to assist the Board in the value implica- tions of the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, and he has been asked to repeat his conclusions tonight that he presented to the Board of Supervisors last week. He noted that he is not being paid by the Board and he does not speak tonight on behalf of any group or individual who ~s pressing for an advantage relative to the ordinance. He has been an appraiser for 26 years and a broker for 15 years with offices in Charlottesville. He has appraised office buildings, subdivisions, rural land and farms, but his appraisal business today is primarily partial interests where he has calculated everything from air rights near airports to the loss of development rights on farming estates and conservation easements. Ail of his comments and conclusions last week and tonight are based upon adoption of the ordinance with the Planning Commis- sion's recommendations. He then presented his statemen=. (See statement presented to the Board of Supervisors from Joseph T. Samuels, Inc., dated June 4, 1998.) In his opinion, with the changes proposed by the Planning Commis- sion, the ordinance ~s a very flexible document that can support the highest and besn use defined by the market in a manner that will not disrupt existing value. Mr. Marshall stated that he would ask the same question he asked Mr. Samuels at the work session because he would like for the public to have the benefit of the answer. He then asked if, in Mr. Samuels' opinion as an appraiser, he thinks this ordinance would have a detrimental effect on property values of the people who own mountaintop land. He said, though, Mr. Samuels, statement indicates that he does not think there would a problem. Mr. Marshall next inquired if Mr. Samuels has consulted other appraisers in the County who are doing this type of thing. He said he has talked to several since Mr. Samuels made his presentation to this Board, and they do not agree. He also asked how many people are in Mr. Samuels, firm. Mr. Samuels answered that he has two people in his firm. There could be differenu opinlons, and he does nou think a round table discussion is the kind of thing where opinions are formed. He stated that an opinion is an opinion, and he has tried to support his opinion. Mr. Marshall wondered if Mr. Samuels does appraisals for lending institutions, etc. Mr. Samuels replied that almosu all of his clients are private, and he does not do work any more for lending institutions. Mr. Marshall then asked Mr. Davis if he wanted to speak. Mr. Davis stated that he was asked whether or non the Mountain Overlay Ordinance, as it applies to existing property rights, would constitute a taking cf the property which would require the County to compensate landown- ers. In examining this issue, Mr. Davis said it is very clear that the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled that a regulatory action is not a taking of property so long as there remains a reasonable use of the property. He explained that this is true, as the courts point ouu, even if it limits a property owner,s ability to develop or use the land as the owner originally intended to use it, or even if it does no= allow the property to be developed · n a way that may maximize the owner's investment. He said, as has been June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24)- 00034'7 described today, theMountain Overlay ordinance allows every existing property owner at least one residential development Site, and it does not affect other existing by right uses or special uses. He stated that as proposed in the ordinance before this Board tonight, there are provisions which will allow all existing development rights to be utilized under appropriate conditions. He said as presented now under any legal standard that might apply, there are reasonable and economic uses of the property. He stated that for this reason, even though some property owners may feel the value of their property may be lessened by these restrictions, there is no legal obligation which would require the County to compensate any landowner for any claim for loss of property value, because it would not be a' legal'taking of any property rights under this ordinance. Mr. Marshall inquired if an appraiser, who does appraisals for banks and lending institutions, was to say the value of this property was substantially reduced, would the County be liable to reimburse any of these people. He noted that basically these are the people whoset market values. Mr. Davis responded that the County would not be liable as long as there is a reasonable use of the property. To prove the property is of less value after the adoption of the ordinance would not constitute a taking and would not require the County to compensate for any loss of value provided the property still has an economic and reasonable use. This ordinance would not take away such a use. In his opinion, the County would not be obligated and would never be required by court to compensate such a landowner. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Davis could defend this ordinance in court, if the County were to be sued. Mr. Davis answered that he could do so under existing law. Ms. Humphris said she wanted to clarify the difference between a private driveway and a private road. She went on to explain that driveways serving jusu one or two dwellings are not subject to minimum turning radius require- menus. However, private roads serving more than two dwelling units are subject to these requirements. Ms. Scala concurred with Ms. Humphris. Mr. Martin mentioned that he has several questions which he would like to ask later before the Board votes on this matter. He would first like to hear what the public has to say. Mr. Marshall asked if he could get a consensus of the Board as to whether they feel they want to vote on this issue tonight. He stated that in light of the number of people who are speaking and the lateness of the hour, he personally does not feel he is going to be mentally up to making a decision tonight. Ms. Thomas agreed. Mr. Marshall said he asked for a consensus of the Board because if the Board is not going to vote on the matter tonight, the public needs to know. There may be some people who will speak and want to leave the meeting after that, if the vote is not going to be taken. He reiterated that he does not want to vote on this issue at 1:00 a.m. He wants to have time, after the public hearing, to discuss this in detail with the other Board members and then make a decision. Ms. Humphris agreed and other Board members agreed. Mr. Marshall informed the public that the vote would not be taken tonight. The public hearing would be held, and the vote would be taken at a later date. He menuioned, again, that this Board will not have full member- ship until the first meeting in August, so the vote on this issue will not happen before that time. Ms. Thomas stated that she is not agreeing to delay the vote for this length of time. The Board meets next week. Ms. Humphris concurred with Ms. Thomas. Mr. Marshall reiterated that there will not be a full Board present next week. There is already a full agenda, and Mr. Bowerman is leaving that particular meeting early. Mr. Bowerman stated that if this issue is on the agenda, he will stay for the duration of the meeting. He had asked for the difficult items to be placed at the beginning of the meeting, so that if he was able to leave early, he could do so. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2S) 000848 Ms. Humphris commented that she sees no reasOn'to delay the vote, once all of the public input has been received. She noted that there will be a week for the Board to consider the public comments, and they certainly should be able to vote next week. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want to make this decision tonight either. He wants to be able to listen to the public and there may be questions the Board members want to ask staff beyond that point which may or may not be answered by June 17, 1998. He would like to reserve making the decision on the date to which the vote will be deferred, until after the public has spoken. Board members agreed. At 9:30 p.m., Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. He stated that he would call five names at a time, so those people can come forward and be prepared to speak, in the hope that the meeting could move forward quickly[ The first speaker, Ms. Pat Napoleon, voiced her utmost support for the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. She and her family own several parcels of the ridge top land in Cismont, and they treasure their privilege to serve as stewards of this beautiful property. She stated that many changes have befallen the Charlottesville/Albemarle area during the recent years. She added that the rapid population increase has made a colossal impact, and resulting pressures to manage growth have been a challenge to say the least. The area mountains offer one last opportunity for the County's citizens to savor the tranquility of days past. She commented that those people who had the privilege as children to live within and enjoy local mounuain environmenu in an undisturbed state would like to see future generations have this chance to do likewise. She said it musu be remembered that some of the glorious landscapes being discussed tonight helped to spur the dreams and visions of many noted early American individuals and families. She noted that the time has come for everyone to unite in a collective effort to preserve the historic and aesthetic qualities of the local mountain land. She invited any person to travel through the mountainous areas of North Carolina and east Tennessee as she did not long ago. The visual alterations imposed during recent years 'are alarming, and although several protective ordinances have been enacted, in her view, it is too late for them. She suated that much damage has already taken place. She added that in short the elevated ground in Albemarle County is special and vulnerable, and more guidelines are needed now to protect these pristine visuas. She said landowners, including developers, should consider the feelings of all who look toward these ridges. The mountain land not only belongs to her and her family, but ownership transcends these boundaries. She said consideration for fragile animal and plant habitat, as well as respec~ for neigkbors, must be incorporated before imposing changes on these grounds. She thanked the Board members for their thoughtful attention to the matters at hand. She said it is her sincere hope that they will make this commitment tonight, and the vote will not be deferred long. She stated that enough compromise has ensued, and she asked the Supervisors to go the distance to protect the lands which have shaped the character of many before the present time and continues to do so today. Mr. Ivo Romenesko remarked that he is present at this meeting as a private citizen, and he is not engaged by any client nor is he representing any other group other than himself. He ow~s property in Albemarle County, although it is dOE mountaintop property. He is a certified general appraiser and an MAI designated member of the Appraisal Institute, and he is owner of the Appraisal Group which is one of the largest appraisal firms in the State of Virginia. He pointed out that he has.appraised real estate for over 28 years, and he has done thousands of appraisals of property in Albemarle County for banks, private property owners, corporations, governmental agencies and others. He then stated that the property rights affected by the proposed Mountaintop Ordinance do have value, and this raises the question of just compensation. In recent years he has done numerous appraisals of conservation and open space easements in this County, and in every case, the market value of the proper~y was reduced to one degree or another by conservation or open space easements. In every case, the owner was donating the easement in exchange for tax credit or a deduction. He added that, to his knowledge, the IRS has never questioned any of these valuations and, in fact, has cooperated with these donations of easements and the tax deductions. He pointed out that the Appraisal Journal, a publication of the Appraisal Institute, in its April issue suaues that mos~ conservation easements range from 40 to 60 percent of value, and the more restrictive the easement, the lower the property value. also mentioned that the National Park Service places significant value on mountains and has purchased land on Skyline Drive and the Shenandoah National June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) 000349 Park. The Service continues to acquire scenic easements to protect viewsheds from the Park, but property owners are always paid for these scenic easements. He noted that th~ Service Authority pays for easements even when water and sewer easemenLs benefit the property owner. The ~ighway Department purchases sight view easements, and in each of these examples, the public benefits and the property owner is paid. In his experience, he sees no evidence that houses on mountaintops diminish values of houses in nearby low lands: However, he has seen evidence that otherthings being equal, development rights contribute to value. Re added that there is undeniable evidence that demand creates value, and if no one wanted to build on mountaintops, there would be no reason to protect that. If the mountaintops require protection from construction, then there must be a demand for the mountaintops which must, therefore, have value. He supports the goal of scenic preservation, but he also supports the rights of private property owners. The citizens of Albemarle cannot expect ~o acquire something of undeniable value at no cost. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Romenesko that he had used up all of his allotted time.) After applause from members of the audience, Mr. Marshall reminded them that he had asked them not to applaud. However, he explained that if future speakers ask for members of the audience to stand in support, that will be fine. Mr. Charles Trachta, President of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association (ANA), read a statement from the Executive Board of the ANA. He indicated from the statement that the Mountaintop Preservation Committee has been struggling to find a way to preserve this County. The preservation of the beauty of these mountains is not just for the pleasure of the eye, but it is for the environmental concerns of the area, the sportsmans' concern, the business and real estate concerns, and it is for the concern of every person who lives in Albemarle County, and even those who are just passing through. He asked Board members to think about why people move here and stay. He stated that Albemarle's government, its businesses, real estate and developers use the beauty of this Count~ to sell it and make the County work and grow. The MTP Committee has not met secretly, and anyone or any group could have voiced their concerns and opinions. He said for more than a year ANA has had an appointed representative to act as an observer to the Committee. He pointed out that ANA members have discussed the Committee's work at numerous meetings, and the consensus of the meetings show that ANA is in support of the ordinance in its original form. He added that ANA members are willing to accept the compromise the Planning Co~mission has sent to this Board so some protection of the mountains is enacted. He stated that when the MTP Committee completed its work, the opposition decided to voice its disapproval. He said when the Supervisors are deciding whether or not uo support this work, and they are considering the opposition, they need to ask themselves where these people were when the Committee was meetingthe last few years. Since the MTP Committee has finished its work, he asked how many developers have submitted site plans so they would not be affected by this ordinance. He understands the Supervisors cannot vote tonight because of the number of speakers. Yet, he asked if they postpone this vote, that they instruct the Planning Depart- ment no~ to accept any site plans after today until a vote is taken. Mr. Donald Lyon, a member of the Albemarle Neighborhood Association and President of the Raintree Homeowners Association, supported the statements of Mr. Trachta. However, he emphasized the need for the Board of Supervisors to vote on this matter tonight, and if not tonight, in a few days. He said one mountain is already threatened due to a subdivision plat, and other subdivi- sion plats have already been filed. He referred to a list of nine development proposals as of June 2, and he said to think there will be no development on these mountaintops is clearly refuted. He asked the Supervisors not to let Albemarle County lose any more mountains or ground because of the Supervisors' inaction. He said it is in the Couauty's best interest for the Board to vote on this issue tonight and not uo delay this action. Mr. Jim Lark, a resident of the Buck Mountain section of the County and Secretary of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, stated that as a Virginia hillbilly by both birth and conviction, he yields to no one in his love for the beauuy of the mountains of this area. However, the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance is a reglxlatory taking which improperly restricts the right of property owners to the peaceful use of their property. There are several ways to protect the mountains such as restrictive covenants and the purchase of development rights which do not violate the rights of property owners, and he urged the Supervisors to vote a~ainst the proposed ordinance. June 10, 1998 (Regular (Page 27) Captain Chris Byrom, of the United Sta~s ~!F~e, remarked that he flew in from Seattle, Washington to speak ton~95~?~ H~haS been kept up-to-date by his parents and family as far as the discussions and proposals that have been presented on this issue, and he is disturbed by the absence of discussion on the effect this proposed ordinance will have on the citizens who live within the proposed Mountain Overlay Districts. He commented that most of these citizens are not, as they have been characterized in the full page ads in the Daily Progress, the richest citizens of the County. These are often people who have family histories of having lived here for generations. They drive 20 year old cars because this is what they can afford, and the homes they live in are not ones they have purchased through great expense, but they are ones which have been passed down from generation to generation. He added that for these families who are citizens within this area that are going to be directly affected by the proposed ordinance, he would like to point out some of the unfair costs they will bear. He said for the right to submit a building permit, and not to even get it approved, somebody has to have a final plat showing an approved building site. This requires several thousands of dollars of expense paid to a surveyor uo prepare the final plat, and it still does not mean they will have the right to build. For the protection of water resources, it is proposed they will have to come up with an Erosion Control Plan, and several thousand dollars will have to be paid to develop this plan. He said even with the proposed changes mentioned in the beginning of this meeting, it will have to be proven there is less of an environmental impact to build on a ridge than in a lower area. He asked what professional will have to be paid several thousands of dollars to prove this fact to some bureau- crat's satisfaction. There will be many other additional expenses involved with moving the building site from a flat area on to a slope which will include building site preparation, the design of the home and its foundation and preparation of septic fields and wells. He added that mowing equipment to keep back brush from the home that is satisfactorily safe for operating on slopes will have to be involved. He said implementation of this ordinance constitutes an imposition on the citizens and allows only the rich to develop their land, and he believes this constitutes a reprehensible change in the character of Albemarle County. Mr. Bob Byrom, father of the previous speaker, stated that he is speaking for the other five of his children and 13 grandchildren who cannot be present tonight. He opposes the Mountain District plan and feels very strongly that the proposal is unworkable, unfair and completely unnecessary. He said it is a very bad solution to a problem that does not exist. He then noted his concerns about the arguments that have been used to promote support of this plan. He recalled the public hearing held by the Planning Commission where the planners used slides uo project what could or would happen in this County. The ma~or co~ercial developments were very large, there were gigantic condominiums, and there was a building growing out of the top of the mountain. These areas appeared to be much larger than Wintergreen. The Sites of these points were not identified by the briefers, and he was told by someone in the audience that they do not even exist in Virginia. This Board and the County with its existing rules have the ability to control this type of commercial development. He referred to Mr. Davis' comments that this is not an unreasonable taking of property rights. However, Mr. Byrom believes the most reasonable use of farmland is to be able to build farm residences on the land. He noted that he has by letter asked the Director of Planning and~ Development in Albemarle County to tell him what effect this ordinance will have on his 818 acre farm. He has no= received even a penny postcard. He then referred to Mr. Samuels. remarks that 997 acres were being transferred with ten development rights. He said with his 818 acres he has nine develop- ment rights. Yet, the projection which was given at the Planning meeting showed a uniform color of amber going from Charlottesville out to where he lives in the northwest corner of the mountains as the development that will happen in this County in the absence of this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Byrom that he had used up all of his time.) Ms. Jean Kolb stated that she and her husband own 100 acres of mountain land including 3,000 feet of ridge line all within a proposed Mountain Overlay District, and they strongly support this ordinance She said usin~ the estimate of a Plarkning staff member that there are something like 7,000 division rights in the proposed MOD, there is the possibility of several thousand houses to be built on these mountains, because the ordinance says every parcel has one building right. There is the tendency for every parcel owner to think that the one house he wants to build won't disturb the mountain much and maybe it won't. However, the cumulative effect of this potential for several thousand houses with their associated roads and power lines certainly June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 28) 00035~ will disturb the mountains, and that is why it is proper and right for this Board to set up some building rules. She went on 5o say it is not just proper, but it is the Supervisors' responsibility to protect what everybody agrees is a resource that this whole community values. She stated that one house won't put a strain on the County emergency vehicles but 1,000 will, and one house won't disturb wildlife, but 1,000 will. She thinks the grouse and the black bears that have been using these mountains for 5,000 years without damaging them have earned the right to remain there. She noted that people have said they take good care of their mountain land, so building rules are not needed. She agreed that good care has been taken of the mountain land, but nobody knows who the next two or three owners are going to be, so she feels long term protection is needed. As ~o property values, Ms. Kolb stated that everywhere in the United States where wilderness areas have been desig- nated, people are flocking to live near them. The opportunity to buy a piece of protected land is likely to make land in or partly in these MODs much sought after in years to come. She stated that it cannot be said too often that this ordinance does not prevent anyone from building a house on a parcel of land. She said it sets the rules, but there is provision in the ordinance for valid exceptions of every one of those rules. She asked that the Supervi- sors not delay action on this issue, because some people are going to rush to subdivide. She suggested putting this framework in place and then, as recommended in the 1996 version of the Mountain Protection Plan, work out a system for the transfer of development rights; or the purchase of development, or perhaps for some compensating tax relief. She asked that the Supervisors pass this ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission so that the mountains enjoyed by the last three generations of Albemarle County residents will be here for the next three generations. Mr. Brad Barnhill, a member of the local Jefferson Area Libertarian Party, said he has some very fundamental views on this issue. He added that~ he is sure everybody wants the areas in question to be protected, and it is his firm belief that the property owner is a far better steward for his children's future than any other. If he understands the question before this Board, it would seem the County is attempting to protect the interest of one group of people against another group. This is not the proper use of govern- ment force. He stated that under mob rule, any group of people together can prevail their interests over any other smaller group. He went on to say the true purpose'of government is to protect the natural rights of the individual from usurpation by the majority. The County Officials act as though they own the property in question when clearly they' do not. He commented that every- body has a natural right to absolute ownership of their property, and for the County to impose the interest of the many over the rights of a few, he feel~ is robbery. He asked if it really matters if the robber wears a badge or a mask. ~e thinks not, and it is his hope that the Supervisors 'feel the same. He said everybody has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and these three natural rights are supposed to be in the Supervisors' hands and under their protection. ~e asked the Supervisors to recognize their oath to protect the rights as secured by.the constitution. Mr. Ed Strauss remarked that he lives in the western part of the County and right now his property is not affected by this ordinance. He said, though, as soon as somebody thinks a certain thing is desirable or it should stay a certain way forever, he or she will want it restricted. He stated that people who think something is nice or think they need something uo survive want to tell the other people how it should be'without taking into consider- ation how the property looks. He noted that the appearance of the property is a credit to the people and not to government. He said open space and moun- taintops are all owned by somebody, and they are not just there for everybody to look at. They are how they are because the owners want them that way. He commented that to say the Supervisors know better how to take care of this land is fundamentally wrong. He then questioned if mountains are at risk. He mentioned that there has been a Holiday Inn on Afton Mountain for 30 years, and he asked if anything has been built on the ridge line next to it. There is some building behind it, but he asked where the big expansion is on Afton Mountain. He noted that 1-64 was built through the Alton area, and everybody. thought this was bad, but it is still there. He stated that animals are still there, and they get hit by cars every night. He asked what is more important than the rights of humans, and he pointed out that-human beings are Albemarle County's greatest resource. The government has the right to talk about holding mountains over people, but the peoplehave the common sense. He added that human beings created this place, and they will be here as long as it is here. He suggested that the Supervisors should vote no because it is not about controlling people or controlling land. The mountains will be here June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 29) after everybody is gone. He reiterat~ ;ors to vote no, but if they have to vote affirmat to consider a companion human being protection plan. They need to spell out to the ones who have children, who make their homes here, and who invest in this County what it will cost to continue to live here, because that is Important, too. Mr. John Little commented that he is representing Ms. Julia Campbell, who ow~s 45 acres known as Lewis Mountain, and it is located off of Ivy Road, 3ust on the cuff of the City/County boundary line. He said Ms. Campbell,s property is presently zoned residential Ri, and this zoning classification is for areas designated for residential development in community and urban areas of the County. The property ~s surrounded by nearby commercial and multi-family residential development, University property and a County water tank. He said if the proposed district were to include Ms. Campbell,s property, what was once earmarked for permitted residential development, will then be a protected area. He added that certainly this changes her economlc expectations and the value of her property. He noted that to date only elevation and critical slopes have been considered as to whether or not her property should be in the district, but no consideration at all has been given to its location, which is an urban and community area. The stated public benefits of the ordinance just don't have the efficacy in that area, and accordingly this property should not be included in the proposed district. Secondly, he remarked that if this property is included in the district, the owner should be compensated for any change in value, since both the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions prohibit the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. He said ownership of property consists of a bundle of rights that include the right to develop property, and when the government takes away development rights ~rom this bundle, it may be required to pay. The law of inverse condemnation is alive and well in the State of Virginia. He mentioned that in the Prince William County versus Omni Homes 1997 case, the court left open as to whether the taking of just one right may constitute a taking. He added that interestingly in the same case, the County Ks reported to have paid $3,700,000 to another litigant to settle an inverse condemnation case when the County adopted regulations to implement the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act. This forces the County to put its money where its mouth is. The general rule is that if a regulation goes too far, a taking will occur Which requires compensation. He asked when does a regula- tion go too far. The law on this point is a muddle, because some believe the courts have created uncertainty on purpose so that government and property owners will work out their differences by meaningful dialogue in a political process. He then respectfully urged the Board not to include Ms. Campbell,s property in the district and to be mindful that when regulations go too far, landowners may be entitled to compensation. Mr. Jim Hall stated that he and his wife own 100 acres of land that is affected by the Mountain Protection Plan, and they support the plan.as it was originally proposed i00 percent. He noted the discussion about taking away individual property rights, and said he would like to offer some historical perspective. He added that 20~ years ago there was virtually no restrictions on property rights, and there really needed to be none. However, as technol- og-y, ~ransportation and population of the County have grown, it has been the duty of the Board of Supervisors to ensure proper development of the County,s land. He thinks most rural landowners would agree it is good that neighbors cannot put in a factory or a K-mart or McDonald's, or even 100 houses, on 50 acres of land. He noted that it has always been the duty of the Board of Supervisors to properly zone land. He recalled a gentleman,s remarks at the Planning Commission meeting last month that only 15 or 20 homes were built in the mountain areas last year. This gentleman asked then what was the problem. Mr. Hall commented that if this number increases to 25 or 30 over the next 10 years, which is a very real possibility, then over the next 50 years, there could well be 1,500 homes built in the mountain areas. Re stated that just as former Boards have made tough decisions to restrict the rights of landowners, it is now this Board's duty to protect the quality of the drinking water, streams and the beauty of the mountains. He asked the Supervisors not to let the children and grandchildren wake up to mountains that are marked with development. Re encouraged the Supervisors ~o vote for this legislation as originally proposed and to enact legislation which similarly restricts the development of all rural land. Ms. Barbara Moon commented that most everything she had to say has been said, except to say she opposes this ordinance. She said land is becoming scarce, and the best financial planning for a person's children is to give them property. She stated that it is hard to start a home this day and time 000353 June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 30) and sharing land with children is the right of parents and not a Board of Supervisors' decision. Sheasked the Board to vote for the landowners. Mr. George Howard remarked that he has sent the Board of Supervisors a statement, but he would like to offer a few more comments. He and his wife own Red Brook Farm, which consists of approximately 200 acres, 60 of which are in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. This property has been in his family for 152 years, and there are no buildings in the mountains, and he does not propose to subdivide his property. He hopes to pass it on to his children some day. He and his family are opposed to this ordinance, and he wondered what the ordinance is about, anyway, ge said some say it is about appearance, but it is possible for people to clear-Cut:a mountain, yet a building cannot be put on a ridge. He inquired if the Board would rather have a clear-cut mountain or a Monticello on a ridge. He emphasized that he thinks it is not about appearance because a Monticello on a ridge is much more beautiful than a clear-cut mountain. He said supporters of the ordinance make many other claims for its being necessary, but these claims are fairly.well covered by current regulations, ge commented that the only thing this ordinance is about is control.of personal property, and no one can convince him that the relegat- ing of use of land for agricultural~and forestal only does not severely depress the value of the land, and therefore, this is a taking. The County should compensate the owners for these takings and require a title to the land. He stated that if all of these people wish to see these mountains, and they wish for the property not to be changed, then they ought to be willing to buy it from the owners, ge .added that this ordinance' is about erosion of the rights of property owners, because piece by piece, drop by drop, these rights are eroded away. ge asked that the Boardof Supervisors vote against the ordinance. Ms. Marian Dowell spoke against the ordinance because she wants the property to remain as it is. She said she does not own any property, but her mother and father have passed on, and left the property to their two children. She reiterated that she wants the property left in its present state. Ms. Ruth Wadlington, Co-President of the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville/Albemarle, stated that the League has had a committee studying the Mountain Protection Ordinance for a long time. She handed in a copy of a statement earlier, but she would also like to make a few comments. She said most people want to assure that the natural mountain beauty making Albemarle County such a special place continues undisturbed whether for economic or aesthetic reasons. She stated that while all those families who have lived on the land for many years have an appreciation of the obligation this entails, there is a s5rong worry that accelerating development pressures will cause damages everybody will regret. She noted that all zoning puts restrictions on what can be done with land. She pointed out that one of the latest primary concerns is the preservation of Albemarle County's water supply and quality, and many provisions the Supervisors are considering are desig-ned to specifi- cally deal with this issue. There are clearly differences of opinion as to what measures will ensure the best policies for the community at large, and some do not even think this is a valid goal. She stated that some very good suggestions have emerged from previous hearings, and the Planning Commission has recommended that the Supervisors adopt some of those. She added that a!lowing by special permit a building site on a ridge or plateau where it will be less harmful to the environment seems to be a sensible compromise. She went on to say some flexibility may help to avert the law of unintended consequences. She added that the League is most grateful to the people who have given their time and energies to c~eating and refining this ordinance, and she urged the Board to adopt the proposed zoning amendments in addition to the Comprehensive Plan. She said she now has a much ~rea~er appreciation for the job done by the Supervisors. Ms. Ninon Gore stated that she would like to see Albemarle County's mountains protected from developers. Mr. Fred Gore mentioned that there might need to be some more discussion before there is a vote. He suggested that maybe some more people could express their views, even though there are a~lot of people who are going to do so at this meeting. He said he does not think there has been enough discus- sion to really examine what this ordinance is going to cover. He added that the concerns of the people who are going to be affected by it need to he addressed more. He is in the spirit of the proposal, but he will have to go against it, at this point. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 31) -:-000354 Ms. Frances Lee-Vandell commented ~he ordinance, and she likes the fact that families are coming together he from Seattle and other places to talk about how they will deal with their family farms. The issue has to be brought up, and she hopes that with this ordinance, the Supervisors will continue to keep the dialogue open so there will be some way of advising people about intergenerational transfer of their family farms. This point needs to be addressed here in the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Eric Nielsen said he is a mem~er of the Shenandoah Ecosystems Defense Group, which is a locally based nonprofit organization committed to the sustainabls conservation and restoration of the natural values of the Central Appalachians. He commented that his group supports the Mountain Protection Plan in its original proposed form with the exception of exemptions for intensive agricultural operations. The right to own private property ~s granted by the public, and the public has the responsibility uo oversee its usage and to ensure that public values are upheld. H9 said simply because money can be reade in an enterprise does not not make the activity justifiable. He said if the Fire Department and zoning regulations won't allow him to harbor native plant and animal com~uunities in b_is small yard, then why should someone be allowed to pave a mountaintop negatively impactingpeople, as well as natural and economic resources downstream all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. He asked if people should be allowed to wantonly develop the County's beautiful mountains simply because they are developers, and that is what they do. He said although he does not have the good fortune to own land in Alben%arle County's mountains, it does not mean his home is not there~ He stated that his home goes out his door, right across the property line at the edge of his yard, across the railroad tracks, out into the countryside and up into the mountains. He stated that he will walk through his home at will, and he will fight to defend it from the thieves who come to steal the precious wildness which remains whether it is in his living room, on the back porch or up on the roof top. The right to ow~ private property is really no~ a right au all. He added that it is a privilege which comes from having the economic resources to afford it, or the good fortune to inherit it. He went on to say it lsa privilege and a responsibility. He stated that land is more than a raw undeveloped material awaiting human initiative to make it valuable. He added that it is a fully and actively functioning system supporting the livelihoods of countless organisms including all the residents of Albemarle County. He next emphasized that the exemption for agricultural facilities should be eliminated. He said having grown up in the Shenandoah Valley, he is well aware of the damage to water quality, scenic quality and ecological resources that can occur due to insufficient regulation of the poultry industry and other large and intensive agricultural operations. With this exception, he asked that the Mountain Prouection Plan be enacted as ormginally proposed and that the public and County officials together make this small beginning to honor the natural and cultural heritage of this beautiful place. Mr. Steve Blaine remarked that he is representing a group of mountain landowners whose combined land accounts for over 8,000 acres which will be affected by this ordinance in the Mountain Overlay District. He said while his clients support the goals of the ordinance to preserve and protect mountain land, they oppose the ordinance in its current form. He stated that it would be iurpossible in the amount of time allowed during these proceedings to express all their views, as well as their arguments in opposition ~o this ordinance, so he has arranged for the next five speakers who share the views of his clients, or are his clients, to address those views. The Board will first hear from Mr. George Shoffner, who is a certified appraiser with over 13 years of experience in appraising Albeu~rle County property. He added tha~ Mr. Shoffner will comment on the proposed ordinance's effect on land values and will rebut previous statements made in an effor5 to advocate this ordi- nance as did Mr. Romenesko earlier. Next, he said Mr. Roger Ray will speak, who has over 40 years of experience in surveying, designing, building and inspecting roads. Mr. Ray will relate the effects of the proposed private road and driveway standards to his own property in the County. He stated that his remarks will demonstrate that at the very least, some additional practical and professional input needs to be given to the proposed measures to regulate road building in the mountains. Third, Mr. Blaine said the Board will hear from Mr. Bob Buford, whose family has for decades owned over 1,500 acres on Buck's Elbow. He commen~ed that Mr. Buford has maintained responsibly over four miles of roads in what will become the ridge area or Mountain Overlay District. He said Mr. Buford will share with the Board his deep concerns about this ordinance. Fourth, Mr. Jack Bocock, who is a community resident and substantial landowner, will share his views. Mr. Blaine noted that the Bococks and Scotts have combined holdings of over 5,000 acres, and these June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 32) 000355 families have been excellent stewards and caretakers of mountain property for over 100 years. Mr. Blaine said that Mr. Dan O'Neill will speak last from the viewpoint of an owner of small mountain parcels, and whose parcels will be profoundly affected by the ordinance. He stated that when the Board~members listen to these five speakers~ they will hear, as they have heard from some of the earlier speakers, that these mountain landowners care deeply about their mountain property. He asked if the mountain landowners care so deeply and those in favor of this ordinance apparently care deeply about the mountains, then why is this a contentious issuel He said he believes the mountain landowners can give some mean!ngful input to help ~mprove the ordinance so a consensus can be reached. Mr. George Shoffner stated that as a certified real estate appraiser, he has been engaged in the appraisal of real estate in Albemarle County for the past 13 years, and he is a lifelong resident of this area. He said he has been asked by Mr. Blaine, on behalf of Mr. Blaine's clients, to comment on the proposed Mountain Overlay District. He mentioned that last week, as well as tonight, the Board listened to another appraiser express the opinion of no evidence being available to suggest a loss in property value to those proper- ties subject to the restrictions of the Mountain Overlay District. He Will respectfully disagree with this opinion. He pointed out that his opinion is based on sales data which he has researched, and it .is also based on evidence from statements made by interviewed buyer's and seller,s as well as their representing brokers. He stated that from a buyers' and sellers' perspective the most important element of the proposed ordinance will be to effectively eliminate building sites above certain elevations. He added that during the course of his interviews, it was made quite clear that most buyers would not pay the same for a parcel of land where a house could not be situated to their satisfaction as they .would for an unrestricted property. Their primary objection was a reduction of vlews available from the lower elevations. He mentioned that several times he heard brokers state that their buyers would "walk away from such transactions rather than discount the price and accept the restriction.,, He stated that despite another appraiser's research, which failed to find any measurable difference in values, it cannot be predicted how many transactions will not occur should the prospective buyer perceive the process or the restrictions to be too cumbersome. This is the invisible part of the market reacting to the loss of certain property rights. He noted that when buyers and sellers can't agree on a meeting of the minds as a result of real or perceived property restrictions, the affect on values should not be characterized as neutral. He recalled that previously the claim was made that property owners or values won,t be affected since the ordinance will be uniformly applied. He said because real estate is unique, though, no two properties are alike. Therefore, an accessible property of the mountaintop building site and expansive views afforded by its elevation will have a very different value from a remote timber tract with steep topography and difficult access. He stated that because their best use differs, their underlying values will also differ, and despite the uniform application the impact on these properties could be very different. He said it is his opinion that not only the potential for 10ss in property values exist but in certain specific cases, it is very likely. Mr~ Roger Ray noted that construction embankments have not been ad- dressed. He said he personally delivered a letter to each Board member with a packet of VDoT's standards for design of embankments today, and he hopes some of them have had a chance to look at this information. He said VDoT's design criteria for embankments to serve all roads in Virginia, including primary, interstate and secondary, have seven different designs for the embankments, and four of them include slopes sueeper than the two to one slope as proposed by this ordinance. The best way to share his opposition to the ordinance is to relate how it will personally adversely affect him, and it will affect each and every property owner in all of Albemarle County the same as it would him. He noted that the embankment issue ~s not just in the Overlay District, but it is Countywide. He said he has spoken to at least 25 people in the last couple of days, and not one of these people realized that this embankment issue was Countywide, but they thought it was only in the Overlay District. He stated that he would like for the Highway Commissioner, at some point, to ask all of the folks here tonight how many of them under- stand that this is a Countywide issue. He remarked that he ow~s approximately 25 acres on Route 602 in Southern Albemarle County in the Scottsville Dis- trict, and it is a beautiful wooded lot that faces the Rockfish River. He pointed out that the building site on this tract of land is approximately 140 feet higher than the existing public road, and there is no other suitable building site on this property except on top of the knoll. He explained that June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 33) to construct a driveway, which would come. under~.~he:embankmeht ordinance, to the building site would require constructing approximately 600 feet of road in natural ground slopes ranging from five percent cross slope to 30 percent cross slope. He said once he gets ready to build this driveway during the next two years, if this ordinance is in 'effect, he will play havoc with his parcel of land, because it will appear he is building a major roadway instead of a private driveway. He noted that the difference between embankments of a one to one slope and a two to one slope, is that if there is a 30 percent cross slope, there is approximately three times more surface area to be disturbed. He said it is not the slope of the embankment that should be the controlling point but, instead, it should be the reclamation and stabilization of the driveway. He then thanked each Board member in advance for voting against, or making drastic changes, in this ordinance. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Ray that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Robert Buford noted that through a private corporation his family owns approximately 1,400 acres near the crest of Buck's Elbow Mountain in western Albemarle County. He said his family began acquiring this property in 1964, and they have only built one dwelling on the property which was done in 1969. There are no plans for development or to build any other buildings on the property, but he hopes his children and grandchildren might have the opportunity to do so in the future, if they so desire. He pointed out that he is sympathetic to the purpose of the ordinance of preserving the scenic beauty of the mountains, but he opposes the ordinance because of what he considers to be serious defects in it. The definition of ridge area is too broad, and it fails to recognize that the tops of these mountains are basically flat or gently rolling. There are pastures and not stiff ridges. He mentioned his property where the ridge area ranges in width from 1,000 feet to 1,700 feet and includes a total of 300 acres on which only one dwelling could be built. He then recommended that only land within 30 feet elevation from the ridge line be embraced within the ridge area or tentatively that the width of the ridge area be limited to 100 feet on either side of the ridge line. He next referred to the second defect, which Mr. Ray had already mentioned, relating to the embankments. He said it is utterly unrealistic to impose such stan- dards on mountain roads with a two to one requirement as far as slopes are concerned. He pointed out that the State and Federal Governments do not comply with such requirements, and all people have to do is drive on 1-64 from here to Richmond, and they will see banks ranging 45 degrees or more. He suggested people cross over Afton Mountain or Ragged Mountain., and they will see the same thing. He called attention to the Jarman Gap Road which provides access to Buck's Elbow Mountain, where slopes no less than 45 degrees can regularly be found, and there are some as much as 60 degrees. He told Board members that the cost of building to their requirements would be prohibitive, and it would do unnecessary destruction to trees, vegetation and disturbed property which simply is not necessary. He mentioned that there are already numerous roads in these mountains and some are 100 years old which feed .old cabins where families used to live. They are logging roads but they are kept open now to fight forest fires. He remarked that he has personally taken care of approximately four miles of these roads, and he keeps them open, so they can be used as a means of access for farm equipment or if there is a forest fire. He submitted that it should be proper to use these roads as a means of access to a building site rather than force him to build a new road which would destroy a great deal more of the surface area than would otherwise be the case. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Buford that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Jack Bocock stated that he is .a resident of Charlottesville and a landowner in southwest Albemarle County near Rockfish Gap, and his family has owned this land for nearly 100 years. He said he uses this land, and the buildings on it, as a second home and vacation spot for his extended family~ He pointed out that during the last 75 y~ars, one additional house has been added to the property. He stated that he is clearly not speaking against this ordinance because of a hidden fast track development agenda. He said his family has always endeavored to be not only good and responsible stewards of their land, but also good citizens in this community. He noted that his family has opened their property to the public in order to raise funds for local fire and rescue units, and they have assisted the tourist industry by participating in Garden Week, as well as to let Boy Scout troops use the land for camping, and they are proud to have been able to offer their land to local ROTC units for their training needs. He stated that his family members are very fortunate to own land in Albemarle County, and they understand that there are distinct responsibilities that accompany the privileges of ownership. He commented that he and his family members are in favor of ensuring that the June 10, 1998 (Recjular Night Meeting) (Page 34) 000857 County has the ability to regulate the development of its natural resources, and they support the general, purpose of this ordinance. Nevertheless, he does not believe that this proposal has been properly vented by all of the affected parties. He said he has been coming to Albemarle County his entire life and has lived year round in the County for nearly five years. He apologized that he has no= kept up with local politics better than he has done, but he said he was not fully aware of the implicationsof the proposed ordinance until shortly before the last public meeting. From his perspective, this ordinance appears to be on a type of schedule that stifles mixed input and proper debate. He said no matter the fate of this proposal, it is not appropriate to reduce the private property values of the citizens this Board represents without a full and broad based discussion. The currently proposed ordinance is unduly broad and needlessly punitive to landowners who have, in many cases, consistently tried to promote the interests of the community and responsibl~ use of the land. He then urged the Supervisors to delay action on this ordinance until they have had time to carefully consider the position of existing landowners who do not intend to develop their land for commercial purposes. He also agreed with the gentleman who suggested earlier that no further applications for subdivisions be accepted, and he hopes the Supervi- sors will implement this suggestion immediately. Mr. Dan O'Neill reported that his family owns four small parcels on Buck's Elbow and Camp Mountain, and three of these parcels lie partly in and partly out of the ridge area. There is no question that these parcels will be severely negatively affected by this ordinance. He pointed out that in each case the natural building site is at the top of the ridge, ~n an open very level area. He noted that the access road leading to the parcels is at the top of the ridge, and he would be forced under this ordinance to forego this natural building site on a level open spot at the top of the mountain and build a long driveway of probably 1,000 feet or more over steep ground, as well as clear a wooded area for a building spot which would be far inferior lower down where the views would non be as good. The value would clearly be affected, and anyone who was willing to drive up the'mountain to get to this parcel would not pay the same price if he or she were faced with the obliga- tion to spend more on road and site construction for an inferior building site. Also, forcing building off the top of the ridge is not consistent with the goals of the ordinance, and he is sympathetic with these goals. He stated that forcing residents to disturb more ground could cause the possibility of greater soil erosion, as well as a greater scarring to the mountain, and it is ill advised. He mentioned the provision for a special use permit'mechanism to possibly make allowances zn certain cases for building sites, but he said many landowners do not feel the special use permit is the right mechanism to allow for circumstances such as this. The reason is because it is such a politi- cally charged issue, and he thinks a lot of people feel that if they have to come before this Board for permission to build on the ridge, there will be tremendous public opposition. The same groups of people who have taken out full page ads in the Daily Progress are likely going to oppose even the most reasonable applications. He added that, finally, he feels he has to express his strong feeling that landowners have not' been given an opportunity in this public hearing stage of the process to fully express their views. He said a week ago this Board held a work session at which there were four speakers, and every one of the speakers spoke in support of this ordinance. He went on to say every one of the speakers were given ten to fifteen minutes to express their views, and as this Board can see, three minuues is not enough time for members of the public to express their views. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. O'Neill that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Gary Westmoreland remarked that he is Chairman of the Jefferson Area Libertarians, which is a political group strongly supporting the right of individuals to own and use their property as they see fit as long as they respect other individuals' equivalent right to do likewise. He noted that his group has circulated a blue flyer tonight summarizing its position of opposi- tion to the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance, and the opposition is twofold. Firsu, he pointed out that the property in the Mountain Overlay District, and the rights attached to it, are and should remain under the ownership and control of the property owner and not the Albemarle County government. Secondly, the mountains can be protected without destroying the right to own and use property, which he referred to as property rights by protective covenants and the voluntary purchase of property by those seeking to retain the mountains in an undeveloped state. He added that the creation of the Mountain Overlay District by the Planning Commission ~s an attempt to create common ownership of the mountains within Albemarle County, starting at 700 feet in elevation, by regulation and control of the use of private J=e ~0, ~98 (Regular ~ight Meeting~ 000555 (Page 35) property. The right to own and use property as the owners see fit in the Mountain Overlay District is abridged by this ordinance, and there are real economic burdens imposed on the proper~y owners. He wen~ on <o say all of this can be avoided by the rejection of this ordinance. He commented that if the Board of Supervisors, in its collective wisdom, wishes to protect the mountains by regulations and controls contained in this or any other ordi- nance, it constitutes the taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution that states in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." ge also men- tioned Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Virginia. He told the Board members that if they approve this ordinance or a similar one then they have a legal and moral obligation ~o compensate the affected property owners and create the mechanism to do so. Ms. Charlotte Hogue asked why should present owners of mountain land 'be subjected to the unfair taking of their property just to satisfy those who want to use this land uo serve their interest. She went on to say unless all property in the County is devalued accordingly, this is-blatant discrimination for a minority of landowners, not to mention the onset of socialism. She added that even though there is a grandfather clause mentioned as well as certain levels of height, there is no assurance that these won't be changed later by future Board members. She said members of this Board have not always honored commitments made by previous Board members. She gave an example of this by referring to the Landfill. She stated that owners of houses at 700 feet of elevation and above have been handed a windfall at the expense of the other mountain land owners, and she asked if this is fair. She said it is not. She wondered if those so interested in keeping the view are willing to buy the land. They are not, they only want to take it. The same people supporting this ordinance would be up in arms if their properties were devalued or its use restricted. She pointed out that a lifetime of work has gone into building up the value of people's property only to have it taken away. She added that it is not really being taken away, but it has been stolen by others who want something at someone else's expense. She urged the Supervisors to please vote against this ordinance. Ms. Marjorie Maupin Paul commen=ed that she owns mountain property which would be included in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. She said mquntain land is no= under pressure for development, and she has no faith that the Supervisors will control development wit~ this ordinance. This ordinance, like the current rural zoning, has loopholes which will allow developers to give the County another Inglecress or Ashcroft, but it will prevent her and her children from building homes on their own land. She added that her family owns 175 acres of mountain property, and the hardwood trees which have ~rown there have paid for her education, for her sister's nursing training and for many, many years of medical bills for nursln~ care for her parenss. She said, at the same time, these trees have spent 24 hours a day filtering ~nd purify- ing the air for County citizens to breathe. She remarked that her family has been good stewards of these beautiful mountains, and they will continue =o do so. She stated that with this ordinance, County officials are taking away the use of her property rights. They are not only robbing her of monetary va!ue, but more importantly to her, they are robbing her a~d her children of the personal utility of their resources. She asked the Supervisors to remember how they felt when VDoT representatives said the Western Bypass would be built no matter what a majority of the people here needed or wanted. She added that she has the same sick feeling in the pit of her s=omach now whenever she reads or hears about this ordinance. She stated that it is not needed or wanted, it is not fair to the people who own the land, and it is not right or constitu- tional. She said it is the wrong solution to a problem existing only in the minds of people who don't own the land but somehow think landowners should maintain it at their own expense for others' viewing pleasure. She went on to say if the County officials truly want to preserve the mountains, then they should consider buying them. She added that they can do the same thing Governor Glenn Denning is doing in Maryland where the government is buying wetlands, lakes and other natural areas to preserve them for all to enjoy. She said it can be done, and it is being done, and County officials can do it here. She suggested that all that has to be done is to raise the taxes on the low landers' properties to make funds available to buy the mountain land. She remarked that then the County officials could make parks all over Albemarle County and not allow any new buildings there. However, she told them that when they do this, they need to make sure there are enough funds available to properly maintain the mountains, because the people who are here now won't be there then to take care of them anymore. She asked the Supervisors to please consider this option, rather than taking the property rights from the land June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeti/%g) (Page 36) 000~9 owners. She said if Albemarle County owns it, then Albemarle County can control its use, but while she owns it, she should control its use. She urged the Supervisors to vote no on this unfair and unconstitutional ordinance. She then asked all of the people who were still present at the meeting, and who were against the ordinance to stand (approximately 100 people responded). Mr. Joseph Pratt said he and his wife own a farm of 180 acres near Stony Point, and the land he owns is a mile from the ridge of the Southwest Moun- tains, and it is fully a quarter of a mile outside the 700 foot elevation that has been indicated as the Mountain Overlay District for the Southwest Moun- tains. However, the Plazu2ing Commission has identified an area of from 100 to several hundred feet in circumference. He stated that although his land is at exactly 700 feet or no more than 720 feet on part of it, because this is the highest point of any surrounding area, it has been designated as a ridge area subject to the highest restrictions in the Mountain Protection Plan. He said in this area of 700 to 720 feet, he is restricted as much as someone at the top of the mountain whose land lies at 1,200 to 1,400 feet. He reported that he has spoken to people in the Planning Department several times about this matter, and he has asked them if this is not perhaps out of the intention of the ordinance. The response has been that a line had ~o be drawn somewhere, and in order to be fair, his land would have to be subjected to the same restrictions. However, he stated that in this area all other land below the ridge of the Southwes~ Mountains and continuous with it between 700 up to 1,000 feet is not subject to the same restrictions because it is not a ridge area. He understands he is not the.only person in a similar situation, and he has identified another property of five or ten acres on this fragment of mountain between 700 and 750 feet which has also been designated as a ridge area. ~e noted that his land has been in his family for 35 years, and the family has been very environmentally responsible. He pointed out that his family has designated a road along the edge of the property which runs past this area, and all development on the farm on the entire 100 acres that is in Parcel Two and which is adjacent to this road, has been restricted. He mentioned that he ~s unsure exactly where the 700 foot elevation line runs, but he will be at great expense to prove where it is and~where he can develop. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Pratt that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Frank Kessler indicated that two years ago, one year ago and six months ago he certainly opposed the Mountain~Ordinance. He said he talked to Mr. Marshall about the matter over two months ago, and yet he finds himself in great admiration of the mountains. Be stated that he has changed his view since the Planning Commission meeting, and he now feels the changes that have been made give fair utilization of the property in the mountains. He men- tioned that any time there is an ordinance, people always feel there is a problem with their rights, and he has felt the same way. Be recalled the same feeling with the Sign Ordinance, buthe thinks Albemarle County today has a better streetscape with 12 foot signs being no more than 32 square feet in size. He then referred to the farmers who opposed the Chesapeake Bay Act when their property was involved, but it is apparent the decision paid off when the results of fishing are seen in the Chesapeake Bay today, along with other conservation requirements. ~e added that he thinks a great community for everybody is what is really important, and asked the Supervisors to do something which he thinks sometimes government does not do. He said govern- ments plan and implement things, but sometimes they don't evaluate. He stated that he would like to see a work session set for 18 months to two years from now so some of the problems being heard tonight can be evaluated. He added that the Supervisors can meet forever, but nothing can be determined until the program is implementgd, but they must be there to evaluate and to change things. He referred to the fact that some people are suggesting that the ordinance be approved tonight without site plans, etc. He said he thinks anything in progress or anything submitted to the County should be reviewed and continued, and he asked the Supervisors not to undercut any project that is already ~n progress. He said people are asking for 30 or 40 development rights, but he believes everyone is looking for long term preservation. He added that he believes there are good uses involved with this ordinance since the proposed changes were made. Ms. Babette Thorpe read a statement on behalf of the Piedmont Environ- mental Council urglng the Board of Supervisors to adopt the Mountain Protec- tion Ordinance and asking that the requirement for special use permits to develop small lots in the Mountain Protection Overlay District be restored. She also noted that the PEC is asking that the Supervisors not delay their vote any longer than necessary to. digest the comments they will be hearing this evening. (See statement to the Board of Supervisors dated June 10, 1998 June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 0003~0 (Page 37) from the Piedmon5 Environmental Council.) M~i ~O~& next talked personally about the fact that she could not stand up in front of this Board to say she has hundreds of acres of mountain land and offer support of this ordinance. The truth is she owns about one fifth of an acre. However, Mr. Birdwoods overheard her lament and ~ave her permission to use his name and his acreage. She said on behalf of Mr. Birdwoods, whose family owns approximately 1,500 acres in the Appleberry Mountain area, she wishes to s~ate that they whole- heartedly endorse and support this Mountain Protection Plan. Ms. Karen Dame spoke on behalf of the members and Board of Directors of the Citizens for Albemarle and asked the Supervisors to adopt a Mountain Protection Ordinance this evening. The grou~ merabers more strongly favor the provisions of the ordinance as originally presented to the Plannin~ Commissi~ on May 18, 1998, and they especially urge the Board of Supervisors to restore the requirement for a special use permit for the creation of small lots in the Mountain Overlay District. They are also asking that the Supervisors add specific review criteria to guide the Planning Commission and this Board when reviewing these special permit applications. She added that with such criteria in place, the public will know what types of development projects are likely to be consistent with the intent of the ordinance and thus likely to gain approval. Next, Ms. Dame spoke as a resident of the White Hall Magiste- rial District. She said she supports adoptionof a Mounsaintop Protection Ordinance, and she feels the ordinance in front of this Board is a step in the right direction, although it provides weak protection and already includes tremendous compromises among competing interests. She emphasized that she believes this ordinance is the minimum that should be done. She said she recognizes that new more restrictive land use ordinances are experienced by some residents as intrusive and even as oppressive. However, the Planning Commission,s build out analysis of current by right development potential has show~ a bigger picture, and without new action by County officials, the consequence of the existing Zoning Ordinances will be an intrusive, oppressive alteration of the very features of Albemarle to one single feature which is intensive manmade development. She said she hopes a Mountaintop Protection Ordinance will be approved tonight and thereby be the first among many pro-active changes to the Zoning Ordinance, all of them boldly designed to prevent the future seen on the build out maps. Mr. DeForest Mellon urged the Board ~o adopt the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said Albemarle County is defined in a large part by the beauty of its natural geography. He went on to say the public has long recognized this fact, and the University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation in a recent brochure has used neighboring pristine mountain vistas to advertise its new research park to outside interests. He stated that by 1971, the mountains surrounding Charlottesville were delineated as conservation areas, to recog- nize their unique quality and to offer them nominal protection from develop- ment. He added that this is not good enough because high rise structures such as University village now intrude on the view of the surrounding landscape and highly visible stark white houses with long eroding access roads now scar the western face of the Southwest Mountains. He said if measures are not now taken to protect what is left of this unique natural heritage, it will disappear as everybody watches it happen. The Board of Supervisors has the last chance to decide in favor of this area's residents, for whom the fores~ and mountains constitute an enrichmen~ 5o life, or a few professional develop- ers, who stand to enrich themselves by developing the mountain vistas. This Board will determine the future of this fragile beauty. Mr. Matt Kayhoe stated that the three previous speakers have said what he wanted to say with the exception of the fact that he has a tremendous amount of admiration for County officials who are trying to plan ahead for problems before they strike everybody down. He said his experience has been that rural counties in Virginia have exhibited a tendency to collapse in front of the advancing front created by development and ~rowth. He stated that he thinks the fact that County officials are taking this step, or even consider- lng a Mountain Protection Ordinance, is really quite importa_~t. He also added that the staff has done a marvelous job of putting things to~ether, and he thinks it is a vote for all of Albemarle County,s citizens. Ms. Jutie Courtenay Campbell informed the Board members that she owns close ~o 45 acres in Albemarle County just immediately west of Charlottesville beyond the University Apartments and St. Anne's School. She said many years ago during the 1960s, the State decided to put in a bypass from Route 250 to Route 29 which runs close to Bellair. She stated that it didn't include her land, but it involved part of the estate from where her land was purchased in June 10, 199B (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3B) 000365. 1950, and her water supply was there. She said in the process the government took the water. She noted that where State officials wanted to put the highway, cars would,have been under eight feet of water, so it had to be slightly moved. She emphasized that she was told this would enhance the value of her property. She pointed out that her husband is a lawyer, but he didn't ~ry to practice real estate law in Virginia, since he was good at corporation business. They were paid for the taking of this water, after lengthy delays. She noted, though, at first it was being said that the property was being taken, but the highway enhances the value of the property. She said it did not enhance the property, and it didn't even touch it. She pointed out, too, that since it was a bypass, there was no access onto it. She added that this is one example, but it is personally known to her that the County has to pay for the taking, if it is taken without regard to any enhancement of any other value. She noted that this is in the Constitution. She commented that with all of the court cases on interne~, as well as all of the computer hookups, there doesn't have to be 95 lawyers across the country studying this~issue, as were involved when she was examining her water rights, etc. She stated that she is going to have a lawyer to represent her to make County officials pay for the taking of her property, and she invited all others who wished to join her in a class action suit. She hopes the Supervisors will be held individu- ally and personally responsible for the legal costs this will require, and she noted ~hat this is possible. She stated that she means no personal rudeness, but if County officials involve citizens in a court action because the proper~y is bein~ taken without payment, she expects them to either condemn by eminent domain and pay for it or leave them alone. She next commented that she looks dow~ from Lewis Mountain on a lot of apartment roofs and some of the apartments she has been in are rather nice. The University surrounds jus5 about all of the remainder of her property, and there are two or three nice houses at the foot of the hill toward Route 250 and another one in the other direction. The water tank was installed, but it is not on her property. However, it has been said that the water tank is 100 feet beiow her level of the hill, so if this is the line, she is out of luck. (Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Campbell that she had used up all of her time.) Mr. Tom Olivier, from the Schuyler area, said the mountains contain critical natural resources which provide essential habitat for native plant and animal populations, and they help create watersheds and provide drinking water for the urban population. He added that they happen to be gorgeous and economically valuable, although he thinks the greatest importance of mountains lies in the natural resources they provide. The surfaces of mountains are fragile and sometimes dangerous, and even history teaches that heavy prices are paid if mountain surfaces are treated roughly. He mentioned that public interest demands that development policies pay attention to the special costs and risks that mountain developments can entail. He went on to say the notion that localities cannot rightly regulate land uses strikes him as new, wild and un~enable. With one exception, he asked that the Supervisors support the draft of the Mountain Protection Ordinance in the form considered by the Planning Commission prior to amendment. He said while he would like to see small lots allowed only by special use permit, he would suggesu that a supporting document be developed to spell out the conditions favoring the granting of a special use permit. He added that such a document would clarify the implications of the ordinance to mountain land owners and could contain guidance from the Board of Supervisors on hardships and any other site specific factors which should be weighed in a review of a special use permit application. He stated that he believes this approach would be preferable to a broad weakening of the original ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lloyd Toms, Jr., from a sixth generation~of Albemarle County residents, noted that his family has always owned mountain land. He said his family members have taken very good care of it/ and if they had not, he is sure County representatives would have informed them. He stated that at the present, they still don't need the County officials' help or anybody else's help with this land. He commented that they paid for the land, as well as the taxes on the land. This proposal, in its present form, is a disaster. According to this proposal, as he understands it, County officials will tell him where he can build a home and what type of road he will need. ~e then referred to a call he made to the Albemarle County Zoning Department yester- day. He stated that he asked the Zoning Department representative what rules and regulations would he need to follow to clear-cut logs on his property, although he has no intention of doing so. The reply was that the person would have to get back to him. He stated that he then received a call from the Zoning Department at 9:00 a.m. the next morning informing him that nothing was June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 39) 0003G2 needed from the county. He went on to say thiS~do~H~ mak~ sense, and somebody needs to rethink some things. He remarked that he loves these mountains and his family members love them. He said if others want to dictate what to do with his property, then they should buy his property. Mr. Petie Craddock noted that he lives in the Scottsville District, he is a Board member of a volunteer fire company, he owns mountaintop land and he supports the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said people who own mountaintop land have a responsibility as good citizens to develop mountain property in ways to prevent erosion, give emergency vehicles better access and protect the scenic quality of the ridge lines which are responsible for much of the County's character and economic prosperity. He reminded the members of the Board of Supervisors of their responsibility when they took the oath to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia including those laws which govern zoning and comprehensive pl~anning. He added that Section 15.1 of the Code of Virginia specifically states that the Supervisors should improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of the citizens. He commented that the Code also states that they must preserve agricultural and forestal lands, and all of this is to be done with efficient and economical use of public funds. He pointed out that developing the mountains threatens natural resources, agricultural and forestal land and the safety and general welfare of all the citizens in the County. He said it will affect higher taxes to provide for infrastructure of public services including fire and rescue. This is not'efficient and economic use of public funds, and it will lower property value all over the County, as well. He went on to say while a few will profit from the mountains, it will cost everybody else dearly. Consequently, he stated that he opposes any deferral of passing this ordinance because it will allow more time for last minute under the wire development, as well as subdividing of plats, and it will rob the County of one of its economic assets. He next referred to comments made by some of the speakers who indicated they did non understand why the ordinance is needed now. He said it is needed now for obvious reasons such as rapid growth, but this ordinance is also needed because the Supervisors are required by Virginia law to plan and zone to preserve the County's resources, agricultural and forestal lands and for the general welfare of the citizens of the County. He asked the Supervi- sors to remember when they vote that they have a moral, legal and fiscal obligation to the entire County. Mr. Dennis Woodriff, who owns mountain property near Stony Point, said what will happen with this ordinance is of great concern to him because he owns approximataely 60 acres of land. He commended the Supervisors for attempting to protect his property, because he feels his investment is really only as good as it is secure. He stated that one of the most valuable parts of an investment is how secure it is, and if the land around him is protected, his investment is much more secure. He recalled the time when he owned 150 acres of land in Orange County with about two miles of road frontage. He said he dedicated development rights to the Virginia Tourist Foundation and'got a tax deduction because supposedly the land was now worth one third or one half of what it had been since now he couldn't develop it. He stated that a few years went by and some other people who were nearby also dedicated their land. He said then someone came along and wanted to buy his property with one of the reasons being that he knew he was purchasing something which had the assurance of being protected in the future. He remarked that he got close to twice par acre what anybody else in the area had gotten, and one of the reasons is that people were buying something they knew would not be changing. He commented that some of the assumptions people are making about the devaluation of their property is possible, but are not always, accurate. Mr. Gerald Carter stated that he lives on ridge top in the Southwest Mountains near Stony .Point. He noted that he will profit very much if this ordinance passes, because he will not have any neighbors, which is the way he wanted it. He added, though, that he doesn't think it is right, because people who own mountain land are not second class citizens. He stated that a majority of people in Albemarle County consider this property very precious, and there have been a lot of comments about how valuable this land is to the people in Albemarle County. However, they don't seem to want ~o put a dime behind what they say. He asked the Supervisors why they don't suggest that the people of Albemarle pay a few dollars more in taxes to protect the mountains, and they will find out how important the mountains are to the majority. The Supervisors would not believe the sacrifices some of the property owners make uo live in these mountains, because they care about them so much. He added that he does not think it is right the way the property owners are being treated. The property owners have invested very heavily in June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 40) 000363 this, and the people who support this ordinance have invested nothing. Yet, the Supervisors are going to reduce the landowners' rights. He referred to the comment that the value of the land will not be changed. He said if he couldn't live on this property, the man he bought it from would still have it, and that rman wouldn't have his money. The Supervisors have three choices. They can support this ordinance and support the majority of the people in Albemarle County who want to look at the mountains. Or, they can have the moral courage to stand up for American principles of fairness and justice and vote aga~nsu this ordinance. Or, they can start over again and include the landowners so they can protect their own land. Mr. Bruce Gatting-Auston announced that he ow-ns land which would be included in the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance. He said about.90 percent of his property is red land, and he owns approximately 31 acres of. 25 percent or more. He stated that he knew this when he bought the land, and he tried to buy more like it, but he hasn't succeeded. He added that he has watched in dismay as other people who'did succeed started to develop the Iand, and where there were woods and forests, there are now two large driveways and a lot fewer trees. He urged the Board of Super-visors to supporu this ordi- nance in its original form with some guidelines for special use permits. He said Mr. Olivier's guidelines appeal to him greatly. Mr. James Walker, a third generation property owner in Albemarle County, stated that he owns land in the proposed Mountain Overlay District. He added that he appreciates the opportunity to speak to the Supervisors tonight, and he appreciates their patience. He said he also appreciatesI the intent of this ordinance, but he does not quite agree with the principle. He went on to say that the principle involves the idea that this ordinance is required so Albemarle County landowners do not destroy the natural beauty that everyone here wants to protect. He asked the Supervisors to realize that many of the people here would not have been willing to sell their land to developers long before there were zoning ordinances. He commented that many of the people here tonight are landowners who filled rocked in ditches and planted grass and trees long before there was erosion control ordinances. The natural beauty of Albemarle County which exists now is direct evidence that the property owners are good stewards of their land. Their presence here tonight is mostly to convey to the Supervisors that an ordinance is not required to m~intain the natural beauty of Albemarle County that the landowners have worked so hard to preserve from one generation to the next. He noted that the County budget is already stretched, and he asked that the money be spent in a wiser manner. Mr. Fred Scott stated that he thinks it is a good idea to save farm and timberland, and he agrees it is a good idea to preserve mountain land, but he thinks this ordinance can be improved. The ordinance does not provide for wise use of land, and this really concerns him, and it isn't fair. He stated that it is not wise because the ordinance is going to force development dow~ off the slopes of the mountains and onto the very best far~aland. He commented that the large lot requirement still in force is going to accelerate the rate at which the remaining farm and timberland in the valley will be used up. He said it has to, because there is no other land. He recalled that for 50 years he has walked all over his farm land and that of others. He mentioned that there are lots of places people can build in the mountain elevations where there are large areas of usable acreage which is suitable for construction, and careful and sensitive building techniques can easily make development not only practical and attractive but desirable~ These building sites have real value, and when owners, rights are restricted to use their property, those values will be devastated. He remarked that if the Supervisors don't believe him, they can ask the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Federal Govern- menu. He mentioned that several-months ago he attended a meeting of the PEC. He said Ms. Scala was there, and she and PEC representatives explained how the Outdoors Foundation works. He stated that it is real simple. He added tha~ the farmers give to the Foundation their development rights, and they suffer a loss in value. He emphasized that the value is real, and the loss is real. The loss is deductible under the Federal Tax Code, and a good part of the loss is thereby recovered to the owner as he files his tax re~urn. The public benefits, the owner benefits, and the public pays for those benefits. This is sound public policy, and it is designed to encourage citizen cooperation in the common goal. He said it is a very appealing program, and it is beginning to work quite well. However, these same people today are saying the loss of these same rights will damage the owners in no way whatsoever. He said it is simply not possible that both statements are true. He told the Supervisors that their vote could devastate the financial situations of many owners, and much of their equity is going to disappear, which is a fact. He said if an June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) ~ ~Page +l) 000~;4 outside influence such as a new law or real est~2~'~r adds costs or decreases usability, then the real estate will decrease in value. The Supervisors should trust the outrage the mountain landowners have expressed. He went on to say people are smart enough to know when they are being badly hurt, and if the Supervisors rush to judgment with this impulsive, unwise and Unfair legislation, they may have declared war on some of the County's most responsible citizens. However, if the Supervisors have the courage to take the time to convince or encourage landowners to work with them to protect the mountains in a cooperative way and under a mutual plan, then many of the County citizens will help them. Ms. Treys Cromwell said arguments pro and con about thisordinance reveal everyone agreeing on one important issue which is that everybody surely likes the mountains, and they would like to keep them the way they are. The ranks are broken, though, as far as what to do about keeping the beautiful economic asset which everyone seems to recognize. She remarked that there are those who own mountain property who believe they have been good stewards of the land and, furthermore, believe government has no right to tell them how they can use their land. However, she pointed out that mountain lands are more valuable today partly because of services provided by government such as schools, roads, fire and police protection paid for by the taxes of all the citizens. She stated that, on the other hand, there are many values associ- ated with mountain land ownership, but there are other values enjoyed by the general public whose property values are enhanced simply because they have mountain views. There are those who look to the mountains to protect the sources of the public drinking water supply, and there are others who simply enjoy the blue r.idges that frame their environment. She asked if Albemarle County citizens are so sharply divided that they can find no common ground as to the best solution for everybody, and she voiced her belief that common ground can be found. She said Albemarle County citizens cannot simply stumble along with the status quo and be able to meet the pressures of growth which will inevitably bring more and more development to themountains. She then mentioned the changes made by the Planning Commission in the original ordi- nance, which she thinks are reasonable. She added that she believes the ordinance can be the tool to maintain the County's quality of life, its economy and, according to Money Magazine, its reputation for being one of the best places to live in the United States. She said she is convinced that some kind of mountain protection is needed, and this proposal is a good sugges- tion. (Mr. Marshall informed Ms. Cromwell that she had used up all of her time.) Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, reminded the Supervisors that Crozet is a designated Growth Area and as such Crozet has its own special set of zoning rules and regulations to direct concentrated growth there. He stated that he sees the Mountain Protection Ordinance as an extension of these zoning rules for the same reason, which is to protect the rural character of Albemarle County. He added that if this ordinance is not approved, the next time Growth Area community residents are asked to accept more development, additional congestion and more traffic, they will have every reason to ask this Board why and for what reason. He commented that it would be a mistake for the Board to assume that the Growth Area residents do not care deeply about rural preservation just because they live in Growth Areas. He next referred to a picture he had taken at Beaver Creek, and he noted the saying. that a picture is worth a thousand words. He said while Beaver Creek, itself, is very beautiful, it is the mountains in the background which make the picture. He added that he would be leaving the picture with the Board members so they will have a chance to look at this image and imagine how different it would be if the mountains were scarred with uncontrolled development. Mr. Robert Hogue stated that each year federal, state and local govern- ments take some of the people's rights and freedoms away. He mentioned that hunting rights are under attack in Albemarle County, and the same goes for logging nationwide. He said each year government officials propose new regulations that would make equipment and supplies more expensive for owners of farms and ranches. He stated that some regulations will take land out of the operation, and if a profit is not made, the farm will be sold. He next referred to tourism where some people want to save all the trees for the tourism and restaurant industry. He remarked that willow trees on the Blue Ridge Parkway and Skyline Drive are being damaged by pollution from cars, but he does not hear the tourism industry calling for the closure of the Parkway or Drive. He then mentioned property values and he pointed out that if this ordinance passes, the owners of nice homes already in the mountains will make a nice profit if they choose to sell. He stated that if the other landowners, June !0, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 42) 000865 rights are taken away, they should be compensated. He noted that the popula- tion is increasing worldwide, in the United States, as well asAlbemarle County. He asked where the Countyofficials plan for the population to live, and he wondered if they would propose a regulation that every couple should have one child~ or maybe a regulation allowing no one to move into Albemarle. He mentioned polls, and he said the one he hears the most about is for less government. There are enough regulations for housing now, ~nd he asked the Supervisors to vote no for the Mountain Protection Ordinance. Mr. Clifton McCleskey stated that he and his wife farm a 174 acre place on the south end of Carter's Mountain, and ten to 15 acres of this property are within the Mountain Overlay District. He remarked that he has no plans to develop any part of this farm, and he hopes they can continue farming for another 25 years. However, he thinks this proposed ordinance will affect the value of his property, as well as other property owners. He said it seems to him the existing policy in Albemarle County demonstrates this fact. He explained that the agricultural value of land, which is presumably all that would be allowed under this proposal for most acreages, is consistentiy lower than the appraised value which suggests agricultural value is not as great as market value. He also mentioned his main concern as to the overall unfairness of the ordinance, as well as the shakiness of the case being made for it. He said in spite of the language about erosion, water quality and public safety, it is very clear that what drives this is an ecstatic concern relating to a kind of beauty. He stated that it is a very narrow and parochial type of beauty, because it is the beauty that is associated with undeveloped and unused mounnain views. He added that he likes this, uoo, but he also thinks there are other beauties which need to be of concern. He said a well tended vineyard, cottage, barn, or hayfield are all objects of beauty as well. He pointed out that to think all that lends beauty =o Albemarle County is the mountains is to miss the contribution that mankind can make. He recalled the first time he saw the Shenandoah Valley where his biggest impression was not the mountains, but the valley itself, and much of it is manmade. He said he thinks the citizens are being offered a bill of goods, and they should resist them. He mentioned that in.addition to farming, he has taught courses in American Politics as a faculty member at the University of Virginia for the last 25 years. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. McClesky that he had used up all of his time.), Mr. A. C. (Corky) Shacketford, Jr. informed Board members that he has a farm of approximately 370 acres in the Rivanna District, and he is present to express his skepticism about some of the basis on which a decision is being made relative uo the Mountain Protection Ordinance. He then referred to the map on the wall where he said some of his land is marked in red. He noted that his land is no higher than the major part of Route 20 between Charlottes- ville and the Orange County line and has no more slope than the floor of this room. He said it is marked in red on the map as a 25 percent slope, but he does not know how these designations are made. He stated that his main concern, though, is that many people have land as their only asset for retirement and even for subsistence. He added that there is no question value is taken away from them, if they can't develop this land. He commented that his home 1s in the shadow of Peter's Mountain and the big AT&T relay station on top of it, which is probably as large and unattractive as anything that could be built here in the County on a mountaintop. He noted that he loves the mountains, and didn't really favor this building, but unlike a former speaker, he can't consider these mountains that he really loves as part of his home as long as he does not own them and somebody else pays the taxes on them. He said he wishes the Supervisors and others who have supported this ordinance would feel the same way. He pointed ouE that Peter's Mountain has had this station for a long time, and the mountain hasn't come down, the streams haven't silted up, and he is still drinking water from a spring coming from the mountain. He emphasized that he is-in good health for a man who is 68 years old. He recalled that a number of speeches in favor of this ordinance have seemed to assume that if houses are not built on the mountains they won't be built anyway. He said it is a sure thing if the'houses are non built on the mountains, they will be built on good farmland on the values which he thinks are lust as attractive. He asked the Board members, if they are going to take rights away from some people, to pay for them. He mentioned Mr. Davis' statement that the County is not obligated to pay for them, which he said does not encourage him to support this ordinance. Mr. Wally Parks ren%arked that through all the rhetoric and discussion, he believes this matter boils down to one primary issue, which is the determi- nation of whether or not it is fair to discriminate against one kind of (Page 43) landowner for the soul benefit of all other land0~f~i. .He asked if it is fair ~o take from one class of property owners by giving them a separate set of rules to abide by with regard to how they can use property which they own. The County staff says nobody loses with this proposal, but he asked the Supervisors if they really believe it, or do they believe because they personally are not losing on this issue, that nobody loses. He added that when government uses discrimination to get its way, he does not see how anybody can win. He referred to ads calling the mountains, "our mountains." He stated that he does not think his mountain is the community's anymore than people would think their .yards would be the community's. He said if people in the County wish to control the mountain property, then they should purchase it. He mentioned the comment thau land is not devalued by this ordinance, but he said when he loses the freedom to use his land as he previously could, he has suifered a loss. He said when he loses potential buyers on a resale market, he has suffered a loss. He referred to the 1970s when VEPCO, which is now virginia Power, ran a high voltagetransmission line through his property on the Southwest Mountains. He stated that at that time they paid the affected land owners approximately $1,000 an acre. He noted that they did not purchase the land,, but they were compensating the landowners for. the loss of the use and the devaluation of the land. The landowners were not allowed to build on the 150 foot wide path, and Virginia Power paid money because they took this land. He suated that now the County wants to take land supposedly for the benefit of the community at his expense and tell him nobody loses. He said if the Supervisors honestly feel that these new burdensome regulations are so needed and so fair then why not apply them to all properties in the County and share the wealth and joy with everybody who owns land. He stated that he thinks it is wrong when government discriminates against one class of property owner and offers nothing in return. Mr. Steven Walton stated that he and his family own mountain property in the Wl~ite Hall District. He noted that he has heard the County Attorney say technically this is not a taking of properuy, but he asked the Supervisors what they feel in their hearts. He said every property owner of the mountain lands has come forward tonight and expressed their loss. He added that they have also heard from people who live probably on a one acre lot in a subdivi- sion say it won't affect them at all. He agreed that it won't. He said it just affects the people who own the land, and he reminded the Supervisors that they have been elected to do a job for everyone in the community. They have fiduciary responsibility to do that for these people, too, because they are taxpayers and they are the Supervisors, bosses. These are the people who own the land that will be affected. He mentioned that a lot of people, such as his family members, have owned land in this County for generations. He said whether it has been developed or not, if the landowner still owns it, it is considered money in the bank. He went on to say whether or not the landowners choose to develop it in their generation or pass it on to their children so their children can develop it, or steward it and pass it on to the. next generation is up to the individual properzy owner. He urged the Supervisors to vote against the Mountain Overlay District regulation. He believes government is like good medicine. A little bit goes a long way. Mr. Ed Scharer, of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, commented that mos= of what he wanted to say has already been said. He added that this is a taking without compensation, and as such will be challenged. He said people will be given no other choice. He then pointed out to all the people who called the areas, "our viewsheds, and "our mountains,, that they are not their mountains unless their name is on the tax bill. Ms. Phyllis Shelton informed the Supervisors that her admiration for them has to do with her admiration for their stamina. The question raised as to why more people have not come out to thevirtually interminable delibera- tions of the Planning Commission has to do with the fact that until this issue came up, they didn't perceive a problem. The point has been made that the problem the Supervlsors are trying to legislate against is more potential than it is actual, and this is a sweeping and fairly broad type of issue. She reminded the Supervisors that Albemarle County has Zoning Ordinances. She said if someone is presenting a subdivision to go on top of a mountain, then the County should have administrators who can point out the problems instead of.making a sweeping ordinance to cover much more than it needs to do. She remarked that there is a lack of .common sense in this approach, and she thinks the point has already been well made that this is an extension of government in an intrusive way, and it is something to which a lot of people are opposed. She noted that the tourism industry has been loud in its support of this issue. She said she just came back from a trip to Europe, and it is interest- June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 44) 000367 lng that universally Switzerland, Southern France and Italy have chosen to build on the tops of mountains because that is the least usable land. The presumption that the only value of the mountaintops is for them to be pristine and have nothing on them is something that is ill taken. She noted that people who own property, as she and her family do, are very concerned with maintaining its beauty. She said she enjoys it every day, and to force on the stewards of the land regulations that inhibit their maintaining and caring for the property, is going to potentially do as much damage to the scenic beauty of the County as otherwise. She urged the Board of Supervisors to oppose this ordinance. She said she thinks a narrower structure would accomplish a damage that could be done by some development, but the sweeping proposal will cause more harm than it will rectify the fear of this potential issue. Mr. Traynor Biasiolli noted that his family owns 120 acres straddling County Line Mountain, some of which lies in the Mountain Overlay District. He recalled that one.of the opponents of this proposed Mountain Protection Plan recently stated that ownership implies the right to build, maintain, sell or even destroy that which is owned. He agrees. However, by the same token, people do not truly own the land in this sense, and t~ey cannot own the land. He said rather they are here as suewards of the land, and they have as much right to abuse it as they do another person. He pointed out that this ordinance does not take properuy rights, but it merely enforces property responsibility, which ms a responsibility to both human and biotic communi- ties. The mountains of Albemarle County are rare and beautiful places because they have not bean crowded by subdivisions and development. He asked that the Supervisors approve the Mountain Protection Ordinance with a few amendments. First, he asked that the 21 acre minimum lot size be approved as in the original version. The two acre minimum lot size as proposed would result in excessive forest fragmentation. Secondly, he asked that the exemption for large scale agricultural facilities be eliminated. He reported that one of his neighbors on County Line Mountain has literally stripped away a large portion of the mountain to put in a 700 foot long industrial turkey barn. The noise, odor and environmental degradation that this facility creaues impacts the area much more than a mountaintop development. Mr. Norman Bell, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicycling Association, stated that this Association is committed to sound~planning, protection of the environment and a high quality of life in Charlottesville and Albemarle. The work done by the Mountain Protection Committee and the Planning Department is consistent with the Association's goals. He remarked that the three recommendations of the Committee, an ordinance delineating a Mountain Overlay District, a Lighting Ordinance and additional planning tools are each important, and his Association supports them. He said critics of the proposed ordinance have correctly pointed out that most of the damaging development in the rural areas does not occur in the mountains. He stated that while this does not mean separate protection of the mountains is unneces- sary, it indicates a need for a comprehensive approach. He said one other tool the County officials have wisely looked into is the purchase of develop- ment rights, and there has never been abetter time for this. He remarked that the New York Times wrote last week about the extraordinary volume of bond issues and other revenue raising devices that appeared on state and local ballots in 1996 and last year. He commented that nearly three out of four of more than 150 environmental financemeasures won approval even though they typically called for a small property or sales tax. He said altogether these measures will eventually raise more than $4,000,000,000 for conservation projects. He stated that combined with the ordinance, along with the program educating property owners about the financial advantages of conservation easements, a purchase of development program would result in strong protection for the mountains and other ecologically important rural areas. He also referred to something he said was overlooked at the Planning Commission public hearing. He noted that the ordinance does not apply only to private land, because included in the Overlay District is Mount Jefferson, also known as Observatory Hill, which is part of the University of Virginia. He stated that his Association members believe the University, as an institution devoted to the common good, should preserve Mount Jefferson forever for its natural and recreational values, and they hope the ordinance will lead in that direction. He concluded his remarks by saying that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicy- cling Association fully supporus the proposed Mountain Protection Ordinance as paru of a comprehensive approach involving education, financial incentives and a reasonable amount of regulation. The Association would be pleased to see a moratorium placed on new subdivision in the mountains while the details of the ordinance are worked out and work contInues on the rural area section of the Comprehensive Plan. June 10, 1998 (RegUlar Night Meeting) (Page 45) 000368 Ms. Mary Ford voiced her opposition to th~ ~'f~Protection Plan. She stated that she is a native of Albemarle Counuy, she has lived here her entire life, she is a landownerj and her property is affected by this ordi- nance. She said she appreciates the Supervisors, patience in listening to the public tonight, and she hopes they are really listening to the mountain owners and how they feel. She added that she does not know how. many people on the Committee acuually own mountain land and are affected by this ordinance, but she hopes the Board will consider the owners' feelings and what they want. She noted that they have been protecting their land for years, they are proud of it, they continue to take care of it and have every intention of doing so. She said she hopes the Board of Supervisors will not approve this proposal. Mr. Harold Spainhour informed the Board that he owns approximately 15 acres that will be in the Mountain Overlay Districu, and he is opposed to the proposal. He asked how many of the Supervisors have read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and he said he was encouraged by the three responses from the Supervisors. He commented, though, it seems strange for a government sworn to protect individual freedoms and private property rights, that there is somebody'who wants to take people's rights away a little bit at a time. He stated that landowners are told not to worry, because their properties are not worth anything, so they don't have to be paid for them. He next asked why the County officials want this right, and he said they want it for the economic development of the County. He wondered if properties are not worth anything individually, why are they suddenly worth a lot once the County officials have those rights. Mr. Keith Ford noted that he is opposed to this plan because it has hurt his feelings. He said it has really made him angry because he does not know where all of the people who drew up this plan were when the landowners were fighting the Gypsy Moth. He added that he thinks Albemarle County needs a wake up call. He said somebody needs to get a plan for the landowner, not to take his land away, but to help him. He pointed out that Albemarle County only has two game wardens, and it is days before property owners can get their help. He remarked that they are good game wardens, and they do a good job, but they are understaffed. He asked who is going to take up for the land- owner, and when will he get some representation. He said landowners know they don'E want their rights taken away so their grandchildren can't have a piece of land. He stated that he doesn't want his grandchildren in a trailer park or town house, because he .doesn't think this would be right if he owns 237 acres of Albemarle County land. He reiterated that somebody has to get a plan for the landowner and somebody has got to help him. He asked if the County citizens would have been better off if the money had been used for them instead of spending it on this plan. He wondered if the lady would have been murdered at Stony Point last year, or if Keith Wa~ner's horse's eyes would have been shot out. He asked if Mark Freed's miniature ponies would have been run down by a pack of deer dogs, and when they broke their front legs, they had to be killed and buried. He wondered if Hunter Lewis' gates would have been torn down by ATVs if this money had been utilized to protect the land- owner. He inquired if the money had been given to Sheriff ~awkins to increase his security and to hire more deputies, would there have been eight break-ins from White ~all to Nortonsville. He noted that his uncle lost his antique furniture, and his tenant was robbed. He mnquired if all of this should have been taken into consideration instead of taking the rights of the landowner away. He said he thinks the money could have been utilized a lot better than that. He stated that it has been seen how rights in other countries have been taken away, and taking a man's rights isn't near as bad as it is when he tries to gain them back. He mentioned cities being burned, and he asked if anybody was mad at these people for takin9 back their rights. He said he was not, because they were down as low as they could get, and they had to go up. Mr. Rick Walden stated that there is no question everybody at this meeting is interested in protecting and preserving the mountains, and there should be no question that the property rights and property values of the people who own these mountains should also be protected and preserved. The ordinance, when it eventually passes, should do both. He added that because of the nature of the road and site requirements of the ordinance and the extreme difficulty and expense involved in obtaining a special use permit required by the ordinance as it now stands, many mountain landowners, building rights would not be able uo be used because the approved building sites would not be able to be reached by a legal road. To protect people from this loss of use and value, which is not obvious when the ordinance is read, and concurrently protect the mountains, he would propose the following changes to the ordinance~ He noted that he has sent copies of these changes to the Board June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 46) 000369 members. First, there would be no changes to erosion control measures which protect the mountains from any-erosion effect. He added that homes should be built on level wooded lots, and the only other alternative as a steeper slope. He stated that no healthy trees should be cut within 20 feet of building sites or roadways. He said homes should be no taller than one and one-half stories, and they should be done in natural materials and colors, although he is unsure if this can be regulated. He commented thatroad embankment standards should be changed no allow up to one to. one slopes and up to 20 percent grades depending on soil conditions. He added that this change would result in less soil disturbance and loss of trees and vegetation and, therefore, less erosion and ground degradation. He said existing stabilized roads should be permitted for use as driveways in lieu of construction of entirely new roads which will illogically result in unnecessary soil disturbance and subsequent erosion. ~e stated that clustering in division rights should be allowed in lower building areas, with these road construction requirements and with minimized visual impact. He said landowners should be allowed to sell division rights to landowners outside the Mountain Overlay'District, and he emphasized that these rights are made unusable by the ordinance. He said in family division situations where the parcel inquest needs to be kept for a minimum of eight years, all driveway requmrements should be suspended and the full use of all divisions shall not be denied because of any constraints imposed by the ordinance. He mentioned in forested areas sitting on extreme mountain ridge tops, homes may be constructed on any 30 square foot building site with the requirements of his first four suggestions. This will allow new homes to be built on less steep land resulting in less erosion and unchanged visual impact. These changes will both protect the mountains and the property rights and values of the citizens who own these mountains. He asked the Supervisors to take the time to consider these suggestions for the good of the mountains and those who own them, and to listen no the voices of the landowners who are here tonight who are adversely affected by this ordinaice. He also asked that they take these landowners', sincere concerns to heart. Mr. Gerry Fisher stated that his family owns 900 acres of land around the Village of Heards Mountain and Massey's Mountain. He said his family has owned it for 45 years and through three generations, and they have not even built a dog house on this property. He pointed out that he and his family members are not in the development business but, instead, they grow trees. He added that like his good neigkbor, Jean Ko!b, he would like a chance to build a house somewhere on this mountain at some time. He would also like for his children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, who own other pieces of the property, to be able to do the same. He said his family members are much more affected by the ridge area limitations than he is, so he is not speaking for his family or against the ridge area. He stated, though, that he would have a political problem with his family, if he supported the ridge area regulations. He then noted that the embankments issue is the part he is most concerned with now. He went on to say, because so much of the land he owns is steep, he fears the way the embankment language is written would prevent him from even being able to build a driveway across the land without spending a great deal of money on engineering surveys and perhaps ending up disturbing a great deal more ground than probably needs to be done. ge commented that the proposed regulation regarding the two to one sloPes, one and one-half to one slopes or the provision for extenuating circumstances, which defines such things as rock and other existing physical site features, needs to be changed. He remarked that it needs to allow for people to build retaining walls, to put in rip-rap banks and other kinds of things other than existing physical site features which would limit the amounn of soil that has to be moved in order to build a driveway. This is too restrictive, and he thinks it will create a lot more erosion than anything else here. Mr. Larry De Neveu indicated that he and his family own land in the White Hall District, and almost all of the 400 acres is covered by this proposed ordinance. He said if this ordinance ms passed, he does not see County officials as confiscating his land, because he thinks he would know if this is being done. He stated that he looks an it as a zonmng matter, and the officials are doing what they have been elected to do. He went on to say he does not think the police protection issue is oppressmve, and he does not think public education is brainwashing. He commented that he does not think this is a taking of his land, and if he did, he would object. He noted that this process has been 9oing on for approximately three years, and everyone has had a reasonable chance to voice their opinions. He said he thinks the Supervmsors have communicated the issues very well to most of the people, and he asked the Supervisors to vote unanzmously for the ordinance in its original form. June 10, 1998 (RenU!ar Night Meeting) (Page 47) 000370 Mr. Rick Beyer, of the Liberty Land Company, which is the developer of Ashcroft, stated that it looks as though there has been a lot of progress made on this ordinance. He said he believes a process is being developed that is bringing this issue more to the poin5 where everybody is having to compromise a little bit, and he thinks the decision to defer was very good. He commented that his reading of the ordinance, with the amendments, indicates that property rights are not being taken away. They will possibly be more diffi- cult to get to, and he doesn't really think this can be supported in some cases. He stated that if the ridge area is the best place to build, then it is the best place, and it shouldn,t take a special use permit to get there. This is a complex issue and it took him a while to digesu the changes made during the last couple of days. He pointed out that he does not think people realize they are goi~Tg to be able to use their division rights, and he does not think most people realize the difference between the requirements for a driveway and the requirements for a private road. He commented that he does not believe these things can be ironed out in ten days or by next Wednesday. There is still more time needed~ if an ordinance is developed that makes sense. He added that he thinks the special use permit should be taken away, and if the best place for a house is at the top of the hill, he does not think the special use permit should be held as something that might or might not be granted. As far as Ashcroft is concerned, he said he would like to have something specified for all Planned Unit Developmenus, if they are planned and work has already taken Place in them. ~te suggested that the ordinance should specifically cover them and not leave him wondring what the status of these places will be when this ordinance is approved. Mr. Scott 'Peyton, a lifelong resident of Albemarle County, mentioned that throughout his life he has spent time in, through and around the moun- tains of Albemarle County, and much of this has been on private land. He said he has friends, neigh_bors, and family who own property which will be affected by this ordinance, and he referred to the responsible stewardship practices- that many, if not most, of the mountain owners currently utilize on their land. However, he noted that he does not see anylJhing in this ordinance to discourage these same property owners from continuing to practice good stewardship, if this ordinance is approved. He said he fears for the moun- tains, and he thinks the ordinance would afford some measure of protection against those who would seek to exploit the mountain resources in Albemarle County. He encouraged the Supervisors to support and pass this ordinance. Mr. Ronnie Morris noted that approximately 60 people have spoken, at his last count, and there were 38 adamantly against this ordinance and 22 for it. He said he is here for the third time to defend his rights as a mountain property owner and a lifelong Albemarle County resident, as well as at least four generations of people who have lived in Albemarle County's mountain region. He said he lives in the White Hall District, and seldom.do people in this district object to the Mountaintop Ordinance as it is written. He stated that he recently attended and spoke at the Planning Commission meeting which constituted approximately six ~o seven hours. He pointed out that an over- whelming majority of those who spoke were against this ordinance, yet the Coum~ission voted six to nothing in its favor. He said he has confidence that this Board's leadership, with its desire to serve the people, will not lead to a similar ouucome. He commenned than the Mountaintop Ordinance is not a mechanism to reduce erosion, provide safeuy, or improve water quality, etc., because it is strictly a matter of scenic importance. He noted that a majority of the water problems don't come from mountain development, but instead, subdivisions, golf courses and fertilizer on law/is certainly affect water quality. These things don't affect his water because he lives in the mountains, but they probably affect the Supervisors' water because of where they live. He added that he does not want to see commercial development or subdivisions on the mountains, but he feels the landowners should have a right to build on the mountains in a manner that is aesthetically acceptable with certain restrictions on clearing and high visibility construction. He asked the Supervisors to trust the judgment of the mountain property owners, because they have been good stewards of the land for generations. He suggested if a subdivision owner or the owners of other non-mountain property want a mountain for a backdrop, then let them purchase it. He asked the Supervisors to vote no to non-mountain property owners who want to take away the mountain owners' rights in order ~o serve themselves. Ms. Page Gilliam said she ms a member of the Mountain Protection Committee and an owner, with her family, of mountain land. She noted that she is speaking tonight for herself and not for the Mountain Protection Committee, June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 48) O0037Z as a whole. She stated that she has been surprised recently uo hear comments which have assumed the Mountain Protection Commiutee either invited or even challenNed landowners to participate in the proceedings, but nobody responded. She added that this is not the case. She reported that her Committee never brouNht landowners into the meetings in a systematic way. The process was as inclusive and fair as it could be within the limitations of the mandate, but the Committee was neither authorized nor charged to hold public hearings. The meetinNs, while technically open, were not. widely publicized. However, on isolated occasions Committee members were contacted by interested property owners, and some of these people came to the meetings, including Mr. Gerry Fisher, who just spoke. She stressed that, with all respect uo those in- volved, the Committee's recommendations did not have the benefit of extensive public comment. She said she has always anticipated that property owners would have an opportunity to study this ordinance fully in its final form,.and she thinks the pubic deserves to have its comments considered in a meaningful way under the auspices of this Board. She commented that until this happens, the process of turning the proposal into law is incomplete. She next asked that the Supervisors send this proposal back for further study over a period of not less than 90 days. She suggested a task force be appointed to study at least the following fresh and constructive ideas that the Mountain Protection Committee did not consider or incorporate in its recommendations. First, she mentioned that there needs to be a proposal to redefine ridge area to take into account the topography of flattop mountains. Secondly, she suggested a proposal to modify the plans and requirements regarding private roads. Next, she said issues of valuation need to be considered and lastly, eonsideration needs to be given to whether or not the special use permit is an appropriate mechanism for deciding if a particular building site is or is not in line with the purposes of the plan. She said many owners are unclear as to the criteria they would have to meet in order to receive a variance. She stated that she understands some are worried about an avalanche of under the wire applications for mountain development, if this proposal is not passed tonight or even next week. She added that she does not know how to assess this risk, but there are serious issues still to be addressed. She emphasized that if the passage of a complex far-reaching measure is rushed, when there are Still well reasoned and substantive suggestions being offered that have not been heard before, the Supervisors run the risk of passinN a seriously flawed ordinance. However, mountain legislation coming from the collaborative effort that she is urginiN will be stronNer and much more likely to withstand attack. Ms. Kathy Bodkin told the Supervisors that she and her family own and live on 31 acres at the top of the mountain on the section of Route 600 between Cismont and Stony Point which is within the Southwest Mountain range. She said she favors the Neneral intent of the ordinance to protect the beauty of Albemarle County, but she is opposed to some of the specific regulations and particularly to the process. She then referred to PageGilliam's com~aents and indicated her support. Ms. Bodkin stated that the Board does not have the necessary information to make these far-reaching decisions and the process by which this has all occurred is flawed. She said good decisions require facts and dialogue, and she made three suggestions. First, she asked the Board to direct the County staff to make a complete fiscal impact study of the proposed regulations with renard to each and every properuy owner to inform each and every property owner individually in writing how these provisions will affect their particular property and to report back to this Board on the precise dollar figure these changes will cost each landowner separately and in total. She commented that she believes the purpose of these regulations has been to get to the large developer. Yet, she thinks some of the smell property owners are beinN hurt, such as herself. She said, for example, her property has been on the market for approximately six months, and she has had offers withdrawn within the last 60 days because of this situation. She stated that it will cost her between $30,000 and $60,000. She mentioned that she can give the volunteer assessor, who has said there will be no impact, an example of precise impact besides havinN at least threedevelopment rights on her property taken away. She said since all of her property is in the ridge area, and there is one house on the property, according to staff it is very much up for debate whether she could build at all on any other place on the property, as well as any future owner. This may have taken away her right to move at all. Secondly, she suggested that the Supervisors should also consider appropriate compensation to all landowners who are in the Mountain Overlay District. This is not selfish, .it is only fair. She added that her last recommendation is that this Board needs to realize how this matter has not been fairly publicized to everyone in the County. She noted that this topic is not on the web site page, and neither are the minutes. The last menuion of this topic was in September, 1996 in the FYI report, so she as a citizen June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 49) 000372 tryinG to stay informed, could not havef0Und this~i~0rmation. She suggested that the Supervisors need to require all committees and commissions to put their minutes on their web site page. She stated also that they should report to the Supervisors after their meetings, so the information can go into the Supervisors' minutes of record, and the citizens can access it. This would help in the future with some of the problems. She added that she hopes all landowners will be involved in the Board's discussions in the future. Mr. Dick Brandt told the Supervisors he has great respect for the tasks in front of them. He said he threw away his notes and thoughts that he was Going to try to say in three minutes a long time ago, and he is uncertain as to what he should say now. He added that this tells him he is in tune with the complexity of the creation of this ordinance, and he thinks it is impor- tant that the Supervisors continue with it. He commented that he is in favor of the idea of the ordinance, although there are technical problems needin~ attention. He stated that he has been convinced, since he came to this area 30 years ago, that the mountains will look like little hills instead of mountains if something is not done. He said he has seen development creep half way up Buck's Elbow Mountain. He noted that he has Great Gratitude for the lonG time homeowners of the mountain land, and he is very grateful for their stewardship, but that is not what worries him. He said growth and development plans are here, and he thinks the County will be ruined if something is not done in line with the ordinance this Board is currently addressinG. He wished the Supervisors lots of luck, and he asked that they continue in pursuit with the final details of the ordinance to as many people's satisfaction as possible. Ms. Barbara Payne stated that she ow~s 100 acres of land in the White Hall District, and she is in favor of the Mountain Protection Ordinance. She noted that her remarks were prompted by a letter to the Daily Progress recently about this ordinance. The letter stated that if Thomas Jefferson were alive today, and this ordinance was passed, he wouldn.t be allowed uo build Monticello, She added that she thought, as she so often had before, that if development happening today were similar to Monticello an ordinance would not have to be crea~ed. She said everybody might not be arguing about it here tonight, because Monticello blends into its surroundings, and it is in harmony with the environment. She pointed out that drivinG on 1-64 a person would never know Monticello was there in the summer and even in winter, it is difficult to pick it out from the forest. She said Jefferson built the house of dark brick and left a belt of urees around the perimeter of the ridge top, and the contour of the mounta!n was not changed. She remarked that in answer to a question asked earlier tonight, she has looked around, and she finds that development today contrasts sharply with Monticello. She emphasized that one needs only to look at the south part of the Southwest Mountains to see this happening. She stated that she is in sympathy with the individual property owner who is a Good steward of the land but, unfortunately, there are many who have and will continue to degrade and destroy the beauty of this County. Thus, she feels a need for this ordinance. Mr. Jack Marshall informed the Board members that he and his wife own 100 acres on Fox Mountain, which fall within the proposed Mountain Overlay District, and he strongly urged the Board to adopt this ordinance. He said in addition to the tremendous public benefits over time, there are other reasons. First, he thinks the cost to the landowners has been overstated. The economic cost is su30stantiatly less than the alarmists, claims, except possibly from those speculators who willingly gambled. He believes he and most other families who own mountain land would lose nothinG or could creatively move parcel borders and building sites to lose very little. He said if adjustments don't work satisfactorily, there is a way to seek special permits. He stated that cosus to his personal freedom have also been greatly exaggerated. He said mountain landowners already accept the principle that they cannot do whatever they want on their land, even though they own it and pay taxes on it. He added that they cannot hunt or burn fires whenever they want or throw anything in the streams on their land, and they can't build a factory or unlimited residential developments. He went on to say the mountain landowners agreed to these limitations on their personal freedom because they understand that their parcels of land are not islands isolated from everything but integrated parts of the community. They may have the right to sell the land, but in the meantime, they have rgsponsibilities ~o the larger communluy. Secondly, he believes there is nothing sacrosanct about the number of develop- ment rights on the land when he bought it. He stated that land use decisions have been made by elected people from his ~ommunity uslng the perspective available at the time, as well as their best judgraent. He said it wasn,~ June 10, 1998 (Regular Might Meeting) (Page 50) 000373 divine revelation that his land should have nine development rights. He stated that if a subsequent Board increases the value of the land by rezoning and doubling the development rights, he would not feel obliged to write a check to local government representing the added new value to his property. He said if the new community perspective about the responsible use of land leads elected leaders to a revised judgment about his land, and it is a wise judgment in the best interest of the whole community but one which may reduce his development rights, he would feel hypocritical if he demanded to be compensated. Finally, an expanding population will increasingly exert new demands on mountaintop land. This is the essence, because as a community, courage and vlslonis displayed by anticipating the destructive influence not of a single Monticello, but of the cumulative effect of hundreds or even thousands of Montice!los. He added that this ordinance creates a natural tension which can be felt in the auditorium tonight, and it is a tension between the individual good and a public good. He stated that, on balance, he thinks the ordinance is clearly weighted on the side of the long term interest of the whole community. Mr. Marshall announced that Ms. Sara Lee Barnes had to leave the meeting, and he asked Mr. Martin to read the letter she had left for the Board. Mr. Martin said Ms. Barnes' letter indicates that basically Ms. Barnes is a long time resident and owner of mountain land, and she supports the ordinance. Mr. Michael T. Boggs remarked that he has been a mountain resident of Albemarle County for the past 25 years,and he is President of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc. He informed the Board members that his 32 years of experi- ence in designing and building roads and development sites includes 24 years of road construction and site development in mostly mountainous terrain at Wintergreen and Massanutten resorss, as well as the development and construc- tion of Rosemont, where only nine percent or seven of the seventy-seven development rights available to create new lots were used. This is the second most counterproductive ordinance ever proposed in Albemarle County. He recalled that the first was the proposal involving the 21 acre parcels that he believes have served to fragment much of Albemarle County's agricultural and forestal land, and has unnecessarily removed thousands of acres from produc- tion. This proposed MOD ordinance is ineffective in accomplishing the ~oals of 90 percent of its proposals, and it eliminates the use of many development rights on the higher and usually flatter elevations which causes tremendous loss of property value. Theordinance does nothingto control the siting, the amount of clearing, the size or the color and, in other Words, the visibility of the many viable buildin~ sites will remain. He said it serves to create much more land disturbance and visibility of the roads and houses that will be pushed down 100 feet from the mountaintops onto the mountainsides where there is no way to hide either. These areas have drainage problems, and the septic systems are much more likely to leak to the surface. He commented that plant and wildlife habitat are much more abundant. These areas fall within, or at the beginning, of the most critical slopes, and generally the roads and driveways serving lots in these areas of the mountainsides will cause far better impact on critical slopes and aesthetics. He called attention to the strategies outlined on Page One of the proposed Comprehensive Plan change, as well as the design standards on Page Seven. He noted that the strategies and 95 percent of the design standards are excellent measures to protect moun- tains. Re asked why aren't these strategies and standards a simple theme of the proposed ordinance, rather than an ineffective and counterproductive stab a~ only the first strategy listed. He said somewhere along the line the original goal to protect the mountains became derailed. He thinks the Board needs to take a hard look at the proposal, and sit down with some land~wners, developers, engineers and contractors who have practical experience in mountainland ownership, stewardship, and construction on this type of terrain. True workshops need 5o be conducted unlike the orchestrated affair which happened last Wednesday. ~e strongly urged the Board members to do this. Mr. Peter Hallock commented that most of what he wanted to say has already been said, but he honestly feels that the downzoning of 1980 increased his family farm's value more than a bunch of two acre lots in Keswick. He said he thinks the real estate agents will agree with him. He stated that when an easement is given, it is an individual parcel. He noted that the Supervisors are making a whole protected area so, therefore, the land is treated differently in value. He said he will discuss with the Board members June 10, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 51) 000374' the issue involving the difference in value at a ta~';~time, but he wanted them to know he is in favor of the ordinance. Ms. Linda Shank announced that she owns property in a ridge area. She thanked the Supervisors and expressed her respect ~o each of them for the responsibility they have accepted as elected officials. She said she recog~ nizes the challenge they face as they carefully weigh the pros and cons in making this decision. She added that she has watched the Supervisors and she sees them actively listening, and she thinks this is probably some of the most difficult listenin9 she can imagine. She said she is truly moved by the democratic process here in which everybody can express their opinions. However, she went on to say she has been tryin9 to make sense ou't of this ordinance, but she hasn't been able ~o do so, and she would have to vote no tonight. As a nurse, Ms. Shank said she supports many aspects of environmen- tal protection, but she opposes this ordinance because she sees it as taking without giving and taking without compensating. She stated that she truly finds it remarkable that the staff and elected officials of her County have chosen this environmental issue to focus on when she believes there are other conditions presentin9 a widespread growing which is very real and very destructive in its effect. She then proposed a new ordinance to Albemarle County vehicle owners that since there are too many cars in Albemarle County which are cloggin9 the roads, polluting the environment and destroying the beauty of the scenic areas, threatening the general public safety and burden- ing the taxpayer's services. She said any family with more than one vehicle will be required to give up all but one car or truck, and the family will not be compensated for the vehicle or vehicles that the County will take, as they will still have one car or one truck for transportation. She added that the families with extra vehicles should be happy to give them up for the 9rearer good of the community. She said she would also include a special use permit for an extra truck which may be granted at the sole whim of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervmsors if a person can prove that over 90 percent of his or her income is derived from farming. Mr. William Dunwoody, an Albemarle County resident living near Barhoursville, spoke mn support of controlled ~rowth in County development. However, he said he believes people's deeded rights in division and develop- ment should not be randomly seized and eliminated. This is a constitutional mssue, as well as a moral one. He went on to say if the ordinance is to be considered as it was originally, it should be scrapped. He said, though, if it is passed, it should be with the proposed changes from the Plannmng Commission which would allow him, as a t00 percent disabled veteran, as well as his retired mother, to live on his 20 acres so they can take care of each other on their two division lots. He suggested that more time be taken for consideration of all of these possible sorts of distinct problems that seem to be enlarging. He said Albemarle County officials are in a unique position because there ms unparalleled explosive population growth. He noted that it is inevitable, it is happenin~ now, and that is why everybody is at this meeting. He stated that it cannot be wished away, and it cannot be ignored, so he suggested addressin9 it in a forthright manner. The 700 foot elevation limit should be eliminated, because it is ridiculous, and at best it is a stop~ap method for dealing with an arbitraryportion of the problem. He said it is ineffectual and a crumbling dyke. He noted that the City is having a reversion issue, and it is still unclear if Albemarle County wants to be a town or city. He asked how a serious decision can be made when there is an unknown future without allowing for change as a constant. He said a Rural Overlay District could perhaps be adopted which would afford the entire County protection from uncontrolled development~ and not just mountain owners. He thinks a plan should be adopted taking new ideas such as William Sherman's cohousing projects, who is a visionary new architect in Charlottesville. He said County officials should be prepared to evaluate these approaches to development at whatever altitude and wherever the County may develop, so there can be green healthy areas for people to live. He stated that damaged land should be reclaimed with private and government fundin~ and by using manpower of boy scouts, girl scouts and 4-H members. This sor~ of thing was done when he was a child, and areas were made prettier with things such as trees and vegetables bein9 planted. He stated that people stand in line to si~n up for garden plots in a state park in Wilmington Delaware. He added that people who are hungry in the County can be fed, and trees can be planted for commercial uses, which will be more money for the County. He said 9rowth can be dealt with realistically and instead of bein9 run over by it, Albemarle County can be a national example of how it can be managed~ He said perhaps Mr. Sherman and a few of the county landowners could get to~ether to see what develops. June 10, 1998 (Regular Night M~eting) (Page 52) 000375 Mr. Wendell Woodcommented that he has been coming to meetings before Albemarle County Boards of Supervisors for over 30 years, but the one thing disturbing him about this ordinance is the rush to judgment. He stated that after all of these comments, the Supervisors must have some doubt about what they are doing. He said he thinks the Supervisors should be very concerned about making a decision they can back up after the diversity of opinions tonight from attorneys and appraisers, as well as the limited input. He emphasized that he hopes they will not make a decision on this ordinance until they give it more study. The Board members have obviously seen enough deeply concerned citizens here tonight to know if a decision ~s made with the ordinance in its present form, they will be challenged. He thinks they will be doing a serious injustice to the taxpayers' money to spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars that will be spent in legal fees. He stated that he believes Mr. Davis will probably agree that he cannot guarantee he is going to win this case. Mr. wood also referred to Mr. Samuels' opinion, and the difference of op~n~ons of other appraisers. Mr. Wood said he personally does nou think the Supervisors will win such a case, and he believes reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. He believes an ordinance can be achieved that will work, and although everybody may not get what they want, it should not seriously affect the people. He hopes the Supervisors take some of the comments made uonight into consideration and study them and develop something they can feel reasonably comfortable they can defend. Mr. Dude Western announced that he is not a resident of Albemarle County, but he owns land on Pasture Fence Mountain. He said he doesn't know what the County officials are up to, because the mountains are in good shape. He referred to the Planning Commission meeting when erosion problems were shown. This erosion was in a National Park, and it was there because the Government doesn't know how to manage anything. The top of themountain being discussed is not being eroded. He emphasized that the Albemarle County government is up to something, because nothing had been done for years and years, and suddenl~ the County government wants to start.something. He said it does not make sense to him, and he thinks for the best interest of every- body, they should tell the citizens what they have on their minds and what they are planning for the future. He again referred ~o the Planning Commis- sion meeting. The commissioners were the most disrespectful people he had ever seen. He stated that half of them couldn't be heard, and the other half walked in and out of the meeting. He commented that they were hearing the people, but they were not listening. They had made up their minds what they were going to do before they got to the meeting, and you could tell their minds were somewhere else. He indicated that this was a bad situation for people in public office. He added that the Supervisors have not been too much better because they have been up and down and in and out all of the time. He told the Board merabers if they have already made up their mind to pass the ordinance, the best thing for them to do on. election day next time is to get out of town, because they will not be re-elected. He said he does not understand what it is all about, because the mountain is not eroding, and it is not going anywhere. He noted that he has been traveling this mountain for over 40 years, and it is in better shape than the Park, which is Federal land. He also mentioned that the mountain land is in better shape than the State and County roads. He said when a person's land is devalued, money is being taken out of his pocket. Mr. Sid Shumate noted that he is an electrical engineering graduate, and is employed full-time as a broadcast engineer and appraiser with BIA Media, Inc., in Chantilly, Virginia. However, he said he lives in Albemarle County, although it is a long commute. He informed the Board that he is also the Manager at Blue Ridge Video Services, and he is a contractor licensed for building electrical and specialty videos, specifically television broadcasu facility construction. He also noted that he is the former Director of Engineering at WVIR TV and served as such from 1979 to 1995. He stated that he has some specific comments relating no his specialty which is the building of television and radio facilities on top of these mountains, and he also has some general comments. He then referred to Section 30.8.6 of the proposed ordinance dealing with exempt structures. The radio equipment buildings and shelters that accompany radio communications towers appear to be exempted by Section A which allows exemption of an accessory building of less than 500 square feet. The size of the exemption appears inadequaue because the normal size of a television transmitter building ranges from 800 to 1,500 square feet depending on the size of the transmitter. For example, he referred to the present WVIR main transmitter building which was built in 1992, and has 1,300 square feet of internal floor space. The present full exemption would appear to perpetuate and even promote the present poorly organized system of allowing June 10, 1998 (Renu!ar Night Meeting) (Page 53) 000376 multiple unmatched uncoordinated equipment~ shelters ~&~d buildings to be built he!ter skelter around the base of multiple user towers. He pointed out that some of these exist on Carter's Mountain. He said with no restriction, these structures can range from solidly built concrete structures down to flimsy wooden sheds. He noted that he has inspected, evaluated and appraised numerous tower site installations across the U.S., and he suggested that since the question of restricting construction on the mountaintops has been raised, this would be an appropriate time to upgrade the construction requirements and methods for structures found at the base of radio towers. He pointed out that many areas of the U.S. now require that equipment shelters to accommodate multiple user towers be made of fire retardant and fire resistant Class C materials for better construction. He said a minimum example would be a masonry structure with a reinforced concrete slab roof supported by the concrete block walls. He stated that also often required is that a multiple section building be constructed similar in concept of a storage section of commercial lease storage facilities but involving a more fire resistant construction for use by all of the users of a particular tower. The Forest Service promotes the use ofsuch buildings, and these buildings provide fire prevention, as well as fire protection benefits because such buildings are likely to survive brush and forest fires as well as prevent them by containing internal fires until the fire department can arrive. He stated that addi- tional requirements to require the minimization of environmental hazards and eyesores associated with tower sites can be better applied and enforced on a required collaborative site building than on multiple structures. (Mr. Marshall informed Mr. Shumate that he had used up all of his time.) Mr. Shumate asked if he could leave a copy of his comments with Board members. Mr. Marshall answered affirmatively. Dr. Olin West stated that he lives in the Free Union area with his wife and two sons, and he voiced his appreciation to the Supervisors for staying so long at the meeting so everybody could be heard. He said he supports the new Mountaintop Ordinance, only he wishes it was stronger. He referred to the Free Union area where he said owners of mountaintop land generally respect the natural beauty of the mountains and they do not visibly build on them. This good judgment deserves everybody's thanks. However, he mentioned two excep- tions of buildings which are built on the mountains and can be seen from his property. He pointed out that there are only two of these buildings in an expanse of many miles of mountains, but these two are like beacons which beckon the eye, and they definitely interrupt and detract from the natural beauty of the mountains. He stated that each time a new building is built, more of the natural beauty of this area will be permanently compromised, and property values are likely to be hurt. He said it is unfair and untrue to say that this ordinance will take away property owners rights to build, because it does not. He noted that each and every mountain landowner retains the right to build under this ordinance, but there are stipulations that buildings be placed to maximize the beauty of the County as a whole. He stated that in numerous other areas of the country where strong local control has been exerted upon property owners to preserve the natural appearance and beauty of the area, property values have remained high for all. There is plenty of precedence for this and it is not considered pirating of personal property rates. He mentioned, for instance, the two beautiful Massachusetts islands of Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, where property owners are told in no uncer- tain terms by local planning boards not only where to build but with what materials. He remarked that there ~s rigid control over style, design and size of buildings, and the result is not only the preservation of natural beauty, but remarkable c~vlc pride and extraordinarily high property values. He said he truly believes Thomas Jefferson would vote for this ordinance, if he could be here tonight. Mr. Marshall stated that Dr. West was the last speaker to'si~n up on the sheet. However, he asked if there were others who wished to make comments and, if so, they should come forward. Mr. Donnie Dunn, from Free Union, remarked that he picked up a friend at Dulles International Airport on May 5. They were driving through the County, and they were commenting about how beautiful and majestic the mountains are. He has been in the area for approximately 45 years, and he does not see the need to overdo something that is already good. He would like to see a lot more dialogue about this issue before property owners in this County are impeached. He added that they have done a beautiful job of being good stewards of the mountains, and will continue to do so. (Page 54) Mr. Ralph Maroney noted that he owns 500 acres which is going to b~ directly or indirectly affected by the ordinance, and he fears this is the start of something bigger. He said if the ordinance has a 700 foot elevation limit this year, it may go to 600 feet next year, and there may be only half the amount of rights for the landowners the year after. He referred to the language of the ordinance where it mentions reasonable use of property under appropriate conditions. He said he would really like to know what this statement means because it is not very clear. He mentioned Dr. West's remarks about the starkness of the two houses in the Free Union area, and he said there are two more such houses on the west side of the Southwest Mountains. He remarked that one house is white and the other is made of red brick, but both can be seen for miles and miles, and he thinks this is the real concern. These types of houses have more of an impact than anything else, including all of the elevation and water control measures. He is against this ordi-. nance, and it seems to him that the Board should listen to the 46 or 47 landowners with property at this elevation who have spoken mgainst the ordinance. He pointed out that of the 30 people who have spoken in favor of the ordinance, there were only five or six who were landowners, and the rest are people who live below and want to keep the scenic view. ge said if they really want to keep the scenic view, they should pay for it by taking some of their tax money and putting it forward to pay for PRDs. ge noted that this has been done in Nantucket, and by doing this, Nantucket is able to compete with developers over pieces of property, ge went on to say if this practice is started, there will be a tremendous amount of money coming to the County officials for this purpose. Mr. Marshall inquired if there was anyone else who wished to speak before he closed the public hearing. Seeing no one else, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing at 12:41 a.m. Mr. Marshall stated that he does not want uo vote on this matter tonight or next week. He wants to ask a lot of questions, and he prefers to vote on the ordinance sometime in August. He added that there are a lot of questions he wanus answered before he can support or not support this ordinance. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Marshall is suggesting that the ordinance not be discussed next week. Mr. Marshall answered that he does not want to vote on the ordinance next week, but that does not mean members of this Board cannou overrule him. He went on to say he does not think enough information can be gathered in a week's time to vote on it. Ms. Thomas agreed that Board members won't get enough information by next week, if they do not ask questions tonight. She would hate for the Supervisors not to ask questions when they are fresh in their minds, but she would also hate to start a conversation at 12:45 a.m. She suggested that next week will be a bi= of a compromise, because it is not so far away that there~ cannot be a discussion based on what has been heard tonight including the process inpu5. She added that some of the process input' has suggested that something quite different ought to happen in the next month and not just have the Supervisors ~o off on their various vacations and then come back and ask some questions. She does not think this responds to the suggestions from people who want a chance to have everything in the forum of another open house, so they know exactly how their land will be affected by this ordinance, to a work session, or a task force. She stated that lots of things have been suggested, and she thinks people deserve uo have this matter discussed next week rather than just have the time pass. Mr. Martin remarked that he would like to table this discussion until next week. The Supervisors can decide at that time whether or non they want to discuss it further. Mr. Bowerman suggested that the Supervisors supply their questions to staff by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow while they are still fresh in their minds. The Board could defer this matter until next Wednesday, and if there is not enough information, it will have to be deferred again. However, if Board members are satisfied with the information, they can take action on the ordinance. He said, though, he does not want to foreclose the opportunity to have this information by next week, and he does not want to foreclose the opportunity of asking these questions as soon as possible. Mr. Marshall noted that he does not just want to ask staff questions. He wants to ask some of the professional people questions who only had three minutes to speak tonight. He mentioned Mr. Romenesko who is the head of the 000~78 June 10, 1998 (Regu!ar Night Meeting) (Page 55) largest appraisal group in the State of Virginia. Mr. Marshall said his input is very important, and he does not think he heard everything he needs to hear from him in three minutes. Ee stated that Mr. Romenesko is just an example, because there are several other people to whom he needs to talk. He said he has to earn a living, and he is not going to have time to get all of these answers by next week. Mr. Martin agreed that it would be hard to have questions to staff by 5:00 p.m. tomorrow. Mr. Marshall informed the other Board members that if they vote on this ordinance next week before he can get the information he needs to make a proper decision, he will vote against it. Ms. Thoraas pointed out that this week will not be very productively spent, if the staff is not given some sort of guidance. She assumes this was the impetus to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that the staff be given some of the Board members' questions by the close of the day tomorrow. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to table the discussion on the Mountain Protection Ordinance until next Wednesday. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin is suggesting that there be no ~uidance to staff in the meantime. Mr. Martin said the staff members heard the same comments the Supervisors heard, and if the Board members have this conversa- tion tonight, they will be at this meetin~ for another hour or hour and a half. There will surely be some disagreements among the Board members, and he does not think 1:00 a.m. is the time for such a discussion. Ms. Thomas said she was not suggesting that. She commented that she was only picking up on Mr. Bowerman's suggestion. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he does not want to ask any questions now because he really needs to be clear-headed when he goes back over his notes. He does not think staff will have all of the answers tonight anyway, but he would like to get his questions to staff as soon as possible. He added that if other Board members do not have any questions, or they cannot get them together, then they do not have to give the staff members anything by tomor- row. Mr. Marshall stated that he has five pages of questions, but he is going to work at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow, and he will be working until 8:00 p.m. He does not know when he will have time to get his questions to staff. Mr. Perkins referred to Page Gilliam's recommendation that the matter be sent back to the MoUntain Protection Committee for 60 or 90 days. He thinks this is the best idea. He noted that the mountains have been a topic of conversation since 1971, and the Committee has been working on it for three years, so he does not see why two or three months will make any difference. Mr. Marshall said he needs a motion on this matter before the meeting can be adjourned. Ms. Thomas reminded Mr. Marshall that a motion was already offered to table the matter completely until next Wednesday. Mr. Marshall mentioned that there is a full schedule for next Wednes- day's meeting. He asked if this item would be put at the end or the beginning of the agenda. Ms. Thomas suggested that the matter be taken up earlier rather than later. Mr. Bowerman assured Mr. Marshall that he would be present until this matter is discussed next week. His preference is to have a shorter meeting. Mr. Martin mentioned to the Chairman that a motion was on the floor. At this point, Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night MeetiI~g) (Page 6) 000006 Areas. However, this objective should not be interpreted so strictly as to detrimentally affect the viability of existing rural communities such as Esmont. The Planning Commission, at its mee~in~ on June 9, 1998, unanimously found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. No action is required of the Board. This memorandum is furnished for information only. Item 5.6. 1997 Development Activity Report for the County of Albemarle as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for information. Item-5.7. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional' Jail Authority Board meetings of February 5, March 12 and April 21, 1998, was received for information. Item 5.8. Copy of letter dated June 5, 1998, from Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Gifford Childs, International Cold Storage, re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION - Assembly of Modular Buildings, was received for information. Item No. 5.9. April 1998 Financial Report for General, School and Capital Funds, received for information. It was noted that General Fund revenue projects were revised as of December 31, 1997. Estimated Food and Beverage Tax revenues of $1.216 million were added to the projections. General Fund expenditure projections have been revised to refleot a two-percent holdback for operating expenses. Education, expenditure projections have been revised to reflect the release of the full 7.5 percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. Item 5.10. Letter dated June 8, 1998, from the Honorable James S. Gilmore, III, Governor, ~o the Honorable Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., providing notice that Albemarle County has been awarded a Communi=y Improvement Grant in the amount of $400,000 for its Community Development Black Grant project. Letter was received for information. (Ms. Humphris noted the County had attempted to obtain this grant for years and she is quite pleased that Albemarle County has finally achieved it. Mr. Marshall noted that once all the money comes in, the County stands to receive a total of $750,000.) Agenda Item No. 6. CPA 98-01, Mountains; ZTA 98-05, Mountain Overlay District (MOD) and related provisions; ZMA 98-10, Mountain Overlay District (Deferred from ~Lkne 10, 1998). Mr. Cilimberg said a memorandum setting forth the staff's summary and recommendations had been sent to the Board in response to comments made at the previous week's public hearing. There were five areas which provided potential change in the MOD to further clarify issues raised. He then asked Ms. Mary Jo Scala, Senior Planner, to explain those issues and advise the Board of a suggestion brought from the public. Ms. Scala noted that there have been five changes from the June 8 staff report. !) Delete Section 30.8.5, Private Roads, in its entirety, since the Engineering Department has said that the current private roads regulations in the Subdivision Ordinance are more restrictive. 2) Revise Section 30.8.4.c to permit a lot by special use permit in whole or in part within the Ridge Area. This revision was suggested by the County Attorney and does not alter the intent, but allows a lot to straddle the Ridge Area for example if the ridge is small or narrow. 3) Clarify the definition of "building site" in Section 3.0 by the addition of the words "based on" added before "contour interval of 20 feet." This change clarifies that 20 feet is the uniform standard, even though the topographical map available may show 20, 20 or 40-foot contour internals. 4) The County Engineer requested that part of Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, be revised to replace ~a vertical r~se or fall of two feet" with "a vertical rise or fall of five feet." This change provides that June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 000007 embankments smaller than five feet in height will not be subject to the regulations. 5) The Board may wish to consider deletion of Section 4.2.01, Constructed Embankments, and to Consider addressing driveway regulations separately an a later date. This section requires minimum 2:1 side slopes on driveways and building pads throughout the County~ Although 2:1 slopes are currently required as a matter of Engineering Department policy, this section would make the requirement a Zoning Ordinance regulation. Driveway regulations were orzginally proposed for safety and soil erosion prevention reasons. This section addresses only soil erosion. Questions have been raised as to whether it requires additional undesirable grading and clearing, and whether a mmnzmum requirement for a driveway gradient should have been included. Finally, mn order to be consistent, small areas adjacent to mamn mountains have been designated as ridges, even though they are much lower in elevation than the ridge on top of the larger mountains. A citizen recommendation is that sites lower than 100 feet above the minimum elevation for a MOD not be considered ridge areas, and staff agrees. This would mean that ridge areas woul~ only be areas within t00 feet from the top of the larger mountains. Ms. Thomas stated that it makes sense to her to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment because it has not been the subject of negative comments and provides guidance for what the Board might do next. It does not say what kind of strategies the Board must adopt, although it recommends possibilities. During research, she came upon the minutes of the September t6, 1971, Board meeting, where Mr.. Gordon Wheeler moved an addition to the Comprehensive Plan listing the conservation objectives and saying that the mountain slopes should be protected. This has been a part of the Comprehensive Plan, but has never been moved on in any significant way. This amendment would send a message to the community that the Board is doing what most speakers seem to wanu the Board to do--take care of the mountains. She would be embarrassed to ask staff or the citizens to do further work without amending the Comprehensive Plan. Motion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Chapter 2, the Natural Environment Open Space Resources, CPA-98-01, Mountains. Ms. Humphris added that she appreciated the work done by staff and citizens to create this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Martin asked Mr. Ciiimberg how he felt about the prospect of adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment without adopting the MOD Ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg said that the Open Space Plan was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan several years ago. Adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment would further define a policy statement about the importance of protecting the mountains, as well as goals, objectives and strategies that would be related. Until an Ordinance is put into place, however, there would obviously be no regulatory aspect implemented. However, it sets the framework for staff's reference in terms of the importance of the mountains and activities that occur there. The Comprehensive Plan amendment comes into consideration when determining whether a special use permit should be granted in mountain areas, since part of a special use permit review relies on the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan for a particular area. If there is going to be further review of ordinance amendments, it is always good to have the intent of the Comprehensive Plan as a basis for review. Mr. Bowerman asked if adopting the Comprehensive Plan amendment would allow the Board to consider strengthening regulations for the location of towers in the Mountain Resource Area. Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it would certainly do so, and said it was called to staff's attention by Mr. Davis that the Comprehensive Plan amendment must be addressed if the Board plans to adopt any ordinances. Mr. Marshall said he has a problem with the Board hearing protests from the public when something is nou done according to the Comprehensive Plan, and then the Board simply revises the Comprehensive Plan. The Board does not always approve a special use permit just because of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board often votes against a special use permit due to concerns about the health and safety issues involved in a particular case. He would like to see all three items passed at once. He would like to see a Mountain Ordinance but have it go to the Mountain Committee first for suggestions. Voting for the Comprehensive Plan amendment would be ~putting the cart before the horse." It would say the Board would have to have a Mountain Ordinance, which may not be June 17, 1998 (Reg~/lar Nisht Meetins) ': 000008 (page 8) the case. There may already be something in place to deal with the issues. Mr. Marshall said that he would not suppor5 the motion. Ee would prefer ~o send it back to the Committee. There are many private property owners who did not know about this and hence, did no~ have input. There are families in the audience who do not agree this is a good ordinance. He would support a Mountain Ordinance to keep speculators away from the County, but as long as Albemarle County is getting good publicity it will keep bringing people to the area. He said he had asked Mr. Ivan Romanesko to give him information. Ms. Thomas asked whether this was relevant to the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall replied that it was, since it was all related: the amendment, the MOD, the whole thing. Ee was afraid that if the Board passed the Comprehen- sive Plan amendment tonight, it would have to go along with the Mountain Ordinance later on. Ms. Humphris said the Comprehensive Plan amendment ms somethin9 the Board has asked for and wanted for years. It simply states the importance of mountains to the County; it does not obligate anyone to vote for anything. It needs to be in place under any circumstance to deal with towers and other matters. Mr. Marshall said that every time an issue comes before the Board, the Comprehensive Plan is treated as though it were law. He would rather do all three things together to make it law, and suggested sending it back to the Mountain Committee, adding property owners as members of the Committee. Ms. Humphris said there was a motion on the floor involving solely the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Martin said the Board and the Plarming Commission have been focused on the ordinance He had been out of town for the last few days and had not read Ms. Thomas' E-mail message. He had heard she was golng to do this and had read her commenus in the newspaper. Some people may say that this is a delay tactic and she may indeed be right that there is a need uo move forward on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but he has been focused solely on the ordinance. Before the vote on the Comprehensive Plan amendment, he would like some time to focus on that, and asked that it be possponed until the next meeting. Mr. Marshall concurred and said that he believed the public thought the Board was going to look at everything together. Ms. Thomas said, if it were the intention of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin to kill the ordinance, then certainly they should vote against the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Marshall said he was not against the ordinance, he just wanted one that would work. Ms. Thomas said if the Board members vote for it, they sincerely mean that they want some respect shown to the mountains. There should be some embarrassment asking staff and the Committee to continue working on something that has been worked on for quite some time, if there is no intention to ever look seriously at an ordinance or ~o do something for the mountains. The Comprehensive Plan amendment will be useful in dealing with uowers. The Board should have taken this actionmonths ago to give some guidance to the Committee and community. A vote not to adopt the Comprehensive Plan amendment will make it difficult to get the kind of devoted work the Board has asked for to continue. Mr. Marshall said he did not want to vote against the Comprehensive Plan amendment, but he would vote against it if he had to vote tonight. Mr. Martin said that everything has been considered together until now. It might be a good idea to separate them, but he would have liked some advance notice. Mr. Bowerman said it has been in the packet since the beginning of the discussion. It codifies the Board's values and has no specific guidelines; it is simply a statement of intent. He sees no harm in adopting the amendment. Mr. Martin said that it was initiated in 1971 with the first Comprehensive Plan and asked why it could not wait a few more weeks. It might be appropriate to separate the issues, but he sees no need to rush on this. At this point, Mr. Bowerman moved the question. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis how, if this amendment were adopted, it would affect a special use permit for land located in the MOD. Mr. Davis replied that it would simply provide the Board with a guide to form an opinion as to whether the special use permit was appropriate development. One primary consideration when looking at a special use permit is whether it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Perkins asked what the sentence saying that the Mountain Protection Plan was attached as an appendix no the Comprehensive Plan meant. Mr. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000009 Cilimberg said that the Mountain Committee document would be used as a reference document. Mr. Martin asked if this meant the document in front of the Board would have to be cleaned up. Mr. Cilimberg said "no", the ~wo documents go together, there is no need for a change. Roll was called and the question was called by the following recorded AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Roll was called, and the motion uo adopu CPA 98-01 failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas NAYS: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins Motion was made by Mr. Perkins to send the Comprehensive Plan amendment and the Mountain Overlay District ordinance back to Mountain Committee, saying that he felt thau it needed more work. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin, after amending it to say that the two should be separated and have the Comprehensive Plan amendment come back to the Board at the next meeting at which all members will be present, with the ordinance following later. Mr. Perkins acquiesced to the amendment. Ms. Humphris said she thinks the Board needs uo spend more time on this to perfect it, because of the amount of public input. She felt that the Board should have a work session with staff, not send it back to the Committee. Mr. Marshall asked where input from the landowners was going to come from. Mr. Perkins said the Commitsee needs to see those comments as well. Mr. Martin said the people who spoke at the public hearing should be included. Some people did not realize that the ordinance involved them, since it includes more than just the top of the mountains. After listening to many of the comments made, he felt that if the goal were to keep unsightly homes out Of sight, the best place is sometimes on the ridge, because it is less obtrusive. He has seen situations where following the ordinance would lead uo worse situations than violating the ordinance, so whet is being achieved today may not be the Board's objectives. Now that people know the discussion concerns them, he would like to see them involved at some level. Mr. Bowerman felt it was the Board's responsibility and that the Board should be involved, rather than sending it 5o Committee. Ms. Thomas said the Committee and staff should provide advice to the Board as to the best process to follow. An issue that embroils so many people deserves a process that allows the Board to investigate it thoroughly. The Committee was not charged with holding public hearings and though the Committee members were to keep the people informed, some did a better job than others. She would like to have staff and the Committee advise the Board on the process as well as content. She would prefer a work session with the Board, as it is the Board who has to be satisfied. Staff has done a mag//ificent job of 5rying to please everyone. Mr. Davis cautioned the Board that, under its Rules of Procedure, since the vote on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment failed, it is a denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Before the Board does anything further with it, there should be a motion to reconsider CPA-98-01. If that motion passes, the Board would be in a position to defer it for further study; otherwise, CPA-98- 01 may have to start over. The Board needs to deal with the Comprehensive Plan amendment issue at this meeting in order to keep it alive. Mr. Marshall asked if this would put the Board in the same position as they were in tonight, with not having the necessary information on the Mountain Ordinance and Mountain Overlay District. Mr.'Davis replied that the Board could defer it as long as they want. A deferral would give the Board as long as they need to gather information. Mr. Martin suggested that Ms. Thomas make a motion to send the ordinance back to staff for further recommendations on where the ordinance should go for further study. Ms. Thomas suggested that the word "process" be in the motion, so that staff can make recommendations on what kind of process should be followed. Mr. Perkins noted that some of the Committee members have requested ..... 0000:1.0 June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) ~ (Page 10) to be included in any further study, which is wh~ h~ wanted it sent back to them. Ms. Thomas said that she did not exclude that, but she feels that what is needed first is an outline of the best process to be followed. Sending it back to the Committee is a way to either kill it, defer it indefinitely or begin an interactive process with community input. She did not want to send it back to the Committee without any guidance on what they were to do with it. Mr. Perkins withdrew his previous motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to reconsider the roue on CPA-98-01. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to defer CPA-98-01 until it can be reconsidered in a work session on August 5, !998. Mr. Martin asked if this was going uo be the nexu meeting that the entire Board would be present and was told it would be. Mr. Marshall suggested that staff not put that much more on the agenda that day. Mr. Bowerman asked who the Board would be discussing the Comprehensive Plan amendment with, public, staff or Committee members. Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin said to just make it a work session, and discuss the particulars afterwards. Mr. Bowerman asked what would be done at the work session, other than jus= talk amongst themselves. Mr. Martin said that if he had any specific questions, he would ask them of staff before the meeting. Ms. Humphris suggested thau if anyone had any questions on CPA-98-01, they send them to staff. Mr. Martin no=ed that there were other meetings between now and August 5 at which questions could be asked. Mr. Marshall suggested that certain other people be invited to attend the work session with the Board. Mr. Martin said that he had no problem with others being invited to the meeting. Mr. Marshall said there were quite a few people whose opinion he wished to have, and wanted them to be at the work session so the Board could ask them questions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded voue: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Mr. Perkins asked if the Board needed to give staff further direction regarding the other items. Mr. Davis said that since the Board took no direction on the other items, the staff has no direction as uo when they should be put back on the agenda. It would be helpful if the Board directed staff that these items be continued until August 5, or defer them to some other time since staff needs direction as to when the Board wishes to reconsider these items. Mr. Marshall suggested that all of them be considered a~ the work session. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that staff and the Mountain Committee present to the Board a proposal on how to proceed with the Mountain Overlay District Ordinance by the next Board meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followIng recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-97-12. Fried (Grayrock) (Signs 18 & 19). Public hearing on a requesu uo rezone approx 53.02 acs from PRD to R-4. Loc on N side of Rt 691 (Jarman's Gap Rd) approx 1.3 mi W of Crozet (Deferred from February 18, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant has prepared proffers uo go along with June 17, (Page 11) 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) OOO0:I.:1. their plan of development, but the proffers have not yet been signed. Mr. Davis said the applicant's attorney has provided him with a copy of the revised proffers. Me has had a chance to review the proffers, and he suggested that Mr. Keeler explain the changes to the proffers since the last time the Board saw them. Before beginning the staff report, Ms. ~umphris asked what the map labeled Grayrock Northreferred to. Mr. Keeler said the map is referred to by Proffer No. IV, which deals with the northern tract, and was included in the recommendation portion of the Executive Summary. Mr. Keeler then read Proffer No. IV. Mr. Davis said the proffer assures the Board that the applicant will file a rezoning for the northern tract to reduce the density uo 27 single- family dwellings. The proffer does not obligate the Board to approve that zonzng, but the Board would have the opportunity to consider it. If the rezonlng request is denied, the land would remain zoned PR/) for 70 townhouses; if the rezoning is approved, it would be zoned for 27 single-family dwellings. That would be a future decision of the Board. The Board cannot pre-decide that by its action in this zoning petition. Ms. Humphris said that particular section has had a lot added to it and she has not had an opportunity to examine it. Mr. Davis said there was some added language to this proffer because the staff wanted to make it clear that the Board was not pre-deciding the northern tract issue. There was also some minor clarifications and amendments regarding landscaping and other staff concerns. Ms. Humphris said she~had understood that the Board had a rule about proffers and their timing. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said this request was last before the Board on February 18, 1998. The Board deferred action to give the applicant the opportunity to meet with residents of the area regarding design concepts and design alternatives. The plan before the Board (posted on the wall on the left of the room), is the applicant's attempt to address those concerns. The applicant also submitted revised proffers and the conceptual plan is proffered. Staff would offer two general comments regarding comparison of the two plans. Compared to the old plan, the new plan effectively eliminates double-frontage lots along Jarman's Gap Road. County regulations discourages double-frontage lots. The change along Jarman's Gap Road was in response to a suggestion that the houses face the road as opposed to backing up to the road. Secondly, the layout of the current plan attempts a grid-road system. Roadway length and impervious surfaces increase by about ten percent, while the number of lots has been reduced by four. This site in within a reservoir watershed where minimizing impervious coverage or pavement is desirable. In addition, the applicant has proffered to submit another rezonlng petition uo rezone the area north of the lakes, which would reduce the number of units from 70 to 27. The Planning staff had recommended approval of this petition under the proposed density of 2.6 units per acre. This rezonmng would reduce density from that 2.6 units per acre to two units per acre. In its original report, staff expressed concerns about not approaching the residential densities recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. Regardin~ the recommendation, staff primarily discusses procedural matters. Staff offers three alternatives for the Board regarding Proffer 4: 1) Should the Board continue to feel that both the area under this petition and the area north of the lakes should be reviewed together, then it should defer action on this petition to allow the north area to be added and the consolidated area to be reviewed and subject uo Planning Commission and Board public hearing. 2) If the Board believes the original overall density of 2.6 dwelling units per acre to be reasonable for this property, the proffer regarding future rezonin9 should not be accepted (Proffer IV). 3) If the Board believes the petition, as amended, is acceptable and wishes to entertain a lower density, Proffer IV should be accepted and this rezoning approved. Staff would recommend that caution be exercised regarding any indication of future action on this area north of the lakes. Mr. Keeler commented that this report and comments were written prior to receipt of these latest proffers. Ms. Humphris asked if there were a road connection between Grayrock and Grayrock North. Mr. Keeler replied that there was an emergency access connection only, consistent with prior approval. There is not a roadway usable by the residents. The roadway is to the left on the plan and shown as a pedestrian-way that would be ~mproved sothat emergency vehicles could use it. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) 0000~2 Mr. Davis explained that if the Board decide~.~o<refe~this request back to the C6mmission so the entire northern tract and the property before the Board could be considered together, the northern tract is not in front of the Board or Commission unless the applicant amends the application or files a new zoning application for the property. The Board, on its own, cannot include that tract as part of this rezoning application. He said the applicant's attorney has advised him that if the Board does not need the northern tract to be part of the proffer, they are willing to withdraw that proffer. He has nou had any communication that the applicant is willing to amend the application to add the northern tract. If the applicant amended the application, it would require a new public hearing, advertisement and Commission consideration. Ms. Humphris asked if the revised plan had been seen by the Commission. Mr. Davis replied that it had not. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the app!icanus wished to make a~y comments. Mr. Steve Blaine, representing the applicant, Fried Company, said the proffers were submitted to suaff on June 4. Changes since then have been in response to comments, questions and concerns by staff. He had expressed concerns about nou receiving staff comments last Wednesday, but said that he gave staff lenience because of their heavy workload, and asked for leniency from the Board. Mr. Blaine said at the conclusion of the February meeting, the applicant was urged to consult neighbors, citizens and Crozet community members who were interested in this proposal, and specifically to address design issues associated with the development. The applicant has done that. Two meetings were held, one in March and one in May, intended for citizens to provide ideas about the projecu. Written invitations to both meetings were sent to over 200 neighbors, local planners and community members. The meeting was also advertised in the Daily Progress. Mr. Blaine said the applicant engaged the firm of Dewberry & Davis to assist in facilitating the design discussions with the citizens. Mr. Gary Kirkbride from Dewberry facilitated the discussions au the meetings of the Crozet citizens. Both meetings were well-attended by local residents. The Bayberry Homeowners Association provided ideas in writing. The Board was provided with these comments and the applicant has incorporated these ideas into the revised plan for the development. He then introduced Mr. Kirkbride, of Dewberry & Davis, who would describe the ideas the applicant received from the neighbors and citizens, and how the applicant incorporated those ideas into the revised plan. Also, present was Mr. Couture, who would also make a brief presentation on the changes to the specific design elements of the revised plan. After their presentations, he will be available to answer specific questions about the proffers. Mr. Gary Kirkbride said when Dewberry & Davis was first invited to participate with the citizens, they received a number of comments and observations covering a wide range of ideas from no development uo creating additional development beyond what was proposed. Mr. Kirkbride said he would summarize a number of those commenus and how they were responded to. Some specific comments include: Concern about overall density of the entire project including property to the north. They have responded by reducing the proposed density by 25 percent from that which was originally proposed. Need for a variety of lot sizes. The revised plan has been redesigned uo provide lot sizes that now range from 11,000 to 19,000 square feet. Houses are now proposed to have only front or side yards toward Jarman's Gap Road. Concern about Jarman's Gap Road frontage. The frontage of this property has been completely redesigned uo propose units which only front or have side roads onto Jarman's Gap Road. Concern abou~ sidewalks, curb and gutter. They have provided a plan which provides a pedestrian system which allows for a walkway in front of or directly across the street from every lot proposed in the proDect, and all of those have been integrated into the open space which centers around the pond in the center of the project. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 0000:1.,.~ Concern about buffers. They have provided a 50-foot buffer along Jarman's Gap Estates property boundary and an additional 20-foot buffer along =he frontage to coincide with the redesign of the frontage along J~rman's GapRoad. Concern about accessfor pedestrian and vehicle access to the property to the east. That has been identified and provided for in the plan. Need for recreation areas. They have providedboth active and passive recreation in conjunction with the pond area. The pedestrian sysuem leads and guides people to those open space areas. Concern about a more detailed landscape plan and architectural guidelines. They have provided a more detailed landscape plan. Concern about dead-end streets and minimizing those. Ail of the cul-de-sacs, as originally proposed, have been eliminated. There are now two turnaround areas which provide emergency access onto Jarman's Gap Road. Mr. Dennis Couture, a landscape architect with the firm of Dewberry & Davis, said there have been several concept changes since the original plan. The difference in the plans has to do with reacting to comments from the community, but also the relationship of this proposed residential neighborhood and its surroundings. The changes include making it fit in better with surrounding neighborhoods. The original plan included double-frontage lots with the rear of the lots facing Jarman's Gap Road. The applicants are now suggesting that the front and sides of the houses face Jarman's Gap Road, bracketed by a 20-foot landscape easement on the frontage. Instead of evergreen trees, they will use canopy trees to open up the exposure into the community, and continue evergreen plantings to enhance the privacy associated with the side views to the residences siding on Jarman's Gap Road. This scenario basically opens up the community to the greater community. This is an integral part of the overall Jarman's Gap neighborhood. It also allows penetration visually into the community at multiple points, pedestrian access and continuation of potential emergency vehicle access. Dewberry & Davis also looked at the overall street layout and came up with a modified grid. It now runs north-south where the terrain is relatively flat and skewing it ~o an east-west relationship which runs with the contours on the far western side of the properuy. The block size has been reduced, which causes better pedestrian circulation within the co~mmunity. They have three pedestrian connections to the open space system at the northern side. If the greenway system expands, it would allow a park exposure with pedestrian access at multiple points on the rear side. Also, from the entry-point from Jarman's Gap Road, they have vehicle access to the rear of the property, with pedestrian access to the open space section. There is now increased flexibility regarding house siting. With the limited number of corner lots, there were only eight opportunities for side-loaded garages. With the increase in street frontage and intersections, there are now 18 to 20 opportunities to have the houses skewed on corners and create variation to the street-scape. They are continuing with the buffer along the western boundary, and are looking for integration for vehicular circulation to the proposed community on the east side. Mr. Marshall asked what the applicant would like the Board to do about Proffer IV. Mr. Kirkbride said. as a result of their second meeting, it was clear that there was a general consensus that the applicant had responded positively to the issues that had been brought about and the applicants felt they had made considerable progress. Mr. Blaine urged the Board to accept the proffer which wilt give the Board the option to review the appropriateness of the zoning at a later time. The current zoning is PRD. The property is separated byponds topographically and it is difficult to provide access. The benefit of the proffer is that it allows the applicant to move forward with the application with the promise to submit the downzoning on the northern tract, which would be considered during the normal process. The option to put the entire plan back to the Commission would be unfair, since that could have been done au the February meeting. The Board urged the applicant to meet with the citizens and the neighbors. The applicant has met with citizens as requested and is now offering the new plan with an option that does not have June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) .... 0000 .4 to be decided tonight. Mr. Blaine again urged:the ~o~d .to accept Proffer IV in approving the zoning application. Mr. Davis said it is a policy question for the Board, as to whether or not the Board feels it needs to decide the northern tract issue before deciding the application. If it !s a major consideration as to how the two properties adjacent to each other should interact, then the Board may not want to proceed. If this zoning application could be decided independently of the PRD tract, then it is appropriate to go ahead and decide this matter. Mr. Perkins said he was the one who requested this, and he feels comfortable going ahead with the proffer and to consider the rezoning of the northern tract at a later date. Mr. Blaine said he feels the plan is one that the neighborhood and participants will be proud of. This is a plan that had true neighborhood input. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for comments. Mr. Eric Strucko, a menfoer of the Development Areas Initiative Steering Committee (DAIS) and Housing Committee, said he attended the May 27th meeting the Fried Company conducted. He is here tonight 5o ask that the Board send this application back to the Commission for additional work sessions and refinements. While significant improvement has been made, there are still improvements that mus~ be made before it meess the standards of Albemarle County growth management policies. The current proposal fails to include certain fundamental characteristics of growth area development ~hat are emerging from the work of the DAIS Committee. First, the proposal offers homogenous residential use, no light commercial or retail activity and more importantly, no useful common central recreational space exists in the plan. The space around the pond is just a gesture, calling undevelopabie remnants of land recreational space. The residences are all single-family detached units with a minimum purchase price of $150,000. These aspects do not reconcile with the mixed-use and diverse housing ~ype values embodied in the DAIS Committee's work. Also, the costs are prohibitive to natives or long-time residents of Albemarle County. The current proposal does not meet certain key aspects of the sustainability accords, by not promoting the integration of business, recreational, residential and open space. Mr. Strucko said the Fried Company may argue that achieving these goals of a sustainable community that complies with DAIS standards is unmarketable. He has heard a realtor disagree. He also has seen design plans for the adjacent Bargamin or Wayland Grant property. This property is everything that the Fried Company proposal is not with mixed use, diverse housing, central open recreation space, affordable housing and a design that fosters economic and social interaction. If the owners, developers, architects and business people connected with the Wayland Grant property can meet the DAIS and sustainability goals, which is immediately adjacent ~o Grayrock, then why cannot the Fried Company do the same? If the Board approves the current Fried Company proposal, then you will create a poorly planned community along Jarman's Gap Road. He has found that the Fried Company becomes quite innovative with design when persuaded that their plans need revisions to meet the standards of Albemarle County. He encouraged the Board ~o vote to send these proposals back to the Commission. Mr. Richard Berman said that he is concerned about the overpopulation of western Albemarle County. He is astounded that someone who does not own the property can apply for a zoning variance. He is also concerned about the proposed increase in density on the property. Mr. Tom Loach, a resident of Crozet, distributed to Board members correspondence from Mr. Will Rieley, a member of the Commission, expressing his concerns about the plan currently before the Board. Mr. Rieley's concerns directly mirror those raised by the residents of the Jarman's Gap neighborhood, concerns that have nou changed since the beginning of discussions between the ~applicant and the neighborhood. Also, Mr. David Tice, another member of the Commission, has.endorsed Mr. Rieley's commenus. While the list submitted by Mr. Rieley is substantial, it is important to note that his observations are based on only a brief exposure to the plan and he is sure there are more things to consider. The meetings involved the applicant telling the community what they are going to do, and why they cannot make the changes suggested bY the community. There are no real changes made to the plan from the meetings; there is still no open space, poor landscaping, lack June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 0000i5 of complete sidewalks including curb and gutter, lack of any meaningful reflection of the existing community, and siting of houses in a manner described by Mr. Rieley as clumsy. The plan should be sent back to the Commission for further review and rework. The proposal should be considered within the context of building a neighborhood and community. In his opinion, it is clear that the Crozet Elementary School will be unable to handle the increased enrollment from Grayrock and the adjacent Wayland Grant property. Mr. A1 Reaser, of the School Division, has indicated that there are no plans for expansion of Crozet Elementary so this increase in students will require redistricting. Implementation of the two developments is every bit as important as the design and implementation has not yet been discussed~ Additionally, the neighborhood is looking at an increase of three times the number of homes recommended in the 1985 PRD. They were told not to worry because the Six-Year Road Plan includes road improvements for Jarman's Gap. Road. He asked what will happen if those road improvements do not happen. While the community is willing to debate the design, they are not willing to compromise on the welfare on the current citizens of the neighborhood. Mr. Paul Grady, a resident outside of the Crozet area, said he read the sustainability accords article written by Mr. Bowerman. One of those accords is to optimize the use and re-use of developed land and to promote clustering in residential areas and integration of business, industry, residential, recreational and open space. If the Board believes this statement to be in the best interest for the future of the County, it must reject this proposal. The proposal simply is not dense enough. The applicant has spent too much time trying to cater to the whims of the residents of Jarman's Gap Estates and has ignored the effects of this project on the whole County. He suggested that the area north of the lake may not be the best location for the townhouses, but the eastern section of the area south of the lakes with a grid street system and a connection to the adjacent property may be. He also suggested a vehicular connection between north and south, perhaps with a bridge or large culvert that would facilitate for a foot path to go under the road; retention of the main house on the property as a community center and creation of an open play area ad-jacent to it; and smaller lots and a variety of smaller houses. He also attended the May 27th public meeting, but he did nou have any suggested alternatives at that time. The proposed houses are out of the price range of 90 percent of Crozet residents= He cannot see building houses that the people who live there cannot afford to buy. Mr. Charles Trachta said the last time he spoke to the Board about Grayrock was when the Still Meadows' request was coming to a conclusion. After a compromise was reached on Still Meadows, they asked the Board to have Grayrock do the same thing. The Grayrock meetings were not compromises. The developer was not willing to give up an~rthing or deal with the community, but only to tell the community what he would do. The developers of Still Meadows made many concessions, but the developers of Grayrock did not. He asked that the Board support the citizens of Crozet and send this request back to the Commission. With no one else from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Davis to answer the question raised by Mr. Berman about how someone could ask for a rezonlng on property they did not own. Mr. Davis replied that the State Code and the County's Zoning Ordinance allows a piece of property ~o be rezoned upon the application of a contract purchaser with the owner,s written consent. That .is the status of this application. Fried Company is the option purchasers and the Savages are the property owners. The proffers are signed by both parties and the application is properly before the Board. Ms. Humphris said that nothing has been done to change the 50-foot buffer next to Jarman's Gap Estates; it .will still be under individual ownerships. There will be a number of Grayrock property owners who have the buffer easement in their deeds with control by the Homeowners' Association which will make it difficult to enforce. She believes that Mr. Rieley stated it well when he said that "the sell-it and call-it buffer approach to the western edge of the property is still in place. Because this is also the location of the old road trace, this strip should be in single ownership with a rea1 easement in place". She noted that the Board discussed this issue previously and that also was the request of the public, with nothing being done about it. She also noticed there were comments from VDOT or staff about the layout of the lots, with Lots 1, 2, 91 and 92 needing to be accessed by an June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) ooooi6 internal-loop road, because of problems with going h~s the divided and behind the median at the entrance road. There are also problems with the joint driveways that serve Lots 84, 85, 88 and 89. She also wanted to know where the children are going to play; a parenL certainly would not send them down To the pond to play. There needs to be a place in a housing development this dense =0 allow children to play. There is no mention of a shelf design for the ponds for safety. She felt that there were so many changes that she would like ~o have the Commission analyze the plan. She supporus sending the plan back to the Commission. Mr. Perkins said he had attended one of the meetings in Crozet. The public gave mixed messages, asking for contradictory things, i.e., no density, less density, more density. He thinks the developer has done a commendable Dob in answering most of the concerns, since they couldnou satisfy everyoDe. He thinks the Board is smart enough to make a judgment. Ms. Humphris said that the density issue should be settled by the Commission. Staff is saying that the plan is not dense enough. Mr. Perkins replied that the Crozet Community Plan says that it is dense enough. He believes he is as qualified as anyone to say who is right and who is wrong. He thinks this is a good density, even though it does not meet the Comprehensive Plan. He believes the Comprehensive Plan for this area is extremely out of line and shows too high of a density. He does not think that density is acceptable no the Crozeu community. This is in a growth area, so something will end up going there. He thinks the Board may as well move forward with what is before them. Ms. Humphris said she believes very strongly that there are too many things still wrong with this plan to approve it at this time. Mr. Bowerman asked about the 50-foot buffer. He said there were discussions about puttin9 that place in open space. Mr. Blaine said the applicant had offered that to the landowners, but they could not offer the 50 feet because there was not adequate depth of the lots. The owner could do 30 feet in fee simple open space to the ~omeowners' Association or the owner could do 50 feet in an easement. There have been exarmp!es of open space buffers through easements and as long as you have the same restrictions that would be enforced on open space, that gives the same outcome. Mr. Bowerman said that open space which is attached to a lot is more difficult not to unbuffer by the property owner than open space owned by the Homeowners' Association. Still Meadows used a combination of the two, if he remembers correctly. Combining the two methods of buffering would be one alternative. Mr. Blaine said the applicant would be amenable to amending the proffer in such a manner, if that is an important issue. Mr. Blaine said that in reply to Ms. Humphris' comment regarding road access, this could be addressed in the subdivision and engineering process. With regard to the common driveways, the plan is illustrative and couldbe amended to comply with Engineering staff's comments, as can the entranceway to accommodate the two 10ts that are at the entrance to provide a safe access. As far as the issue of shelf design, the applicant did measurements of the pond area and determined that there was nou a steep drop-off of the pond. The engineers said that shelving was not required because of the shallow depths out to distances of almost 15 to 20 feet offshore. Regarding Mr. Rieley's comments, the applicant did not have the benefit of those comments. It is a bit awkward for public statements made by a Commissioner to not be shared with the applicant if they were made to enhance and improve the plan. Ms. Thomas said that this is a better plan and appreciates the applicant's efforts, but changes of this magnitude should be reviewed by the Commission. In addition, if staff thinks both sections, which includes the north portion, should be reviewed at the same time, that's what the Board should do. Mr. Perkins asked what the applicant needs to do to change the proffer regarding the easemenE. Mr. Davis said it would have to be reduced to writing and submitted as part of the proffer statement. Mr. Blaine indicated that the applicant is prepared uo do that at this time. Mr. Perkins asked whether a recess would be necessary. Mr. Davis replied ~yes", if it is the Board's intent to vote tonight and accept the proffers. Mr. Blaine said that he would need a break To revise the proffers. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Thomas was suggesting that the request be referred back to the Commission and they look at the whole parcel, including the north parcel, under a different proposal by the applicant, or the June 17, 1998 (Regular Ni_~ht Meeting) (Page 17) O0001? Commission only look at what was before the Board tonight. Ms. Thomas replied that she would prefer the Commission look at the whole parcel together, but that would be up to the applicant. Mr. Perkins said that he was prepared 5o make a motion to approve ZMA-97-12 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as offered and amended, Mr. Blaine said as he understands, the essence of the proffer would be that the 50-foot buffer area would contain 30 feet fee simple ownership as open space and 20 feet as an easement, with the same restrictions on the lot, but being in the form of an easement. At 9:12 p.m., Mr. Marshall recessed the Board. The Board reconvened at 9:25 p.m. Mr. Davis stated that the applicant will amend Proffer 3.2 to provide that the 50-foot buffer area shall consist of 30 feet of dedicated open space to the Association and a 20-foo5 easement which shall run to the benefit of the Association and shall be enforced by the Association as provided in the declaration, and further provided that the trees proffered herein shall be planted in the area dedicated to the Association. Mr. Martin asked the size of the play area. Mr. Blaine said the potential play area is about the size of a football field, if people do not fence the area. Mr. Marshall asked how children would get to the play area. Mr. Blaine responded that there will be wooduchipped paths and trails in at least three locations down to the pond area.' Mr. Keeler said that access ~o the play area was covered in Proffer 3.1 in the last sentence which says that the applicant shall install at least one pedestrian access to the play area. Mr. Perkins said when the Board first heard this petition in February, they asked the developer to meet with the community and return with a different plan. No plan will ever suit everyone, and he feels that the developer did what they were asked to do. The Board does not have to approve this plan, but he does not think the Board should ask them to do more. He asked whether the Board and applicant wished this to be voted on or postponed. Mr. Marshall asked whether Mr. Perkins thought this was the best plan the Board was going to get. Mr. Perkins replied that there are only so many ways you can tweak something. Mr. Marshall asked if there were many people at the meetings who supported the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that this plan had not yen been conceived, the meetings were to gather input for the plan. There were probably 25 to 30 people at the first meeting. The comments from the public were conflicting, and he thinks the plan addresses many of the things that the citizens mentioned. Mr. Marshall asked if the people in the area would support the plan. Mr. Perkins replied that since they were not in attendance at the meening, there must not be too many who are concerned. Mr. Marshall said he would support a motion.. Mr. Perkins then offered motion to approve ZMA-97-12 subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers as offered and amended. Mr. Martin seconded the motion and said he agrees with Mr. Perkins that the majority of the residents seemed to be in acquiescence to the plan. Roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: Ms. Thomas, Mr.'Bowerman and Ms. Humphris. Motion was made by Ms. Thomas uo reconsider the vote on ZMA-97-12 because she believes the plan should be referred back uo the Commission. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. O0001S June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Motion was then made by Mr. Bowerman, secondedby Ms. Humphris, to refer ZMA-97-12 back Eo the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. Mr. Cilimberg said before the Board tonight was the zoning of the area below the lakes which is what will go back Eo the Commission. He asked if there were any further expectations. Mr. Marshall concurred, adding that it was up to the applicant to include the northern section. Mr. Davis noted that if the plan was not amended, it would no5 have be readvertised or a second public hearing held. At this point, the application with the proffers would be submitted to-the Commission. It would be up to the applicant to modify the application, if they wished. Agenda Item No. 8. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors. This amendment will increase the regular salary of each Board member by 2.75 percent, to establish compensation at $9,963 per year. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) There was no staff presentation. Mr. Marshall immediately opened the public hearing. Ms. Katie Hobbs said that the Board of Supervisors works long and hard at what they do, and are badly underpaid. Where she lived in a county in-Iowa with 20,000 residents, the supervisors were paid $19,000 per year. With no one else from the public ris!ng to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to amend and reordain Chapuer 2, Administration, Article I, In General of the Code of Albemarle to increase the regular salary of the each Board member by 2.75 percent. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (The ordinance, as adopted, is seu out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 98-2(1) AN'ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors, as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Nine thousand nine hundred sixty-three dollars and no cenus ($9,963.00) for each board members; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 1998. june 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 0000~9 Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-98-08. Redfields (Signs ~81 & 85). Public hearing on a reques: To accept revised proffers which would allow zero lot line platting & other setback changes as an option w/in Phase 3 (except 3A), Phase 4 & Phase 5 of the Redfields PRD. The property to which zero lot line platting would be available is described as TM76R, PI & TM76R1, PI, consisting of 165.59 acres zoned PRD & situated in Urban Neighborhood 5. (This area is recommended for Neighborhood Residential [3-6 du/ac] in the Comp Plan.) Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said allowance of zero lot line development would "provide for creative home sitings which will enable more efficient organization o~ yards and exterior spaces." Morespecifically, ~the optionto created limited areas for zero lot line neighborhood design affords the developer the option to make better use of natural land forms and respect existing yard topography while providing an affordable resldential product for which a demand exists." Redfields was rezoned from R-I, Residential, to PRD, Planned Residential Development, in 1990. The development was approved for a maximum of 656 dwellings (105 single-family detached; 551 cottage and attached units). A subsequent petition removed an acre from the development. Staff recommended approval and acceptance of the applicant's revised proffers allowing for zero lot line and other yard modifications (Proffer 8) in Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4, as outlined and depicted in Attachments C, D and E (attachments on file). Since Phase 5 is currently shown as open space and its development would be subjec~ to a separate future zoning action, staff recommended the zero lot line pattern for Phase 5 be dealt with at that time. If the Board agrees, this should be reflected in its action. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, aT its meeting on May 5, 1998, unanimously recommended approval subject tothe applicant's proffer. Proffer 8(f) would be amended to read ~At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet." All other language of Proffer 8(f) would be deleted. Mr. Bowerraan asked the rationale for eliminating Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg replied that Phase 5 ms presently open space. Mr. Bowerman asked if the open space in the original application was required by the density or was it something that was not looked at, and left to the future. Mr. Citimberg said it ms was something that was left to the future, not for density reasons. Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be inconsistent for the Board to accept the applicant's proffer, including that section in Phase 5. Mr. Cilimberg said it was staff's thought that they could review any proposal to develop that area with a plan of the zero lot line concept. If the Board wanted to include zero lot lines in Phase 5, they would want to do so without any indication of promising any subsequent action on a rezoning that from open space to something with development potential. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Mr. Fred Miss!e, on behalf of Cox Company and representing the Development Corporation of Virginia, said he wanted to address the Phase 5 issue. When it was zoned, Phase 5 was outside of the growth area. The applicant a~rees that Phase 5 can be struck from the proffers as written. The applicant is not requesting any additional density for the development. They are asking for the zero lot lines to allow contiguous side yards instead of chopping it up into smaller lots. Under the zoning, duplexes and ~ownhouses are allowed in this area; this would allow for single-family detached homes and a more open street-scape, and it allows for them to deal with a tricky topography in the areas. Ms. Thomas asked about an old proffer sayin9 that there would be no access to the Sherwood Farms Subdivismon. She asked if there were alternative methods of access, such as pedestrian and bike access, and if so, would this require the proffers to be amended ~o say that there would be no automobile access. She would like to see some access if topography allows for it. Mr. Cilimberg replied that when it was initially proffered, it was understood that it meant vehicular access, and this intent could be clarified with an amendment. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 000020 Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would have ~oldo anything to withdraw Phase 5 from the proffers. Mr. Cilimberg said that an amendment would have to be drafted, which Mr. Davis is working on. Ms. Thomas mentioned Proffer 8b and asked why the Fire Marshal is looking into deed disclosures. Mr. Citimberg replied that it is because of moving homes closer together and meeting fire flow requirements. Mr. Keeler said that this language is from the zoning text amendment which the Commission recommended to the Board, but which has been set aside until the DAIS Committee completes its work. It includes such things as requiring no fenestration (openings) in the wall. Subsequently, the language was used for the Western Ridge zero lot line proposal, where the proffer was recently accepted by both the Commission and the Board. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the meeting to the public for comments. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Notion was made by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, ~o approve ZMA-98-08 to apply to Phase 3 (except 3A) and Phase 4 only subject no acceptance of the applicant's proffers with the amendment no remove "and Phase 5" from Proffer 8, and Proffer 9(f) would read bAt the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet.". Ms. Humphris noted that in the Commission's minutes, it is noted that Mr. Greg Kamptner suggested that the engineering memo be made a part of the proffers. She asked if this was a viable suggestion. Ms. Thomas replied that it was taken care of in the proffer. Mr. Cilimberg said it is included in Proffer No. 7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The proffers are set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 6-17-98 ZMA# 98-08 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 76-R and 76R-1 165.306 Acres to be rezoned from pRD to PRD (Amend Setbacks) Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (!) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation no the rezonzng requested. Each lot shall comply with current buildin9 site provlsions~ No driveway shall encroach more than 50 lineal feet on slopes of 25% or greater. All roads, with the exception of roads A, B, and C and the private road to serve Phase II Open Space and one Single Family Dwelling, shall be built to Virginia Department of Transportation (VDoT) standards for urban cross-section and placed in the Secondary System at time of development of those residential areas utilizing those roads. Roads A, B, and C shall be constructed mn accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation standards for rural cross section and placed in the Secondary System at the time of development of the residential areas utilizing those roads. Not more than 276 dwelling units will be constructed until such time as the Route 631 mmprovements have been completed no the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Development. 4. The proposed recreation center shall be constructed with Phase I. ~=~ z7. 1998 ~aegul~r Nign~ ~ing~ 000021 (Page 21) No vehicular access from Redfields through Sherwood Farms Subdivision. 6. Not more than 656 total units. Future lots will have limited access to Roads A, B, and C in accordance with Engineering comments contained in a December 19, 1989 memorandum. Zero Lot Line Setbacks may be applied to Phase 3 (excluding Phase 3A) and Phase 4 at the sole discretion of the applicant and as indicated on the Revised PRD Development Phasing Plan included as part of this proffer. Regulations governing zero lot line setbacks are as follows: A~i such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with the current edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions of this proffer, inclusive of, but not limited to, deed restriction disclosures, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court~ of the county; No surucuures shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County fire official; No structures shall encroach on any utility, drainage or other easement, nor any feature required by the zoning ordinance; The wall of the dwelling unit located within three (3) feet of the lot line shall have no windows, doors, or any other type of openings unless permitted by the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; At the sole discretion of the applicant, front setbacks may be reduced to ten (10) feet; As necessary in a particular case, a perpetual wall maintenance easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero lot line property such that, with the exception of fences, a total width between dwelling units of six feet shall be kept clear of all structures. This easement shall be shown on the final plat and incorporated in each deed transferring title to the property. Roof overhangs may peneurate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches, but the roof shall be so designed that water runoff from the dwelling placed on the lot line is limited to the lot of the dwelling of the easement area. Building footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of eight (8) inches. Gavlon T. Beichts Gavlon T. Bei~hts June 17, 199~ Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date Agenda Item No. !0. ZTA-98-02. Pavilion at Riverbend. Public hearing to consider an ordinance to amend section 30.3.5.2.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance to permit safety/containment netting as a use by special use permit w/in the Flood Hazard Overlay District. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said a proper=y owner has applied uo amend the Flood Hazard Overlay District to add safety/containment netting as a use by right within the floodway. The applicant is currently applying for a special use permit for a golf driving range adjacent to the River (this permit is under review by June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 22) 000022 the County). The purpose of the netting is to prev~"the loss of golf balls and to protect the safety of users of the riparian area adjacent to the golf- driving range. If ZTA-98-02 is approved, the proposed language would be added to the Zoning Ordinance under Flood Hazard Overlay District, and would allow safety/containment netting to be installed within any designated floodway in any zoning district by right. For this reason, the specific location of the property which is the subject of the golf-driving range special permit is not at issues !n this application. Mr. Cilimber9 said the staff recommends denial of ZTA-98-02 as proposed for the following reasons: I) Netting is capable of capturing debris and may pose a hazard ~o other properties during a flood; 2) It is Impractical to raise the netting prior no every storm event; 3) Netting to capture golf balls is not considered an essential use of the floodway. It is a type of use which is not consistent with other uses allowed by right within the floodway; and, 4) The proposed use is currently permitted by right in the floodway fringe. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 19, 1998, unanimously recommended denial of the petition. It was later discovered that the advertisement for their public hearing was mistakenly advertised showing the use as a use by special use permit, rather than a use by right. If the Board approves this request tonight, it will have to approve the use as a use by special use permit, otherwise the petition would need to be readvertised, or the Board can deny ZTA-98-02. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. Mr. Joe Phillips, an architect representing the applicant, said the applicant wished to construct a fence of poles and netting in the floodway along the golf driving range, which is a permitted use. The fence is not required to proceed with the project, and the owner will proceed with or without the fence. The intent of the fence is to allow access to the River by a larger segment of the public than those using the driving range itself. The netting will be able to be raised above the flood level and the poles will be engineered to withstand the loads of flooding. They support the need to review each case by a special use permit to ensure that all conditions are met. The Zoning Ordinance lists various structures which are allowed in the floodway, such as fences and utility poles, which share the character of what the applicant is requesting. The issue is not whether structures are allowed in the floodway, since obviously they are, but rather whether this structure is in harmony with the Flood Hazard Overlay project. His belief is that their request is in harmony, since it is similar in construction ~o other structures which are allowed by right in the floodway, imposes less impact in a flood than some structures which are allowed in the floodway and is not in conflict with the purposes of the Flood Hazard Overlay district. This project would provide for a wide green buffer to the River and make it a destination for more of the public. Mr. Bowerman asked how practical it would be to raise the netting when necessary. Mr. Phillips replied that it is in the owner.s interest to see that it is done, because to not do so would create a threat to his own property. Mr. Bowerman asked if the netting could be raised if the water were already encroaching. Mr. Phillips said it could be done automatically, with a water-sensor. Mr. Bowerman said if this went through the special use review, the applicant would need a plan. Mr. Phillips agreed. Mr. Marshall asked about the lighting. Mr. Phillips said that is something to be considered under the special use permit already in place, it does not have to be settled tonight, as that is not one of the issues in question. Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant could proceed with the driving range, even without the net. Mr. Phillips replied that nets were not essential, but they would like to have one here because of the way that water flows in this area. In this specific case, they are in a slow-moving, relatively-shallow part of the floodway. Mr. Bowerman asked if the purpose of the net was to retain golf balls. Mr. Phillips agreed. Mr. Bowerman asked if the balls float or sink. Mr. Phillips replied that they sink. Mr. Bowerman asked if the net was merely an economic consideration to keep them from losing golf balls. Mr. Phillips said that, without the netting in place, they can still have a driving range. With the fence in place, they can make the area along the River accessible to the public. Without the fence, there are liability concerns from golf balls hitting people. June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) 000023 (Page 23) Ms. Humphris asked if the length of the neu was indeed 300 yards. Mr. Phillips agreed and said that this was because a golfer could conceivably drive a ball that far. The posts would be spaced approximately 50 feet apart. The length may end up as less than 300 yards, that is just a maximum. There will be about 90 feet to 100 feet between the net and the River, so the golf balls might hOE get to the River, but it would be hard to collect them from the vegetation. Ms. Humphris asked if each of these posts would be lit. Mr. Phillips said that the poles are not light poles, the idea of having them lit has been discarded. Ms. Thomas said that one description says that there will be 19 poles, each 75 feet high. Mr. Phillips said that description is from an earlier staff report. The current plan is that the poles be 40 feet high. Mr. Bowerman asked if this would be a night-time activity. Mr. Phillips said that it would be. At this time, the public hearing was opened, with no one from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Martin noued that both the Commission and the staff recommended denial of the app!ication2 If the applicant wants to provide more public access to the River, he could support this as a use by special use permit. asked how the other Board members feel about the amendment. Ms. Humphris said Commisslon members said it was an inappropriate amendment as a general amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. She does no~ think this should have been a zoning text amendment, but rather an application for a special use permit. Mr. Martin said he thought the County Attorney said the only way the Board could deal with the request tonight ss as a special use permit because of the advertisement. Mr. Davis said because of the uncertainuy of how this zoning text amendment would be worded, there is no ordinance drafted and before the Board for adoption tonight. If the Board wants to approve a zoning text amendment as a use by special use permit, staff would need to draft the appropriate ordinance and reuurn the ordinance to the Board at its next meeting for approval. Staff can prepare that ordinance based on a consensus of the Board members. Mr. Martin suggested taking a po1! to obtain the feelings of the members. He said he has no strong feelings about the amendment. Mr. Marshall said he feels the applicant is going to build the facility anyway. If it is going to be built, it should be done right. He suggested deferring this to another meeting so staff can bring back the correct language. Ms. Humphris said she has reservations. She has difficulties with Mr. Phillips' statements about what is really viable about the netting, the raising of the netting and the stability of the poles in the flood plain. Mr. Marshall said if the Board is not going to vote tonight, let the applicant bring information on that back to the Board. Ms. Thomas said she does not think the Board should mislead the applicant and make them do extra work if the Board is going to deny the application. Ms. Humphris said she does not believe that the design of the mechanism that will deal with 900 feet of netting .and all the poles will be reliable. Ms. Thomas said she wants this piece of land to be used in some way since it does lie in the Growth Area. This seemed like a nice use of the land. She was concerned about the netting collecting debris in a flood, the raising mechanism failing, or the poles getting knocked askew by flood waters. She questioned whether this would be within in a floodway. Mr. Bowerman said he cannot think of another way to use this land unless the County buys it. He shares the concern about structures in the floodway. Ee does not think that this is an inappropriate use of the land if it makes sense environmentally, because he does not know the criteria under which the special permit could be reviewed or what mechanisms could be used to ensure that the net is raised. He is not sure that there is enough information to make a decision. The Board needs to decide whether there are ways that the Board can make these areas more accessible to the public and retain River June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 24) 0000~4 front. Utility structures are put up in the floodw~ so the Board should not turn down every use. Ms. Humphris asked if FEMA has ever addressed this issue. Mr. Cilimberg replied that they had not. Ms. Thomas said she understood that the applicant's use could go on without a net. Mr. Bowerman said that, unless some potential applicant has an economically viable use for the land, it will not be used, and he does not know if the net makes the project economically feasible. She does not think the applicant would have suggested the net, with all of its attendant costs, if it was not economically beneficial. Ms. Humphris said the applicant admitted that there was an economic basis to build the structure. She thought the cost would outweigh any savings. The developer should just pay for the golf balls and would then not have to worry about maintenance. Ms. Humphris noted that the net at Farmington is screened with shrubbery so that you cannot see the poles at all. Motion was made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to defer ZTA-98-02 back to the Planning Commission to be examined as a use by special use permit. Mr. Ciliufoerg said staff has yet to do any analysis to address the !ssues that Mr. Bowerman raised. If the Board wanted this to be a use by special use permit, it would require more work by staff and it would be appropriate to refer it back to the Commission. The other option would be to consider it as a general special use permit. Currently, in the Flood Hazard Overlay district, there are certain uses permitted by special use permit in the floodway and only one is subject to supplemental regulations. Staff would need some guidance as to which direction the Board wants them to take. As a special use permit, the Board could ask for supplemental regulations. Sending this back to the Commission as a use by special use permit might not make that much of a difference; however, asking for them to review other considerations would be one option. Ms. Thomas said since she felt this was an inappropriate structure for the floodway, she would vote against the motion to refer the amendment back the Commission. She does nog feel there are any conditions that would make this an appropriate use in the floodway. Ms. Humphris said she felt that allowing this structure would be a mistake. Mr. Martin then withdrew his motion. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to deny ZTA-98-02. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and, Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-98-06. Hanson Mountain Communications Tower (Signs #45 & 46). Public hearing on a request, in accord with the provisions of Sec 10.2.2(6), to make an existing tower conforming with current ordinance requirements which will permit the addition of antenna to the tower. (Deferred from May 20, 1998.) Mr. Marshall said the Board had receiveda letter dated June 15, 1998, from Mr. Steven W. Blaine, McGuire Woods Battle & Boothe, requesting deferral of the public hearing on this petition. This requesu was not received in accordance with the guidelines under which the Board operates. Mr. Marshall asked if there were any member of the public present to speak about this request. There was no one present to speak. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to defer SP-98-06 until August 12, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded voEe: June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 25) O000Z5 AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-98-13. Dennis Enterprises, Inc. Public hearing on a request to expand an existin9 use of outdoor storage & display for auto sales on 2.748 ac. Znd HC. Located on US Rt 250 approx 1.4 mi W of intersect w/ State Farm Blvd. TM78, P13. (The property is designated as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comp Plan.) Rivanna Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and Jun 8, 1998.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said this site is already developed for the sale of automobiles. Nearby properties are developed for the same use or for other automobile-related uses. The adjacent property to the east is undeveloped. This use is permitted by right in the underlying Highway Commercial District. The Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for its impact on the Route 250 East Entrance Corridor. It expressed no objection to the proposed use and indicated that conditions of the special use permit should not limit the ARB review of the final Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff recommended approval subject to three conditions. Mr. Cilimber9 said the Panning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished to make any comments. The applicant said he was available for questions, upon which Ms. Thomas asked if he had enjoyed the meeting and to which he replied that he had. At this time, Mr. Marshall opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearin9 and placed the matter before the Board. Ms. Thomas said that she felt there was much good discussion at the Commission, and saw no need to repeat it. Motion was offered by Mr Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas~ to approve SP-98-13 with the three conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set ou5 in full below.) The expanded use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Architectural Review Board; Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the approved site plan; and 3. Vehicles shall not be elevated. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-98-16. Car=er Asphalt Maintenance (Sign #59). Public hearing on a request to essablish Home Occupation-Class B for an asphalt sealer business. The applicant proposesto locate an asphalt sealer container on site. Znd RA. Located on 7.070 acs at 2529 Castle Rock Road (Rt 691). TM84, P66K1 is located on Route 691 off Rt 635. Samuel Miller Dist. (This public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on June 1 and June 8, 1998.) Mr. Cilimber9 summarized the staff report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said in 1993, the applicant was granted a Home Occupation- Class A permit for an asphalt seal coat and patching business. This request for a Class B permit is required because the asphalt storage tank will be located outside the present home. The applicant operates one truck from the June 17, 1998 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 26) O000Z6 site. Temporary employees may be used in the future only as needed. The business will be for the maintenance of private asphalt driveways and areas. The applicant will not construct new driveways or areas. The applicant proposes to pump asphalt sealer from the storage tank to his truck the night before he has a job. During a typical week, it will be necessary to fill the truck with asphalt sealer only once. The Storage tank will be filled once or twice a year by a small tanker truck. Mr. Cilimberg said this special use permit will not adversely affect public health, safety and general welfare. Access to the property is off Castle Rock Road which is an unpaved road with 127 trips per day. This road is not scheduled for lmprovemenns in the County's Six-Year Secondary Road Plan. VDOT commented that there should be no major impacn to the road system. The embankment to the east of the existing entrance should be graded to enhance sight distance, it is staff's opinion that the sight distance is adequate for private use. Mr. Cilimberg said suaff recommended approval with three conditions. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously recommended approval subject to four conditions, and also modified the language of Condiuion No. 3 recommended by staff. Ms. Humphris noted that when the issue of temporary employees was brought up at the Commission, the applicant had said there would be no more than nwo on the site at any given time. She asked why there was no condition on the subject. Mr. Cilimberg said this would automatically be handled under the Home Occupancy-Class B provisions. Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wished no make any comments. Mr. Albert Carter, the applicant, had no comments bun said that he was available for questions. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, Mr. Marshall closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Ms. Thomas said a member of the Commission told her that when the Commission amended the second condition, it should have included County Engineering Department, Water Resources Manager and Fire and Rescue approval of the location of the tank, as well as spill containment measures and tank installation. She thinks that would be helpful to the applicant, because if there were then some small change the applicant would non then have to come back to this Board. She visited the location this afternoon and thinks it can be easily shielded from the neighbors. Motion was then offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve SP-98-16 sub]ecn to the conditions of the Planning Commission adding the words "location of hank" to the second condition. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Approval of all applicable County and State requirements; County Engineering Department, including Water Resource Manager, and Fire and Rescue approval of spill containment measures, location of tank and tank installation. Tank shall non exceed 6000 gallons, nor be larger than 18 feet x 8 feet x 8 feet; Slopes shall be established on graded areas and shall be reseeded to stability; and Staff approval of measures to screen the storage tank from adjacent properties. (Page 23) Mr. Watson said the ordinance is more balanced now, and that the three organizations support it. Ms. Thomas asked about low-pressure sodium lights. Ms. Scala said they are a high-intensity discharge lamp, and most exceed 3,000 lumens. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 12:25 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman that the Board go into executive session pursuant to §2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia under Subsection (1) to discuss appointments to Boards and Commissions and to discuss personnel matters relating to the performance of specific employees; and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding a claim asserted against the County. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 2:00 p.m., motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded rose that to the best of each Board member's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and NLr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13B. Work Sessions: CPA-98-01, Mountains; ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions; and ZMA-98-10,' Mountain Overlay District. Ms. Scala said the Board held a public hearing on the proposed Mountain Overlay District (MOD) Ordinance amendments and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) on June !0, I998, continued discussion on June 17]'1998, and deferred action on all three amendments until August 5, 1998. The Board directed staff to present a proposal to them (which the Board approved on July 1, 1998, and which is on file in the Clerk's office), regarding how to proceed with the review of the MOD Ordinance. The Mountain Committee met twice in Ju~y to discuss public hearing comments and the content of the latest version of the ordinance. The committee's comments are on file in the Clerk's office. Staff was asked to be prepared to review the CPA and the lates= version of the ordinance, and discuss the Committee,s recommendations regarding the ordinance at this Board meeting. Using the p~oposed zoning maps, staff was also asked to present several examples of how the ordinance would affect specific mountain properties. A_tl three amendments were ready be adopted at this or a laser scheduled meeting. The Moun=ains section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies mountain resources, as well as why and how they should be protected. Although moun- tains have been discussed in all previous Comprehensive Plans since 1971, this section is a more detailed discussion, based on the committee,s 1995 Mountain Protection Plan. The Mountains section is an integral part of Chapter Two, the Natural Environment section of the Plan. which the Commission has mos= recently been working on. The importance of adopting the CPA, whether alone or along with the proposed MOD ordinance and maps, is the Comprehensive ~lan is used to guide all land use decisions. The 1992 Open Space Plan defines mountain areas, which have been used in discussions of cellular tower locations, rural O0O3.2,.3 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day. Meeting). (Page 24) preservation developments, and other development proposals in mountain areas. The proposed CPA will provide additional data and guidance assembled by the Committee to inform future land use decisions. The Committee's suggestions indicate continued support for the most recent version of the MOD Ordinance. They recommend that more time is needed to educate the public about the ordinance. Additional public information sessions regarding the proposed ordinance as suggested by the Committee are desirable, but will require staff time and resources, which will affect other projects. Staff recommends (!) notification of the public through a newspaper ad or direct mailings (direct mailings require more staff time, but may be more effective); (2) one-on-one meetings between staff and,property owners to be scheduled in the County Office Building, rather than several County locations; and (3) maintaining current information on the Mountain Ordinance on the Internet site. Zoning maps may be adopted without the ordinance. Adoption of the maps alone, without the full MOD Ordinance, would implement the MOD soil erosion provisions in the Water Ordinance. Ms. Scala said staff recommends adoption of CPA-98-01. Staff further recommends the Board decide which specific provisions of the ordinance it may wish to pursue, notify the publi6 of its intent, and scheduler additional meetings in September for further discussion. She advised the Board that Mr. Perkins discovered an error in the Debris Flow section, regarding slope percentages. She said the proposed Ordinance states that debris flows'occur on slopes greater than 26 degrees, which was equated to a 67 percent slope. That Ks incorrect. A 2:1 slope, which is roughly a 50 percent slope, works out to 27 degrees, so a 26 degree slope would be 48.5 percent. Mr. Marshall said before he could adopt the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA), he needed to know what this means to the public. The Comprehensive Plan is a guide, but iE is treated like law. Mr. Davis said when Planning staff does its analysis of whether or not a rezoning is appropriate, they refer to the Comprehensive Plan as a guide. The MOD and Water Protection Ordinances are already used; this provides further guidance on elevations in the Comprehensive Plan. During development requests for special use permits, this would be a resource to the Board. Mr. Tucker said it will be especially helpful dealing with special use permits in the RA districts. Mr. Bowerman asked what the effect would be if this is not passed. The Comprehensive Plan currently references slopes when discussing towers, and he asked if that would suffice, if the Board is not willing to adopt the language to which other sections refer. ~. Davis said the language proposed does not enhance the ability to deal with towers. The Board currently relies on the Comprehensive Plan for guidance, so the arguments can already be made. Mr. Marshall said without the ability to have purchase of development rights (PDR's), the Board is essentially downzoning property, which economi- cally impacts property owners. Mr. Davis said the adoption of the Comprehen- sive Plan does not downzone property, and the ordinance may or may not downzone it. Landowners still have sufficient use of their property. Ms. Scala added that the Comprehensive Plan would haveno impact on by-right or subdivision applications, but staff would be able to use it in cases not covered under those applications. Mr. Martin said adopting the CPA would not mean adopting any regula- tions. The objective is to pursue additional protective measures. Mr. Marshall suggested the Board find out what it may pursue, but Mr. Perkins said that would require further study. He felt it made no difference whether or not the CPA is passed. Mr. Bowerman said the Task Force recou~nended the CPA be separated from the MPO, so there could be modification of language in the MOD ordinance, if it is ever adopted. The CPA itself is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The second issue, regarding maps, is more complicated. Thirdly, the Board should take all ~he time it needs to finish the language. Ms. Scala said the Board can adopt the CPA without any further regulations, and it will still serve a very useful purpose. When someone asks the Board to make a land use decision, the Board can look to the CPA for guidance. (Page 25) .-.~-~;..~-~,:.,~.~.~. Mr. Tucker said there are provisions in the ordinance now that allow an applicant (outside of the watershed area) to apply fora special use permit to put up additional units. In that instance, the Comprehensive Plan might give staff ~uidelines as they make their recommendations. Mr. Marshall said staff has adequate resources at their disposal now. ~e feels the only thin~ this does is take away the property rights of individuals while the Board really wants to curtail land speculators. Regarding the purchase of development rights, Ms. Thomas said the Board is sending the message that it is not important to protect the mountains. Mr. Martin said the Board is in favor of doing something to ensure the beauty of the mountains. The CPA addresses some measures that would help in that re~ard. Most of the measures outlined in the CPA are all agreed upon by everyone, but there might he disagreement among Board meulbers regarding the MOD Ordinance. There are no rules and regulations for enforcement; there 'are simply suggestions and recommendations. Those who voted against the MOD Ordinance were seen as development-oriented and hating the mountains, while those who voted for it were painted as mountain lovers and having no problem taking away property rights. Mr. Marshall said he shared Mr. Martin's concerns. ~e does not want to cause property owners to spend money they may not have. ~e believes current landowners are already doing a good job of protecting their mountain property, and he is concerned those people will be forced into selling their land to developers. Mr. Bowerman said the consensus of the Board was to adopt the CPA. It simply codifies what the Board has been doing for years. It also allows, when reviewing a special user permit, consideration of where property is located. This may have an impact on a developer who wishes ~o expand the number of lots that can be constructed on a parcel of land. Mr. Bowerman then moved the adoption of CPA-98-01, and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two, The Natural Environment, to include a section on "Mountains", including a list of mountains described by contour elevation; and to amend the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan Concept Map descrip- tion of Mountains by contour elevation, and stated that the Board shall deal with the other two issues separately. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Mr. Perkins asked if adopting the CPA would create a new water resources area. Mr. Davis replied, "No." Mr. Perkins said that meant the mountains would remain part of the rural areas. Ms. Scala said the Board would have to adopt the MOD in order for that section to apply. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the maps are part of the district. Mr. Davis said the Comprehensive Plan does not establish an overlay district. The water resources areas referenced in the Water Resources Ordinance are not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Marshall suggested the Board make a decision on adopting the MOD before adopting the CPA. Mr. Perkins said the Board is not ready to adopt the MOD. Mr. Martin said emphasis has been placed on protecting resources and promoting public safety, He asked if the CPA really protects public safety. Ms. Scala said two areas the Committee identified as public safety items are access for emergency vehicles and the potential for debris flows. Mr. Martin asked if there has really been a problem with public safety. Ms. Scala said if a fire truck could not reach one house, it could affect neigb-bor~. Mr. Bowerman said this came into play recently when there was a huge wildfire on one side of a mountain. Mr. Martin said the Comprehensive Plan and MOD were not begun with protecting public safety in mind. Ms. Thomas said the Committee's report included public safety, although concerns were not neces- sarily listed in terms of their priority. The theme reappears throughout discussions, and she therefore disagrees that safety is not of importance. Mr. Perkins said this is a double-edged sword. If the Board puus too much emphasis on public safety, it could force people into building expensive roads where they are not needed. The Board could also be creating the expectation that someone's home will be protected, but that canno~ be guaran- teed. The Board cannot protect .everyone from everything. M~. Thomas said public safety addresses more than fire trucks. It addresses protection from erosion and other damage to property. Mr. Martin said he was not implying public safety is unimportant, but it does not seem uo be a predominant factor. OOO13.5 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) Mr. Marshall said the purpose of the CPA is to prevent growth in the County. That cannot be done, but growth can be controlled by what is already in place. Ms. ~umphris said the CPA states clearly what the vast majority of the County citizens have asked the Commission, the Board and staff to do; come up with a statement of what the Board values in the natural environment of the County's open space resources and possible ways to protect them, in light of the fact that the County is going to grow. There must be something in writing that explains what the Board values. This will enhance property values, because the Board is showing a commitment to protecting what is valued. Mr. Marshall said passin9 ordinances that take away the rights of homeowners goes against the forefathers' wishes. Mr. Perkins said he would vote for the CPA, although he disagrees with some of the contents and considers them mainly suggestions, not laws. Mr. Martin agreed with Mr. Perkins, saying that the suggestion that property owners are not good stewards affronts landowners who are good stewards of their property. Mr. Bowerman said the Board has stopped at the mountains and the rural areas. The County has a land use assessment that recognizes that there is an important component that urban areas also get from that resource, whic zs between $5.0 and $6.0 million per year. This is in recognition that this is important property, and a value zs paid by all citizens to protect them. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, MS. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. (At this time, the Board took up the discussion on ZTA-98-05, Mountain Overlay District and related provisions, and ZMA-98-10, Mountain Overlay District.) Ms. Scala said Section D, page 3, which mentioned constructed embank- menns, will be placed under General Regnlations in the Zoning Ordinance and will apply County-wide to driveways and building pads that are constructed. If a slope is created, it may not be constructed steeper than 2:1, unless it can be show~ to be stabilized. This means that side slopes have ~o be stabilized when grading is done. Nor does the plan regnlate the grade of driveways or the turning radius. The purpose is to prevent soil erosion. The Committee was split on this requirement. Some members felt it should be kept in the ordinance and adopted, since the Engineering Department tries to follow this gnideline now, but it is not in any written form. Other members felt it should not be adopted at this time because it should beincluded separately, or at least not included in discussion on the mountains. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was disagreement on all of §4.2.01. Ms. Scala replied, ~Yes." The Committee's view is that there would be more cost upfront due to 9rading, hut that stabilized slopes reduce erosion, and it would cost less to maintain the property than if erosion occurred. Mr. Marshall asked why someone should be forced to build further down from a ridge, where the site is more visible, when building on a ridge may disturb less land and be less visible. Ms. Scala said a property owner can apply for a special use permit. Mr. Marshall said all homeowners need now is a building site and a building'permit. A parcel on top of a mountain could sell for a lot more money than one lower on a mountain, representing a loss of money to the owner. Ms. Scala said everyone needs to consider what is best for the County as a whole. Mr. Bowerman said the Board accepts that a good view is important, but has to address the fact that different locations have their own characteris- tics. Moving a site lower can still provide a vzew and not impact the rest of the public. There are situations for which~criteria can be outlined and approvals granted by hhe Commission and the Board for environmental and economic development in a certain location. Mr. Marshall said tellin9 someone they cannot build on a mountazn devalues ~heir property. Mr. Bowerman said the right that exists today may August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) O00~l 6- not allow a developer to put a building site on a ridgetop. This will allow each application to be examined individually. Eve~i~gislative act requires an element of trust. MS. Scala explained what the proposed MOD states about the location of homes on mountaintops. Section 30.8.4, item C, addresses the situation where a landowner wants to create a building site on a ridge for a new house. The landowner may obtain a special use permit if a development right would otherwise be lost. The Committee was concerned whether that would be the only criteria, but the section further states the landowner must meet the intent of the MOD to approve a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman clarified that someone could ultimately lose a development right if they could not move a site further down the slope. Ms. Scala agreed that was a possibility. Mr. Bowerman said there would also be a possibility that, if there were p~rchase of development rights, those rights could be purchased, if the criteria was met. Ms. Scala said Section 38.4.d. is the second provision allowing someone to apply for a special use permit. If a building site ~xists below a poten- tial site, a landowner may want to move it further up on the ridge if it would be better environmentally. The Committee also wanted to see specific criteria listed for special use permits so landowners could see upfront whether they stood a good chance of getting one approved. She said it would be difficult to write specific criteria that would guarantee acceptance. An applicant would have to meet the intent of the MOD, meet general special use permit criteria in the Zoning Ordinance, and follow the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Thomas said if someone had five development rights, it is possible they could find only four sites. Without the change to Section B.2, someone could have been guaranteed a development right they did not really have. Mr. Martin said the way the language had been written previously, someone would have been given a right only if the ordinance took it away. If the right was lost for other reasons, there is no guarantee they would get it back. Ms. Scala said Section C would say if someone had a building site on the ridge and the ordinance said they could not build there, and the only reason they could not build was because of the ordinance, a special use permit is a way to retrieve the development right. MS. Scala then, referring to the bulletin board, provided examples of the impact the MOD would have on certain properties. In the first example, Mr. Howard, who has approximately 200 acres on Carter's Mountain, has a lot of potential development rights, and he could develop as many as 14 building sites. Some of his.property is inside the MOD, some is outside the MOD, and some is on the ridge. Byconventional development under the .ordinance, he could develop the small lots outside the MOD, he could develop 21-acre lots inside the MOD, provided he has building sites (it appeared that he had three), and he could not use the three or four sites on the ridge area without a special use permit. Under the MOD, staff would probably recommend he do a Rural Preservation development, clustering houses in the lower area. Ms. Thomas asked if there is a road there that can be accessed from that property. Mr. Marshall said, "Yes." Mr. Bowerman asked if the road that leads from the downslope to the top of the ridge allow access to other properties along the ridge. Mr. Marshal! said, ~It could. It is a logging road." Dr. McCluskey has two parcels on Carter's Mountain, one is over 100 acres, and one is about 65 acres. Most of his property is outside the MOD, and only one small part would be affected. He has lots of building sites, especially down below the ridge, as well as some on cop. He could build on knolls. If he wanted to build on the MOD, he would have co cut off 21-acre parcels the= are totally inside the MOD. Otherwise the parcel is not af- fected. Ms. Scala then showed a map of a parcel on top of Round Top Mountain, but she did not know the owner's name. The entire parcel straddles the ridge, but the entire area outside the ridge area appears to be 25 percent slopes. In that case, the landowner would have the right to build one house on the ridge. Building two houses would require a special use permit. Mr. Bowerman asked how many rights exist for that property. Ms. Scala replied that she did not know, but she guessed it had five development rights, plus 21-acre parcels. The landowner could not build on the steep slopes, but could build 000117 August 5, 1998' (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) multiple houses on top, if he .has building sites. Mr. Martin said that meant the landowners could, at this time, build on as many sites for which he has building sites and development rights. Mr. Bowerman added the landowner could do an RPD. Ms. Scala said the area down below would then likely be put into the easement, because it is uribuildable, and then he could possibly cluster the houses. He would still require building sites for each house, and a minimum of two acres for each house. If the ordinance is adopted, by-right he would have the right to build one house. Mr. Perkins said if there was one parcel to the west that was off 25 percent slopes, and it was divided off, he could build there. Ms. Scala said the entire area is 25 percent slopes. Mr. Martin said this meant this landowner's rights could be reduced from eight to nine possible sites to one site, if the special use permits were denied. Mr. Bowerman said the landowner could still do a rural subdivision on the top. Ms. Scala said that would depend on how many building sites he has. He would be required to get a special use permit for all but one house. Without an RPD, he would have uo cut off 2!-acre parcels, so he could possibly build five lots. Mr. Bowerman said he would need drainfields and water. Ms. Thomas said the topography may limit building sites in that location anyway. MS. Scala said if the landowner developed five lots, he would have to get either a state or private road approved. Ms. Scala said the owner of the Rosemont Subdivision is concerned. He would currently be allowed to build one house on the property, which is eight acres. Most of his property is in the ridge area, and he wanted to know if he could build on the ridge.. Ms. Scala researched the matter and said the area off the ridge is nearly all on 25 percent slopes. Therefore he could still build one house in the ridge area, as he can do now. Ms. Julia Campbell owns 45 acres on Lewis Mountain, which is zoned R-1. It is in the growth area, and most of it is on 25 percent slopes. If there is public wauer and sewer, she is not required to have a 30,000 square foot building site. There are few building sites available. She has about 13 acres outside the MOD, which would not be affected. She could build on that if she has the building sites available. There may be one site in the MOD outside the ridge area that could be built by-right. Therefore if the MOD is put in place, she would have to get a special use permit in order to build any more houses. Mr. Bowerman asked if Ms. Campbell could ask for a special use permit in the R-1 to cluster houses under existing regulations. Ms. Scala said she could cluster in R-i, but would still need to have building sites available. Mr. Bowerman said she could use her division rights on the ridge by coming in with a subdivision. Mr. Keeler said she does not have division rights; this is R-1 density. In the urban residential districts, a developer has the choice of a conventional or clustered development. Under clustered development, 25 percent of the site must go into open space. Therefore, she would have cluster development available to her, requiring 30,000 square foot building sites. Mr. Bowerman said she could have the open space because of the 25 percent'slopes' on the dowl~side. Mr. Keeler said this is the urban area. There is no distinction made between critical slopes in rural and urban area applications. The County has been more receptive to waive them in growth areas. Mr. Davis said the draft ordinance does not address this situation for a special use permit, because it speaks in terms of development rights, and there are no development rights on R-1 property. Unless the ordinance is modified to recoup density, Ms. Campbell would be prevented from having further development on the ridgetop unless it is the first house. Mr. Bowerman asked if it is possible that one scenario is better than another., for reasons the Board has not even considered. Mr. Davis said the Board may want to allow zoning other than RA ~o recoup its density by special use permit, since that would be consistent with what is proposed in the RA district. Ms. Scala said there are few mountains in the growth areas. The committee reviewed this request and thought the mountains in growth areas should be treated the same as those in the RA. Ms. Scala said Mr. Gerry Fisher's lot on Heard's Mountain lies entirely in the MOD. There is significant high elevation, and a lot of critical slopes in the area, so building is limited under the current ordinance. }4r. Fisher cannot use all his development rights since there is a lack of building sites. One entire parcel is on 25 percent slopes, so he could only get one building permit there now. There is a six-acre parcel with the same situation. He would need to obtain a special use permit in order to build on the ridge. He could develop small or large areas down lower, if he has development rights. Some other 10ts have two and three development rights, so he could develop August 5, !998 (Regular Day Meeting)3 (Page 29) 000~1 ~.8 three 2!-acre parcels on each. One parcel has enoug~uilding sites to utilize three building sites outside the ridge area. If he wanted to build inside the ridge area, she thought there might be three building sites, but he would need to obtain a special use permit. Mr. Fisher has development potential outside the ridge area. Two parcels are limited by steep slopes. One parcel goes up into the ridge area. He would be allowed to build one house on that entire parcel, under the present ordinance. Ms. Scala said the next example, on Buck's Elbow Mountain, is huge, and its ridge area is very flat. Parcel number four is on the ridge, so the owner would have the right to build one house on the ridge by-right under the new ordinance. Right now he would be allowed to build as many houses as he has building sites, which is probably one. Mr. Bowerman said some parcels have more development rights tha~ they have buildin~ sites. Each site must be examined separately. Ms. Scala said this parcel lies mostly on the ridge,' but has some sites outside the ridge area. Ridge sites would require a special use permit. Access is another issue, if the owner wants to do a lot of division there. The biggest parcel is limited by the ordinance because of the special use permit provision. Anything outside the ridge area is a potential building site by-right. Mr. Marshall asked how th~ MOD will financially impact individuals. Ms. Scala said some landowners would be impacted more than others. Some could do a building site by-right on a ridge now, but the new ordinance considers how it would impact the entire County's property values and environmental concerns. In the worst case, a landowner would have to get a special use permit to build on the ridge. Mr. Marshall asked if homeowners could be financially compensated. Mr. Bowerman asked whether a landowner who has eight development rights, but 0nly three building sites, could build three sites now, if they are outside the 25 percent slopes. Ms. Scala said if the MOD is passed, it is conceivable a landowner would have three building sites, and some could he recouped in the ridge area, if an argument could be made that new lots would be created because they were lots attached to the development. Mr. Bowerman said it is possible under the current ordinance~ that the landowner could do more developmen~ on the ridge under rural area preserva- tion, so this is a mixed-bag, depending on the specific property, the specific topography, the building sites on it, and the existing division rights. Mr. Martin said this is not a mixed-bag, because mixed means ~more or less", and he has only seen examples that show ,the, same or less". Mr. Marshall said Mr. Fred Scott, Jr. had a survey done on his property by Shoffner Appraisal Company. Mr. Scott provided the Board a copy of the letter he received from Mr. George C. Shoffner. Mr. Shoffner's findings were that the MOD would have a significant impact on Mr. Scott's property, devalu- lng it by $600,000. Ms. ~umphris said this is one person's open, on. She said Mr. Shoffner's letter read, in part, ~were the MOD to be in effect, the land value would be its basic agricultural value, or about $1,035,000. Therefore, deducting the 'After value from the 'before' value, indicates a value loss of over $600,000". Ms. Humphris said the MOD would not return the value of the land to basic agriculture; it would still have development value. Mr. Scott said he does not believe in putting houses on the spine of a hill. He selected some obvious sites for building sites. In every case, if he wanted to develop, he would want to keep the pastures free, and put houses in the trees, still afford~ good views. Each lot would be in the MOD and outside the MOD. Because of that, all 20 sites would have had to be moved from the obvious site down into what would he a more intrusively-viewed site. Mr. Davis said 21-acre sites would not have to be located lower. Mr. Scott could put the houses exactly where he is proposing t~em, even if the MOD is passed. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could put 21-acre sites in the MOD, even though he has 2t-acre sites outside the MOD. Mr. Perkins asked what happens if a 21-acre lot is half in and hal~ out of the MOD. Mr. Davis said if there is a building site outside the MOD, that is where the house must be built. Mr. Shoffner said when a new lot is created in the MOD, it becomes discretionary as to the spec~at use permit. Mr. Bowerman said that is simply a 2t-acre lot and does not require an special use permit, unless it is in the ridge area. Mr. Shoffner said some of Mr. Scott's lots could fall in the ridge area. Ms. Thomas said if the lots are drawn intelligently, they can all be drawn within the MOD and Mr. Scott can build wherever he wants ~o. AugUSt 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) 000~9 Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could use all his division rights up on ten-acre lots and leave all the rest in open space and pasture. Mr. -Shoffner said Mr. Scott would still need to approach the Board with a plan. He suspects a good deal of the value of Mr. Scott's land lies in the ridge area. Mr. Bowerman reminded Mr. Shoffner that Mr. Scott said he did not want to build in the ridge area. Mr. Marshall asked what will happen if Mr. Scott decides to sell his property. Mr. Shoffner had stated that, if Mr. Scott sold the property to someone else under the new ordinance, he could lose $600,000. Ms. Thomas said if somebody else purchases the property and does not use good sense, choosing to build on the spine, that is a different issue. Mr. Shoffner said that creates higher road costs, but higher values for the lots. Taking this out uo a five-year sell-out period, and discounting the present value, there will.be some erosion of this property's value. Mr. Shoffner said if a 10t is on top of the ridge, each lot could easily be worth $250,000. A lot with no views could sell at $90,000 and $130,000 per lot, which is roughly a difference of $50,00 and $75,000 per lot, which is how the $600,000 loss figure was derived. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 3:46 p.m.) Ms. Thomas said Mr. Shoffner assumed there will be only agricultural use of the land if the MOD is passed. Mr. Shoffner said Mr. Scott has not yet determined where the lots are going to be used as buildin9 sites. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Scott would still be able to'use all his development rights. " {Note: M~. Bowerman returned at 3:48 p.m.) Mr. Shoffner said the special use permit process is discretionary. He is not comfortable with the fact that the same folks who are'proposing the MOD would also administer the special use permit process. Ms. Thomas said special use permits and the spine areas go together, whereas the MOD newly-created lots do not have to go through the special use permit process. Mr. Scott has enough lots that a special use permit might never be needed at all, particu- larly if he does not wish to sell or develop the area in the spine. Mr. Shoffner said there is no way to know what a potential buyer might want to do with property. Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Scott could put together a subdivision with all the houses on top of the ridge. If that plan is submitted and approved, he would receive value for his property. The highest and best use from a land speculator's point of view is to use the ridge top. The argument is that the MOD changes the potential value of his property. Ms. Thomas said there will not be a $600,000 loss, because the land is returning to agricultural value. A lot of the 2!-acre lots will go on the hillsides. The choice not to put them on the s~ine is Mr. Scott's, and it would avoid th~'~peciai use permit process. Mr. Scott said Mr. Shoffner's letter demonstrates the impact of moving the houses down to a lower area. There would be $50,000 difference in the lot sizes. Ms. Thomas said if the land is of only agricultural value, they are of no more value than they are as defined by Virginia Polytechnical Institute when looking at orchard land in Albemarle County. Mr. Martin said the Board has been examining this specific case for quite some time now. Everyone needs to .agree to disagree with this particular appraisal. Mr. Bowerman said the conversation has flushed out the issues the Board has been talking about. Mr. Perkins said the discussion has been confusing. If the MOD is intended to keep people from building on the mountainside, and the Board is telling him that he can build on the mountain- side, he sees no reason for the MOD in the first place. Mr. Perkins. said there are other people from the public who would like to speak. Ms. Thomas said this was not a public hearing. Mr. Martin said the Board should hold a public hearing. Mr. Marshall mentioned Mr. Tom Olivier had sent a letter to all the Board members. Ms. Thomas said it would help staff if the Board told them what the ordinance should look like before they spend a lot of time creating one. Auqust s, 1~8 ¢~equl~r Day M,et~ 000~20 (Page 31) Mr. Martin said he did not think the Board could re~b~' consensus on that issue, and that, since the Board is not ready for the section on constructive embankments yet, it should be left out. ge does not like the way Section 30.8.4.C.(iii) was chan~ed to say, "...the building site of a proposed lot is consistent with the intent of this section 30.8; and (iv) the building site meets the criteria of section 31.2.4.1.", because he said there would never be a special use permit under those conditions. Mr. Marshall said. he cannot suppor~ Section 30.8.4.a that reads, ~No lot or parcel shall be entirely within a ridge area." Ms. Humphris said there are provisions for exceptions listed elsewhere in the documenu. Ms. Thomas said it is zmportant to avoid being perceived as arbitrary. She suggested rewording section 30.8.4.c. (iii) to state under what basis a special use permit would be given. Mr. Martin said he did not think what was being suggested in that section would ever be approved. Be would want to see a list of criteria spelled out. Ms. Humphris said the criteria for all special use permits is already spelled out under section 31.2.4.1. Ms. Scala said if the Board did not thir~k the intent of the ordinance was correct, the e~tire ordinance falls apart. Mr. Martin said if the Board is taking away a right as the result of the MOD, the division right should not be held to standards as high as the intent of the ordinance. Staff should continue to work on section 4.2.01. The County's standards, in some in- stances, require road standards hi~her than VDoT's standards. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Martin if removin9 the reference to 9radient in section 4.2.01.a, yet still requirin~ the slope to be stabilized, would appease him. He replied, "Maybe." Mr.'Davis said the erosion control portion of the Water Protection Ordinance already requires stabilization. In almost every instance the Engineering Department's requirement is that slopes be 2:1, if possible. This simply puts into the Code what the practice is, and builds in an exception that says if someone can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the En~ineerin~ Department that it should be more than 2:1, the Engineering Department can approve iT. Mr. Keeler said the introductory language is intended to restricu this to extreme cases. There would have to be a vertical fall of ~reater than five feet on the embankment before this comes into play. Be suggested the Board might want to say the same thin9 about critical slopes. If someone is constructing a driveway and does not exceed a five-foot vertical cut, the provzsions do not apply. Mr. Bowerman said road standards can be applied County-wide. Ms. Scala said side slopes on the road and the slope created when buildin9 a buildin9 pad do not require any ~rade on the driveway. The side slopes must be 2:1, as they are now, in almost every instance. Ms. Thomas said this puts the Engineering Department policy under the Soil Erosion Ordinance into this section of the~Code, but if it is removed, it is still. County policy. Mr. Davis agreed, sayin~ the same provision could go under the erosion measures in the Wa~er Protection Ordinance or the Subdivision Ordinance. However, since it applies to site plans and subdivision plans, it was thought this was the best place for it. Mr. Martin said most of the people he has heard from feel this is the most significant section proposed. One person said he would not be able to build on his site under these guidelines. Mr. Davis said the Engineerin~ Department could review such a situation and waive the requireraent. Ms. Scala said the forty-foot radius guideline was removed, because it was for private roads only, and Engineerin9 Department staff said the private roads standards already address that, because they use VDoT's standards. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Scala and Mr. Keeler to explain the differenoe between what the County already has in the current Subdivision Ordinance, building site requirements, waue~ requirements and potential road standards, and the MOD. Further, he said there are some situations today where develop- ment rights will be lost because of topography and other existing situations, just as they would under the MOD and the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance. If someone can obtain a special use permit under the Mountaintop Protection Ordinance, it is conceivable they will put houses on tops of ridge lines, because it may make more sense economically and aesthetically. The same can be done today. If a landowner can demonstrate, for example, that he has six buildable lots, and he wants ~o use those six development rights, he can obtain a special use permit under the rural desiquation for clustering. ~e asked what is gained by adoptin~ the MOD over what can already be done. August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Ms. Scala said the major effect would be that proposed sites would fall under additional review if they are in a ridge area. There is currently no review. Mr. Bowerman said if a landowner wants to do an RPD on top of a ridge, moving some of his sites onto the ri'dge, and he wants to cluster, there would be a special use permit review° Ms. Scala said when doing an RPD, staff recommends the rural preservation tract contain the resources the County is trying to protect. Mr. Bowerman asked about the lowlands. Ms. Scala said she talked to someone from Edgehill~'who wanted to know if he would be prohibited from clustering under the MOD. Ms. Scala said there is an historic landmark on that property, which is a working farm. She told him he could present his case, and might have a case for clustering in the MOD. Ms. Scala said the point of RPD is to protect resources. RPD's require a special use permit if they exceed 20 lots; otherwise they simply go to the Commission, if they meet certain design-criteria. The main effect of the Ordinance is to lower development in the ridge areas, pushing it down the mountains somewhat. If done the way the Committee suggested, it may require that small lots be used outside the MOD and only 21-acre lots be used in the MOD. Mr. Bowerman said this could result in dramatic roads being built to the mid-mountain sites. Ms. Scala said it would not impose gradient standards. If constructed embankments are done, it would require stable side slopes on the driveways and building pads, and the Water Protection Ordinance would come into play. A land disturbing activity, as defined in the MOD area, is at 2,500 square feet, as opposed to 10,000 in the rest of the County. Mr. Bowerman asked why it is not enacted in a County-wide ordinance, for any rural area with more than a 25 percent slope. Mr. Davis replied, "You could." Mr. Bowerman said road s~andards, embankments, and access issues could also be addressed in such an ordinance. Ms. Scala said, in relation to erosion, the MOD would also encourage the Engineering Department to ask for a plan, not just an agreement. Mr. Bowerman suggested doing that County-wide. Ms. Scala said the County should encourage this in areas where there are steep slopes and a better chance of soil erosion problems. Ms. Thomas said that is what would be put in place now if the Board only adopss the map. Ms. Scala said it would not currently require a plan in every case, but it points out areas where soil erosion could occur and gives the Engineering Department justification to ask for a plan. Mr. Bowerman said if the County had a Soil Protection Overlay District, for areas where erosion Is identified as a significant problem~ it could choose to apply thesestandards, whether they are lowlands or mountains. Mr. Davis said the Chesapeake Bay Act already authorizes the Board to do that based on soil types and topography. 'Mr. Bowerman said the Board is trying to protect the resources of the County and encourage sensitive use of the land. There are lots of requirements already imposed. There are lots of critical issues that arise when someone brings in a subdivision plat that are examined. If the County can deal with the ancillary issues of site developments, regardless of location, a lot of the problems would be solved by doing them County-wide. Mr. Davis said one impactof the Ordinance is that it requires, where an existing or future lot is both inside and outside the MOD, the landowner to build outside the MOD. This forces sites to be located down the mountain. Mr. Bowerman asked what happens when access to the site is the critical part. Disturbance because of the driveway could create damage to the land. Mr. Keeler said the major thing the MOD does is to regulate the ridge area more than what is currently done. Ordinances are already in place to take care of most things. Mr. Martin said this imposes a lot of rules and regulations, as well as layers of bureaucracy and possibly more expense. It may accomplish something, but he qUestioned at what cost. Mr. Bowerman said if the County can already accomplish this mn a different fashion, perhaps the Board should strengthen ordinances already in place and apply them to every- one. The drawback is that it could impact all homeowners in terms of cost. Ms. Scala said adopting the Comprehensive Plan demonstrates it is important to protect the mountains. If there are other things the Ordinance addresses, but that should be strengthened, the Board could address them separately. Mr. Bowerman said there are driveway erosion problems in Mill Creek. Strengthening requirements in that area would increase costs to builders. -~'~ '000~.22 August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) Mr. Davis said the County could strengthen road requirements. There are many way to deal with the same issues. Mr. Bowerman said the Board could end up raising the cost of development, which raises the cost of housing, regardless of where the site is or what is being built on it, but the environment would be preserved. He said there needs to be more discussion on the subject, and he suggested another work session. Mr. Perkins said there would need to be an exception for a single- dwelling on each parcel, with no road standards, or standards that are environmentally friendlier than the proposed County standards. Mr. Davis said this already exists. Ms. Scala said someone only has to obtain a building permit in order to build a single-family home, and a special use permit if building three houses. Mr. Perkins said he does not think the ordinance is needed. Mr. Keeler discussed the regulations being County-wide. The County adopted private road standards in 1978, and the issue is examined by a committee every five years. The last committee said the County still needs private roads in rural areas, for environmental reasons. There are two sides to that issue. First, private roads have more stringent standards than public roads. Second, this could open up other areas that could not be developed if the County simply required public roads. He does not know how the County can be more sensitive to the terrain with any design standard, yet preclude development areas that are sensitive to development. Mr. Bowerman said the private road standards used are VDoT's standards. Mr. Tucker said the Board is wrestling with these same issues. What is before the Board now has been changed significantly. A lot of regulations already in place take care of many of the issues raised. The significant change is in the ridge area. The Board needs to decide if it is significant enough to adopt an ordinance, or whether there are other ways of addressing these issues. Be suggested the Board might need to reidentify what the charge is to the committee. Ms. Thomas suggested the Board meet with the committee. Mr. Martin suggested using a public hearing to get feedback from the public about changes they would like to make to what has been proposed. Mr. Davis said the Ordinance has not been changed since June 1.6, 1998, except for one change recommended by the Committee, and the Board already held the public hearing. Ms. Scala said changes were made by the Task Force. Ms. Thomas said those changes are suggestions, but they were not passed by the Commission'. Mr. Davis said the public may now be more aware of the require- ment for a special use permit. Mr. Martin said he would like to hear from the Task Force. Mr. Tucker said the Board could hold an open house, so that the public can see these examples and talk to staff. Ms. Humphris said there is no point in going to a pubIic hearing, because there is nothing new to present. She said it would be helpful ~o have an open house forum. Ms. Thomas said it is unfair to ask ssaff to work on something the Board will never pass. If there are certain things that make it impossible for a Board member to vote on it, she felt they should make it clear. Mr. Bowerman said without the special-use permit provisions added to what is before the BoaYd, as suggested, but not recommended by the Commission, he does not think this is a workable ordinance. Mr. Martin said the special use permit was a compromise between taking away rights, while providing the special use permit process so that a landowner can at least ask for it. He said someone should look at all the options and suggest the best place to build. Without that flexibility, the ordinance does not work. He would not support the ordinance without it. Mr. Davis said the alternative would be to have by-right development on the ridge area without a special use permit, whereas this ordinance restricts development on the ridge unless there is a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said it appeared that some Board members would prefer that no development rights be lost. A special use permit does not protect all development rights. He added that just having development rights does not guarantee a landowner will have building sites. Ms. Thomas said the special use permit process is not trusted by the public. They do not think the Board would ever say building a site on top of the mountain ridge is the best place to build. Mr. Perkins said this is only an issue if there are three houses or more. Ms. Thomas thinks the special use 000 .: 3 August 5, I998 (Regular ~ay Meeting) (Page permit is flexible to a variety of ridge top sites. She thinks the ordinance is fair and effective. Mr. Davis identified two questions for the Board: 1) do you wish to restrict ridge top construction to one house with few exceptions, and 2) do you want building sites to. be moved down the mountains, if available. If the Board does not support'these ideas, the ordinance falls apart. Mr. Marshall said if development rights are limited to one per person on the ridge top, the Board is taking away development rights. Mr. Davis Said the landowner still would have reasonable use of his property, but his property might be devalued if he is not permitted to develop his property the way he wants to. The special use permit allows someone Go be assured they do not lose development rights if they meet certain criteria. There is no legal taking of anyone's property in what the ordinance proposes. The basic premise is there is not going to be much development on the ridgetops unless there are reasons which justify it as more appropriate than an another location, Mr. Bowerman said that is where t~e Board was on June 17, 1998, with the special use permit. Mr. Martin said, based on today's discussion and public input, the Board made a commitment to have a public hearing on the lighting ordinance~ At this meeting the Board passed the CPA. He suggested seeing what the CPA does and letting the rest ride for now. Ms. Thomas suggested seeing if the Board is interested in limiting residential development on ridgetops. That is the defining question. If there is not a majority agreement, the Board should not lead the public on with this any further. Mr. Marshall said he does not want to take development rights away from current homeowners, as that reduces the value of the land. Mr. Bowerman said the Subdivision Ordinance already limits development of mountaintops. If the Board is interested in having sites developed in the best way possible, and the special use permit process allows that to be done, the Board could look at the sites and evaluate the criteria. Mr. Marshall said people who want nice views are not paying taxes. The landowners who own that land are paying the taxes, and everyone wants them to continue footing the bill. Mr. Bowerman disagreed. Ms. Thomas said the Board could do a lot more than what they are doing now to restrict development. Ms. Humphris said the Board members should not just throw up their hands and look at this in anouher year, jusu because it is difficult. The special use permit process makes the MOD workable. This is not a taking of property. She said she believed the Board was close to having something that was acceptable. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Perkins wants to manage development on ridge tops for each individual mountain. Mr. Perkins said every mountain and parcel is different. There are guidelines already protecting the ridges. In many cases, the ridge is the only place to build. He said if an owner wants to build on the ridge line, he should be able to do that by-right. Someone can apply for special use permits if they want to build more than one house. On the other hand, the ridge is not always the best place to build a house, There are a lot of problems there, due to the wind. There are few places where you are going to get a 360 degree panoramic beautiful view all the time, so often it is best to place the building site further down. This can be much friendlier to the envzronment, as well. He felt the Board should move forward, but he did nou know how. (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 5:08 p.m.) Mr. David Benish, who said he wished to speak from the perspective of managing a work program, said the Board adopted the CPA, and staff hoped to be ready to move for~ard with the ~=ural environment section of the Comprehen- sive Plan. Now that the CPA has been adopted, staff has a clear idea of the Board's intentions. Ninety-n~ne percent of the mountains are in the rural areas, the remaining section of the Comprehensive Plan to be reviewed by staff. He said Mr. Bowerman's suggestions could be considered in the that evaluation. There are going to be some weighty topics in rural areas, based on the directives provided by the Board. Staff needs to move forward on the rural areas, and they relate to the mountain section. He said if the Board wants staff to look at other ways to implement mountain protection, that can August 5, 1998 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 000124 be done. However, if they wanu staff to look at more issues, he suggests the Board table the issue and discuss the mountains in the context of all the changes to be made to the rural areas. Mr. Bill Mawyer, Director of Engineering, said the Erosion Control Program exempus foresting and agriculture. This presents a problem. If someone wants to build a home on a rural property, they forest it first, then build a road, and then, at a later date, apply for a building permit. This means there are no driveway standards. Mr. Perkins said it does not matter, if this is for a single dwelling anyway, unless 2:1 slopes are an issue. Mr. Mawyer said this is dealt with as an erosion control issue under either ordinance. The erosion control program is moving forward. In the past 14 months his department moved from having one inspecuor to three, meaning there are more issues that can be dealt with than in the past. (Note: Mr. Martin returned at 5:13 p.m.) Mr. Marshall suggested the Board ~ab!e the ordinance. Mr. Benish said staff still needed a consensus from the Board as to how to move into discus- s~ons on changes in the rural' areas and the impact of mountain development. He suggested that some Board members and staff members could work together. Mr. Bowerman said the Commission had a meeting, and were strongly criticized. The Board was criticized when they discussed the special use permit aspect of this issue, because people perceive it as taking away their right to do what they want with their mountaintops. He said it would be helpful to have staff incorporate mountains into the total picture of the rural areas to see whether it has any effect. Ms. Thomas said staff will come back to the Board and say that mountainous areas are different in certain ways. Mr. Bowerman said what the Board wants done in the mountains might be the very same thing they want done in the bottom lands. Mr. Tucker asked what the effect would be if the Board took no action this meeting. Mr. Davis said today was just a work session. The Ordinance had been deferred to a different date. If the Board took no action at this time, it would remain deferred. Ms. Thomas said the Board has other concerns that are addressed by the ordinance. Therefore, she is frustrated. Mr. Marshall said he will not support the MOD until landowners are compensated for the loss of development rights, and the Board Is sure of exactly what is needed. It was the consensus of the Board to have staff examine mountain protection issues when developing recommendations to the Board on the rural areas. Mr. Benish advised the Board this work will take more than a couple of weeks. It will take staff a couple of months before they are ready to make a presentation to the Commission. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman moved that the Board appoint Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with said term to expire on March 31, 2000. Mr. Martin moved that the Board reappoint Mr. Jerry Jones to the Jordo~ Development Corporation, with said term to expire on August 13, 1999, and Mr. Ken Clarry to the Industrial Development Authority, wiht said term to explre on January 19, 2002. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humpllris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martih, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Ms. Thomas said s~e learned a lot by attending the National Association of Counties (NACo) conference and would report to the Board at the next Board meeting. RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: November 6, 200~'"~a"'"'#: Clerk's Initials:. CLOSED SESSION MOTION I 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; UNDER SUBSECTION (3) TO DISCUSS THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES; AND UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING SPECIFIC LEGAL MATTERS REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND OTHER POLITICAL ENTITIES. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the ~ ~erviso_rs Ella W. Carey, ~ October 31,2002 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through March 31, 2003. There are no interviews scheduled for the November 6, 2002 meeting. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce (list only) Note: NEW APPLICATIONS Forrest R, Marshall Jr. Martin Schulman BOARD OR cOMMISSION Applications due 10122t02, No County's turn to appoint joint appointee I application attached (Clerk has not advertised for applications) Readvertised; applications due 10/22/02 No _a~.,~plications received (Appointee to complete Vlasis's term.) 1 application attached Advertised; Applications due by 11/15/02, Replace with Ida Lee Wooten MEMBER Leslie Reed Richard C Collins Arthur B, Brown, Jr. William Vlasis Fred W. Hudson Dolly Prenzel TERM EXPIRES 12/31102 12/31/02 WISH TO BE RE- APPOINTED? NEW TERM EXPIRES 12/31/04 DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT Joint 12/31/05 I I Resigned t Rio 9/5/03 Resigned 1/19/03 I2/31/03 1/19/07 12/31/03 No University of Viginia County of Albemarle Bo~6/Commi~rdCommitt~ Forrest ~. Marshall, Jr Appl{canfs N~ Home Phone 2356 Scottsville Road Fu]~ M~ Ad~ Charlot ...... ~, ~ ~ v* ~ ~ ~ 92902 Sa~el Niller ~s~ ~s~ct ~ ~ ~ h~ resid~ce is l~ated Or, ce of Bo~ of County Supervisors' 401 l~Jm6~ Cb~d~a, VA ~902~596 (804) 29&5~3 A~LI~ON TO ~R~ ON BO~/CO~ION/CO~ Self (Farmer) Employex Business Occupation/Title 2356 Scottsville Road Charlott~.sville,_ Vir~..nia RetireJ t~h~rmacist & Farmer Ye~s Re,dent ia Albemarle County Previous Residence Rt 6 Box 60, Education ~/~Degrees and Geaduation Dates) 4 Y.- 29~-7038 Phone ~ 3&-29~-7038 6/x/59 Dare of Employment 66 years Spouse's Name Donna Diand ~]arshall Charlottesville, ga Nurab-- of~e~ 5 B.S. Pharmacy, Medical College of Virginia June 1959 _~_ be~ships ~~L ]Suahaea~C~_.d/or SodM ~ps Former ~ervisor Aibem~le Coun~ ~nd Former Ch~rm~ ~b~ C~c ~d C~m~e Office ~d/ ..... Aiben,~ie ............ ~ .~~..r" c~, R¢ ......... 6L~. ~o'~atlon Clerk, Board of Go~n~ Supcr~risors Albemarle Coml~)r 40X McInut~e Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4~96, FAX: (804) 296-5800 PLEASE RESTRICT ANY A TTACHMENTS TO ONE PAGE ~0-29-02P05:49 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 October 9, 2002 10-10-02P04:5/4 R~cv,9' Clark Gathright 1001 East Market Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: SP-2002-041 Mountainwood Executive Center ~ Tax Map 76, Parcel 46F D;ar The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 2002, by a vote of 5:0 recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 6, 2002. Please note that review of the public hearing items for-the November 6th Board meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. 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. The Planning Commission also by a vote of 5:0 took the following actions: · Approved the cooperative parking request allowing for 137 parking spaces. · Approved the waiver request for the excess of 100-foot distance of the parking from the residential units. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Doherty Principal Planner MD/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MARGARET DOHERTY OCTOBER 1, 2002 NOVEMBER 6, 2002 SP-2002-04! MOUNTAINWOOD EXECUTIVE CENTER SDP-02-95 MOUNTAINWOOD EXECUTIVE CENTER MINOR AMENDMENT Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Jim Stultz, requests residential uses permitted, by special use permit, in the R-15 zoning district on his commercially zoned (C-O) property. The proposal includes the interior renovation of the three existing buildings into 15,641 square feet of offices and 49 one,bedroom apartments. He proposes no significant change to the exterior of the buildings, which were originally designed for a hospital. He proposes improving an existing gravel pedestrian path that leads from the rear of the site to Old Lynchburg Road and constructing a new concrete sidewalk which will connect the buildings to the public sidewalk along Old Lynchburg Road. This application also includes a request for approval of a cooperative parking arrangement between the proposed office and residential uses. Description: The request is for 49 apartments in accordance with Section 23.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for R-15, Residential, uses in a CO, Commercial Office district. The property, described as Tax Map 76 Parcel 46F, contains 8.98 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Old Lynchburg Road (Route # 631) approximately 1/4 mile from the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Fifth Street Extended. The property is zoned CO, Commercial Office and designated for Community Service in the Comprehensive Plan, in Urban Neighborhood Five. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant proposes a mix of office uses with small one-bedroom apartments to be utilized by professionals. He contends that marketing surveys and public interest show a need for this type of use in the Charlottesville area. Although the property is zoned CO, Commercial Office, the site is surrounded by residential uses and therefore, the proposed residential use will be more compatible with the character of the area. It is his vision that the site could be leased by entrepreneurs looking for a place to start a small business and have an inexpensive place to live on-site. The apartments could also be used by businesses to house visiting professionals or contract employees, etc. It is the applicant's contention that the mixed-use concept justifies the cooperative parking request, because people living in the apartments may be working in the offices on-site. Alternatively, the spaces occupied by the residents who work off-site will be available to employees that visit the site during normal business hours. RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends approval of the Special Use Permit with conditions. Character of the Area: The site is surrounded by multi-family residential developments. The property immediately to the east is being developed as student apartments (Sterling University Housing). Across Old Lynchburg Road are the Sherwood Manor and Country Green multi-family residential developments. Zoning History: SP-80-60 SP-87-38 SP-88-79 ZMA-88-15 SP-95-16 SDP-02-54 SDP-02-95 Approved the hospital use at this location Revised the hospital parking requirements Allowed more hospital beds Changed the zoning from R-2 to C-O Allowed private school use for Covenant School Approved site plan for more parking Site plan proposal to eliminate the parking that was approved with SDP-02-54 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be urban density with a recommended density of 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre. The Neighborhood Model: Staff has analyzed this proposal for conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model, and finds it generally in compliance, as follows: 1. Pedestrian Orientation. See Neighborhood Friendly Streets and.Paths below. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. The proposal includes improving the existing gravel path which leads from the rear of the site down the hill to Old Lynchburg Road and eventually to the Rivanna Trail and construction of a new sidewalk from the front of the buildings to a new crosswalk across Old Lynchburg Road to the asphalt path on the other side of the road. 3. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. Not Applicable. Parks and Open Space. The applicant proposes maintaining the outdoor activity space created for the school, which includes a basketball court and activity fields for the residents of the site. A courtyard exists interior to the building. Neighborhood Centers. This site is within an area, which is designated Community Service on the Land Use Plan. This area ~s intended to be developed and/or redeveloped as a neighborhood center for Neighborhood Five. The proposed mixed-use concept furthers that goal. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale. No external changes are proposed for the three existing buildings. The existing site was designed for hospital and school residents and therefore has spaces of human scale, such as courtyard and recreational areas. No changes are proposed to those areas, besides landscaping enhancements. 7. Relegated Parking. No changes to the parking are proposed. 8. Mixture of Uses. The proposal creates a mix of office and residential in the form of executive office suites and executive one-bedroom apartments. Mix of Housing Types and Affordability. The proposal is only for the interior conversion of the existing buildings to apartments, which takes minimal effort considering the existing hospital rooms. The apartments will be small, which may allow for an affordable lease rate. 10. Redevelopment. The existing building and site were develOped under conventional development regulations, and therefore are not consistent with the neighborhood model. 11. Site Planning that Respects Terrain. No significant site changes are proposed. 12. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas. The Rural Areas do not abut this property. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The allowance for a residential use on this property is more compatible with adjacent residential uses and will be of no detriment. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby~ The site has a different zoning district than surrounding property. The proposal is a good balance of meeting the intent of the commercial zoning district, while bring more compatibility with the character of the surrounding multi-family properties. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The proposal compliments the purpose and intent of the ordinance by allowing a mix of uses in a convenient, attractive way and providing housing affordable to a particular population of county residents. with the uses permitted by right in the district, The subject property is in the C-O district, but it is surrounded by properties which are all m residential districts. The proposed scale of commercial use should have no significant conflict with those properties. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, There are no additional regulations in the Supplementary Regulations section of the Ordinance governing uses permitted in the R-15 district. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff does not believe that the proposal will adversely affect the public health, safety, or general welfare. The mixed use proposal will generate less traffic than other uses, which are allowed in the C-O district, as of right, such as medical offices, fmancial institutions, etc. Cooperative Parking Request: Required parking spaces may be provided cooperatively for two or more uses in a development or for two or more individual uses, subject to arrangements that will assure the permanent availability of such space as such arrangements are approved by the commission. The amount of such combined space shall be equal to the sum of the amounts required for the separate uses; provided, that the commission may reduce the amount of space required for uses under the provisions for a combined parking area by reason of different hours of normal activity than those of other uses participating in the combination. The proposal includes utilizing the existing 138 parking spaces for both the proposed office and residential use. The ordinance requires 152 parking spaces (78 for the office use and 74 for the residential use). The commission has approved, in the past, a reduction of 10% of the required number of spaces fora mixed-use project of residential and office. Therefore, the applicant shows on his plan, a parking schedule with 90% of the required number of spaces, or 137 required parking spaces. Staffrecommends approval of this cooperative parking proposal, finding that the mix of office and residential will lower the parking demand by at least 10% and therefore, the parking needs of the users will be met on-site. Minor Amendment: The minor amendment has been reviewed by Planning, Engineering and Zoning. Staff recommends that administrative approval be granted upon Board of Supervisor approval of the special use permit. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The residential use is more in keeping with the surrounding residentially zoned properties; and 2; The proposal includes pedestrian amenities, such as a gravel path and concrete sidewalk. Staff has not identified any factors, which are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of the special use permit for up to 49 residential units (SP-02-41) with the following condition: 1. The site improvements shall be developed in general accord with the attached Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002. ATTACHMENTS: A - Vicinity Map B - Proposed Minor Site Plan Amendment, entitled Mountainwood Executive Center, dated August 20, 2002. SP - 2002 - 041 PIEDMONT HOSPITAL LLC 1 INCH = 400 FEET PRF, PARI~D BY'. OFFICE OF GEOGRAPI-HC DATA SF_,RVII~$ TI~S MAP IS FOR DISPLAY PURPOSES ONLY (NOVEIt~ER 2, 2000] /'..,./ ,;?/! j ,-' [ ±VI 3 U iN 1YV UUIJ E? EL; U'I '1 V b ALBEMARLE COUNTY VIRGINIA O~;N.ER/DEVELOPER: PIEDMONT HOSPITAL L.L.C. CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA )LD LYNCHBURG ROAD,-% VICINITY MAP 1 '---- 1000' GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. PRIOR TO CONDUCTION WITHIN ANY EXISTINO RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING CONNECTION TO ANY EXISTING ROAD. A PERMIT SHALL BE OBTNNED FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMEN[ OF TRANSPORTATION O/DOT}. THIS PLAN AS DRAWN ~Y NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. WHERE ANY DISCREPANCIES OCCUR THE REQUIRE~,IENTS OF THE PERMIT SHALL GOVERN, 2. ALL PAVINO, DRNNAOE RELATED MATERIALS AND CONSTROOTION METHODS SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS DF ~DCT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. & EROSION AND SILTATION CONTROL METHODS SHALL 8E PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ~PPROVED EROSION CONTROL PL~fl AND SHN. L BE iNSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY CLEARING. GRADING OR OTHER CONSTRUCTION. 4, .ALL SLOPES AND DISTURBED AREAS ARE TO DE FERTILIZED, SEEDED AND MULCHED. THE MAXIMUI~ ALLOWABLE SLOPE IS 2:1 (HORIZONTAL:VERTICAL). WHERE REASONABLY ODTAINA~LE LESSER SLOPE~ OF 4:1 OR SETfER ARE TO BE ACHIEVED, 5. PAVED, RIP-RARP OR STABILIZATION ST LINED DITCH MAY DE REQUIRED WHEN IN'THE OPINION OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, OR THE DIRECTOR'S DESIGNEE, IT tS DEEMED NECESSARY IN ORDER TO STABILIZE A DRAJNAGE CHANNEL 6. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS SHALL CONEORM ~TH THE VIRGINIA tJANUAL FOR UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEPT. OF PLANNING DEPT. OF ZONING ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY BUILDING OFFICIAL DEPT, OF ENGINEERINO FIRE AND RESCUE DIVISION (JEN'I'ER smE P!Y44 AUENDUENTI TO: SOP-01-128 WATER: EXISTING l" FlEE iT HYDRANT: EXISTING FRONT ENI'BANCE W/ SIAMESE SANITARY SEWERAGE: EXISTINO ~ANITAEy SEWER ON SITE REFUSE: DUMFG'TER - TO BE RELOCATED SITE.PLAN PREPARATIO~I ~: DLARI¢ DATHRIDHT, DA~E'IT & GRIOO A~:HITECTS TOPOORARHY ANO PHYSICAL INFORMATION BY: ABSREY HUFFMAN & A~SOCIATES BOUNDARY AND UTIUTIES INFORMATION BY: S.L KEY INC. BENCHMARK: LOOATED ON ~ANITARY I~HOLE RtN ON NORTH END OF PROPOSED PARKING LOT ELEV: 422.5 THE SITE FALLS IN THE AIRPORT IMPACT AREA THE SITE IS NOT WITHII~ A RESERVOIR WATERSHED. THE SITE iS WITHIN A DEVELOPMENT AREA. SITE DEVELOPMENT DATA SITE DATA: TAN ~ 78 PARCEL 0J~.10~5 P.:i81-~ (PLAT) D.D.~a P.214 . D.D.722 P.515-518 (PLAT) ZONINO: CO-COMMERDIAL OFFICE R-l§ ElY SPECIAL USE PER,IT SETBACKS: FRONT SD~BACKS 100' BULDING Iff PARKING SIDE & REAR SETI~ACt(S: 50 BUILDINO, 20'.PARKING LOCATION: ON OLD LYNCHBURO ROA~, SOUTH OF 1-64 OVERPASS IN SCOT[SVILLE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUN1Y, VIROINtA PIEOMOHT HOSPITAL, LLC P.O. BOX 3544 CHANLOTfESVILLE, VA 22905 OWNER: EXISTING CONDITIONS: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: THE SITE WAS FORMERLY USED AS A PRNATE SCHOOL BY SPECIAU USE PERMIT 8UIU)INGS: 46,450 S.F. 11,9~ ) SIDEWAL~S: 8,990 S.F, 2.3, } 2.84 AC. IMP. AREA PAVEMENT: 68,110 $.F, 17,4, ) OPEN: 6.15 Ac. 88.4~ TOTAL S~TE AREA: 8.9855 Ac. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO CREATE UP TO 49 NE~ APABTMENTS MAX,, AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE [AND USE: BUILDING HEIGHT: EMPLOYEES: =ARKING: RECREATION: TT · SIGEWAI. I~S: 8,999 S.E. 1,438 S,F, 10,437 S.F, 2,7%) I · PA~UENT: .,110 S.F. O S.F..,110 S,F. 17.4,) OPEN: 6,11 ~. 68.0~ T~ S~ ~ 8.9855 ~. 57' 244 -(~. PER BO~ - I P~ 1~ SF. GROSS AR~) RE~IRE~ (~R ZORtNG OROI~CE): 152 SPA~S COMMERC~ OFRCE 24,440 G.S.F. OFFICE SP~E 15,6~1 S,F. x I SP~2~ S.F. ~ 78 SPACES RESIDE~ 1.5 SP~ES/I~ ~, x 49 ~ - 7~ SPIES COOPE~T~ P~KINO THE O~NER ~Y V~ ~[ ~RE F~E OF OFRCC USE OR THE NUMBER OF ~[~ UN~ W~IN THE ~1~ BUlLiNG FOOTPR)~S ~ SH~N ON THE ~PU~T~N P~ HOW~R. UD~ HIN ~TH[ BUI~IN~ S~L BE IH OENE~ ~RD ~TH THE PU~T~N P~ ~D THE P~KING P~OED FOR ~H USE BE NOT L~S ~ 90~ OF ~ P~KI~ SPIES REOUIRED FOR OOM~ERCI~ ~E USE, ~O ROT ~SS ~ 9~ OF ~[ SP~E~ REQUIRED F~ APA~ USL ~ ~ES[ U~ES ~E DEFINED IN SEOT[ON 4,12 OF THE ~E~LE COU~ ZONING OR~C[ IN E~EOT ~ DECEMBER ~, 2~1, OOU~C~ 78 SPIES x 0.90 = 70 SPIES RESIDENT~ ~ 74 SPACES ~ 0,~0 ~ 67 SP~E~ OOOPE~I~ P~ING REQUIR~:137 IN~OR VIORK-O~ ~ ~A~WAY FOR PED[~R~ ~CERS TO RN~ ~SK~L COU~ 3 PICNIC TAR~S A~ [OUIPME~ - PO~LE ~L ND & ~L FRISBEES CROOUD ~ ~LS ~ ~ (~-REG) ~ F~L EOUIPME~ ~RDEMNG TOOLS DAGGET[ & GRIGG ARCHITECTS 1001 E. MAI~I<ET ST, CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA VOICE: 804/971-8848 FAX: 804/296-.3040 ~ROJECT NO.; DATE- 0138 08-20-02 DRAWING NUMBER: .EXISTIN~ '~ r~-2,5'~ S',F. '~7V17'~- FIELD .~.0' rBA~_~ .AN_D_ BUFFER RE-SEED & MULCH 50_' E~UILDIN_G SETBAQ. K_ ,--NEW GATE '"-"'--ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT CONF. ~ CONF.. STORAGE AREA ROOM ROOM TABI 1 $'PORY BLDG 1STORY BLDG ENCLOSED TRASH 2 LOADING SPACES'...~ , GAS METEt?~ (APARTMEN'PS) OF.~!ERATOR -/ 'I5' UG ELECTRIC NEW SIDEWALK- SEE SHEET C-1.2 -~ .~ ~EXISTING ~- -"-"O'¥c'- ~ ASPHALT ~"-.-,~'~- SIDEWALK SOUTHEAST LIMITED PA~TN T.M, 76 PARCEL ZONINO: · VACANT RED. DAGGETF & GRIGG ARCHITECTS 1OO1 E MARKET CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA VOICE: 804/971-8848 FAX: 804/296-3040 PROJECT NO.': DATE: 0138 08-20-02 bRAWING NUMBER: L~'ROSIiON CONTROL LEGEND COORDINATE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS W/ ARCHITECTURAL PLANS NEW MOVE REMO~E CURB &~GUTT~R- HC ~"'o SIGNS / / / / / / / EXISTING DITCH LINE ~. I I / (MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT PROFILE) 2:1 MAX. SLOPE-~ \l 1-4" PER FT I / PROVIDE SOLID WHITE STRIPE AT ~..,,,.. \ '~ / ~ . .S~OPE J ~/ EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4" VDOT' ~21AI SIDEW~K DET~L SCALE: NONE PEF // ~ENTRANCE PLAN SCALE: I" = DAGGETF & GRIGG ARC H ITECTS 1001 E, MARKET ST. CHARLOTTESVILLEi VA VOICE: 804/971-8848 FAX: 804-/296-5040 PROJECT NO,: DATE: 0138 08-20-02 DRAWING NUMBER: Shadwell Market RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: Agenda item #: Clerk's i~--- Approximate limits of subject parcel View across U.S. Route 250 from VDOT right-of way (intersection nose) to subject parcel. Approximate limits of subject parcel View into subject parcel westbound on U.S. Route 250. Shadwell Market Looking eastbound on U.S. Route 250 into subject parcel. Inserts depict elevation difference between roadway and base of subject parcel. 10 -25- A??:P533 Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # Date: PROFFER FORM October 25, 2002 ZMA#: Tax Map and Parcel Num ber(s): 2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 79-9 0.50 Acres to be rezoned from RA_ to C-1 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions .are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the property, which is that portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is south of Route 250. The stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall serve only the following uses that may be established on the portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250: Section 22.2.1(a)(6)(food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, and milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops); Section 22.2.1 (b)(16)(automobile service stations); and Section 22.2.1(b)(19) (temporary constructions uses). These three classes of uses are allowed by right under Section 22.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of AIbem ade County, Virginia (Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code), as that section is in effect on November 6, 2002. A copy of Section 22.2.1 is attached hereto. 2. The property shall not be divided, and shall not be divided from the portion of Tax Map 79 Parcel 9 that is north of Route 250. Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attorney-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed 'Name of Attorney-in-Fact l 0-25-02P03: 23 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 10-10-02P04:54 RCVD October 10, 2002 Lloyd F. Wood, Jr 724 Chapel Hill Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-2002,009 Lloyd F. Wood, Jr.: Tax Map 79, Parcel 9 Dear Mr. Wood: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 1, 2002, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following proffers as listed in the staff report: 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by right under Section 22.2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty .shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensaq/and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b)(19) (temporary construction uses) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BoS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BoS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the portion of the property south of Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 6, 2002. Please note that review of the public hearing items for the November 6th Board meeting will begin at 1:30 p.m. 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 schedu ed hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above notec~ action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Scott Clark Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Scott Clark October 1, 2002 November 6, 2002 ZMA 2002-009 Lloyd F. Wood., Jr. (Shadwell Market) Applicant's Proposal: This is a request for a conditional rezoning of 0.5 acres from Rural Areas (RA) to Commercial (Cl). The applicant has proffered the following conditions as part of the request. 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by dght under Section 22,2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b)(19) (temporary construction uses) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BoS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BoS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the portion of the property south of Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided. The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 9, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District, approximately 450 feet west of the intersection of US 250 and Milton Road (Route 732). The portion of the parcel north of US 250 was zoned C1 in 1980. The portion of the parcel south of US 250 was zoned PA. Petition: The applicant requests to rezone 0.5 acres from RA, Rural Areas to C1, Commercial to allow installation of a stormwater detention/quality facility and a septic drainfield for the commercial use located across US 250 on the same parcel (see Attachment B). The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 9, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Richmond Road [Route # 250] at the intersection of Routes 250 and 22 (Louisa Road). The ComPrehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Route 250 and RoUte 22 are designated Entrance Corridors. Character of the Area: The PA portion of the parcel is surrounded by small parcels zoned C1 and larger parcels in the Natural Resources (NR) oveday district (quarries). The southem edge of the parcel abuts the CSX Railway. The parcel lies near the intersection of VA 22 and US 250, just west of the intersection of US 250 and Milton Road. Recommendation: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the proposed zoning reclassification. Planning and Zoning History: Pdor to 1980, the property was zoned Commercial Business. In rl980, the zoning on the property was split, with the portion on the north side of US 250 zoned Commercial (C1) and' the portion on the south side of US 250 zoned Rural Areas (RA). A preliminary site plan application (SDP 2002-025) has been filed for the construction of a replacement for the existing Shadwell Market on the northern portion of the property. The replacement would be a 3200 square foot convenience store with a 3353 square foot canopy. This applicatiOn was deferred after the applicant was informed by the Zoning Adm nistrator that stormwater detention and septic field uses serving commercially-zoned development (the Market) are not permitted uses on property zoned Rural Areas. On June 11,2002, the applicant filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's determination. At their meeting on August 6, 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals voted (4:1) to uphold the determination made by the Zoning Administrator with regard to the septic system. They overruled the determination with regards to the stormwater detention facility because there appears to be a special use permit in the RA district for this use. The BZA also resolved to support the resolution of the issue through rezoning the southem portion of the property with the appropriate proffers. Specifics on the Proposal: The zoning reclassification would effectively retum the parcel to the single commercial zoning clasSification that it had before the County's comprehensive rezoning of 1980. The applicant has proffered that no commercial uses would be permitted on the southem portion. Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant requests this rezoning in order to accommodate the needs of a replacement for the existing Shadwell Market. The application also cites the history of commercial use on the property (since the 1930s), the impossibility of the former plan .of sharing the septic field on an adjoining property, and the lack of other potential uses for the southern portion of the parcel. Comprehensive Plan: The ComPrehensive Plan designates this area as Rural Area. The Open Space Plan designates US 250 in this area as an Entrance Corridor. Staff Comment: In most situations, staff would recommend denial of a requested rezoning to a commercial designation on land: identified, by the Comprehensive Plan as Rural Area. However, there are several factors that make this location unique: 1. This property is a single parcel that was formedy entirely zoned for commercial uses and has a long history of commercial use. 2. The subject portion of the parcel is too small (0.5 acres), too difficult to access, and too isolated by the surrounding intense uses to have agricultural or conservation significance. 3. The subject portion of the parcel is surrounded by intense uses, including the owner's store, another adjacent commercial lot, a fuel station, and a quarry, and is bordered by a major artedal highway and by a railroad. (See Attachment C.) The applicant has proffered that the subject portion of the parcel will be used only for septic fields and stormwater facilities, and not for commercial uses in addition to the store on the northem portion. Given these factors and the history of the parcel, staff finds that this rezoning would not constitute a significant detriment to the Rural Areas. Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoninq district: The following is the intent of the Cl Commercial district: 22.1 INTENT, WHERE PERMITTED C-1 districts are hereby .created and may hereafter be established by~ amendment to the zoning map to permit selected retail sales, service and public use establishments which are pdmadly odented to central business concentrations. Itis intended thatC-1 districts be established only within the urban area, communities and villages in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 9-9-92) The requested rezoning would permit retail sales (as proffered, only on the northem portion where sale already take place), but would not be odented to a central business concentration or be located in a designated development area. However, staff feels that this rezoning would not "establish" a C1 business area, but simply restore to the entire parcel the zoning category that reflects the long-standing use of the property. Public need and justification for the change: The rezoning would permit the redesigned, enlarged Shadwell Market to have improved septic-field and stormwater facilities. These facilities would still be required if the rezoning were not permitted, but would have to be designed to fit on the northern portion of the parcel with the store. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: The rezoning would not create increased demand for roads, public-safety services, schools, or infrastructure. Because the proposed septic and stormwater facilities will not be located on the northem portion of the parcel, they may permit that northern portion to be somewhat more intensely developed. Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources: There are no identified significant historic resources at this site. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the site plan for the store on'January 7, 2002 (prior to the submittal of the rezoning request). Design- review staff has reviewed the portion of the site plan that relates to this request (see Attachment B) and determined that 'V/ith trees retained in the right-of, way and the tree line maintained behind the drainfieid, as shown on the plan, the trees that are proposed to be removed for the drainfield are not expected to create an impact significantly different from the proposal that was reviewed by the ARB." In order to ensure that the necessary trees are preserved, staff recommends that the applicant be required to include a signed tree conservation checklist on the site plan, and include on that plan the appropriate checklist items. The conservation plan would be required as part of the administrative site-plan review process. The site has no practical value as farm or forest land, given its size, location and surroundings. The same ,factors make its conservation value minimal. Summary: This request is not directly in accord with the ComprehenSive Plan's goals for the Rural Areas or the purposes of the requested zoning district. However, given the location, scale, history, context, and uniqueness of the proposal, the requested rezoning is not expected to have a significant imPact on the Rural Areas. It would allow for the upgrade of the eXisting use, which would provide for safer access to the store site. Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of ZMA02-009 with the acceptance of the following proffers: 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by dght under Section 22.2.1(a)(6)(food and grocery-stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b){19) (temporary construction uses)of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle'County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BoS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BoS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainflelds shall be located on the portion of the property south of Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided. ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Portion of SDP 02-025 (version dated 8/17/02)Showing section of TMP 79-9 proposed for rezoning C.. Aerial photo showing sUrrounding zoning categories D. Copy of signed proffer form 4 o ZMA - 2002 - 009 ~< SHADWELL MARKET / / N x, ~0o !. entleY\wood zma.rdl 09/18/2002 10:58:29AM ZMA 02-009 Lloyd Wood SCale: 1 = 300' N ~0 /~' . ~007 S'~7~VHO ,. _z '6,/. (SEI3HIO .AB) NISVB y::II~I(]3S kEIVBOdlN3.L; ATTACHMENT D Original Proffer Amended Proffer (Amendment # Date: ZMA~: Tax Map and Parcel Number(s): PROFFER FORM September 10, 2002 2002-009, Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. 79-9 0.50 Acres to be rezqned from RA to Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that (1) the rezoning itself gives dse to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request. 1. The development of the property shall be restricted to those uses allowed by right under Section 22.2.1(a)(6) (food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops), (b)(16) (automobile service stations) and (b)(19) (temporary construction uses) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia, as that section is in effect on (date of BOS action). A copy of Section 22.2.1 in effect on (date of BOS action) is attached hereto and made a part of this proffer. 2. Only stormwater management facilities and septic drainfields shall be located on the portion of the property south of Route 250. 3. The property shall not be divided. .Signature of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date OR Signature of Attomey-in-Fact (Attach Proper Power of Attorney) Printed Name of Attorney-in-Fact ORDINANCE NO. 02-9(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by mending section 9-404, License fees--Amounts, as follows: CI~2TER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES Sec. 9404 License fees--Amounts. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically provided in this article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. The fee shall be twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and thirty dollars ($30.00) for gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of passengers. B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of twenty dollars ($20.00). C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers, there shall be an annual license fee as follows: Gross Weight Annual Fee 0 - 1,500 lbs. $ 9.50 1,501 lbs. and above $20.00 D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle. E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license fee of sixteen dollars and fifty cents ($16.50). (Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Orr[ 9949(1), 11-10- 99; Ord. 02-9(1), 11-6-02) State law reference-Va. Code § 46.2-752. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2003. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of five to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on November 6, 2002. ~l~£ff Board of County Su~p.ervi~'6~ Aye Nay Mr. Bowerman X Mr. Dorder X Mr. Martin Absent Mr. Perkins X Mr. Rooker X Ms. Thomas X COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Increase Motor Vehicle Decal Fees SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on Ordinance to Amend County Code Section 9-404 License Fees AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2002 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance STAFF CONTACT(S): / Messrs. Tucker/Davis/Breeden REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: / The adopted FY03 Budget included projected revenue from a two-dollar increase in the motor vehicle decal fees for calendar year 2003. A public hearing for an Ordinance to amend the County Code to raise the decal fee has been advertised for November 6, 2002. In order for the fee increase to be effective January 1,2003, it is necessary that the Board adopt any fee increase in November. DISCUSSION: Currently the decal fee for motor vehicles that are 4,000 pounds or less is $23. The maximum fee allowed by State law is $28.50. The proposed Ordinance increases the fee by two dollars to $25. Currently the decal fee for motor vehicles that are more than 4,000 pounds is $28. The maximum fee allowed by State law is $33.50. The proposed Ordinance increases the fee by two dollars to $30. Currently the decal fee for motorcycles is $18. The maximum fee allowed by State law is $26.50. The proposed Ordinance increases the fee by two dollars to $20. In addition, upon the recommendation of the Finance Department, the existing $3 fee for each motorcycle sidecar is proposed to be eliminated. This fee generates minimal revenue and is not cost effective to continue. Currently the decal fee for trailers and semitrailers not designed for transportation of passengers that are 1,500 pounds or less is $8 and that are more than 1,500 pounds is $18.50. The proposed Ordinance increases the fees by $1.50, the maximum alloWed by State law, to $9.50 and $20.00, respectively. Finally, currently the decal fee for well-drilling and other specialized equipment vehicles is $15.00. The proposed Ordinance increases the fee by $1.50, the maximum allowed by State law, to $16.50. RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of the public hearing, staff recommends the adoption of the attached Ordinance to amend Section 9- 404 of the County Code to increase the motor vehicle decal fees. 02.163 10-25-0270S:22 ~CV~ ORDINANCE NO. 02-9(1) Draft: October 21, 2002 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 9, MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC, ARTICLE IV, COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Motor Vehicles And Traffic, Article IV, County Vehicle Licenses, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 9-404, License fees--Amounts, as follows: CHAPTER 9. MOTOR VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC ARTICLE IV. COUNTY VEHICLE LICENSES Sec. 9-404 License fees--Amounts. A. On all motor vehicles, except as otherwise specifically prov/ded in this article, there shall be an annual license fee based on gross vehicle weight. 'The fee shall be ......... ~_~^ ~,n,~ r~.~ ~m twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for vehicles with gross vehicle weights of four thousand (4,000) pounds or less and ........~ v, ,~,~j-,,,~,,~:~* ~,~° .~w~m thirty dollars ($30.00). for gross weights in excess of four thousand (4,000) pounds. Gross maximum loaded weight shall be substituted for gross vehicle weight for motor vehicles not designed and used primarily for the transportation of passengers. B. On every motorcycle there shall be an annual license fee of ~:~u .... J~,~_ re~o ^m C. On every trailer or semitrailer not designed and used for transportation of passengers, there shall be an annual license fee as follows: Gross Weight .Annual Fee 0- 1,500 lbs. $ 0°.00 $ 9.50 1,501 lbs. and above $1o°.50 $20.00 D. In the case of a combination of a tractor-trailer or semitrailer, each vehicle constituting a part of such combination shall be licensed as a separate vehicle. E. On every motor vehicle, trailer or semitrailer upon which well-drilling machinery is attached or other "specialized mobile equipment" as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-700(B), there shall be an annual license fee offiSccn dollara ($15.00) sixteen dollars and fifW cents ($16.50). (Code 1967, § 12-93; 1-18-73; 6-7-89; Code 1988, § 12-25; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-9(1), 11-10- 99; Ord. 02-9(1), 11-6-02) State law reference--Va. Code, § 46.2-752. This ordinance shall be effective on and after January 1, 2003. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of __ to __., as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Mr. Bowennan Mr. Dorrier Mr. Martin Mr. Perkins Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Aye Nay Clerk, Board of County Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY04 Compensation/Benefit Recommendations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to forward recommended compensation and benefit levels to County Executive and Superintendent for FY03 budget development based on adopted compensation/benefit strategy. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Castner, White, Struicksma, Suyes, Brandenburger BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: November 5, 2002 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: IATTACHMENTS: ~,,~, ,~..~~ ?. In November 2000, the Board of Supervisors and the School Board approved a Total Cbmpensation Strategy that targeted employee salaries at 100% of market and benefits at 105% of market. To maintain competitiveness for Albemarle County employees, each year the Human Resources Department conducts a salary analysis using approved comparable positions and an approved market. The attached report details the results of that analysis and presents recommendations for maintaining current salary and benefit status for the next fiscal year. These recommendations are forwarded on to the County Executive and Superintendent to assist them in developing FY004 budget requests for compensation and benefits within available funding resources. DISCUSSION: The attached report presents the following information for the Board's review: Section 1 includes the market analysis data for the FY02/03 approved scale adjustments and salary increases to determine if they were in alignment with the current market data. The market analysis includes both classified employees and teachers. This section also includes the compensation recommendations for FY03/04 based on our current market position and the WorldatWork projections for the next year. Section 2 discusses other factors impacting compensation, including a recommendation to eliminate the deceleration factor in the current merit distribution formula, as well as School Board priorities on benchmarking compensation to School Division expectations and outcomes and utilizing a market average for recommended salary increases, rather the currently used market median Section 3 discusses medical insurance premiums based on FY01/FY02 claim experience and FY02/03 claims to date. Health insurance costs are anticipated to increase substantially in the current year and next fiscal year, although specific funding increases and a decision on how these projected increases will be shared by employer and employee will be deferred until December to allow additional claims data to be collected. RECOMMENDATION: This report is presented to both the Board of Supervisors and the School Board for their consideration in providing direction to the County Executive and Superintendent in their FY03/04 budget preparation. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available state and local revenue estimates. The recommendations in the attached report are: 1. No increase in the Classified Salary Scale 2. A 3.8% merit pool for Classified staff 3. A4.08% merit pool for teacher salary increases (including step) to be distributed across the scale 4. Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers 5. Eliminating the 'deceleration factor' in the classified/administrator merit formula. 6. Anticipating a 16% - 30% increase in medical plan costs next year, but deferring a cost decision until budget development in DecembedJanuary. 02.178 Albemarle County Compensation, and Medical Insurance Report -. October 2002 Backaro, und In November 2000, the School Board and Board of Supervisors approved a Total Compensation Strategy to target employee salaries at 100% of market median and benefits slightly above the market at 105%. The competitive market approved by the Boards is shown at enclosure #1 and includes 26 school divisions, 27 localities, and three other employers. To maintain competitive compensation based on the adopted strategy, two separate, but related actions are required. · First, ensure a competitive salary scale so that the County is able to attract and recruit new employees. · Second, ensure current employees are rewarded for performance by maintaining internal equity in their pay range and also maintaining market competitiveness for similar skills. To adhere to the Boards' adopted strategy, the following processes are implemented each year: 1 ) Annually survey the competitive market to determine the salary scale adjustment implemented in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year. 2) Annually survey the competitive market to determine the average total salary increase granted employees in those localities/schools for the current fiscal year. 3) The data from steps 1) and 2) is used to determine if the budget actions implemented in the current year have achieved competitive positioning. 4) The data from Ste ps 1) and 2) is analyzed to ascertain where the salary scales (both classified and teacher) for Albemarle County stand relative to the market and arrive at recommendations for next year's salary increases. 5) Obtain data on what other organizations are projecting for salary increases for the next fiscal year through a compensation database (WorldatWork. Eastern Region). This data is used to project the merit pool increase and develop the teacher scale (including step increase). Recommendations: This report details the analysis that supports the following actions to achieve the adopted strategy for FY03-04 and for the Boards to consider in giving budget guidance to the County Executive and Superintendent: These projections are presented to the Boards for their consideration in providing direction to both the County Executive and Superintendent for FY03-04 budget preparation, it is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available state and local revenue. Budget l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 8) Development P~rojections are: No increase in the Classified Salary Scale. 3.8% merit pool for Classified staff. 4,08% funding for Teacher increases (including step) to be distributed along the scale Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers. Eliminating the 'deceleration factor' in the classified / administrator merit formula. Anticipate a 16% - 30% increase in medical plan costs but defer decision until budget development in December/January. Section 1: Board Adopted Process for Compensation Strategy: Market Analysis and Projections The following information is provided to both Boards to consider in providing the County Executive and Superintendent guidance for the development of the FY03-04 budget. Step 1: FY02-03. Survey the market to determine if the scale adjustment implemented for classified/administrator and teacher pay scales achieved the strategy. Classified ~Administrator Scale Ad/ustments The Albemarle County scale adjustment of 3.0% for FY02-03 was based on data that showed our scales lagged the market by 2.5%. The market survey conducted this past summer indicates the median increase in pay scales from 51 localities/school divisions was zero. The range was 0% to 6.5%. Based on the median increase of zero, the County's classified/administrator scale is 0.5% above the market. Refer to enclosure #2. Classified Salary Scale 2 .00 1 .00 0.00 -1 .00 -2,00 -3 .oo ~4.00 -5.00 -6.00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 I~Albem arle ~Market Teacher Scale Adjustments Revised market data from July 2001 shows that our FY01-02 teacher pay scale was above the market median at steps 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 but below the market median at step 25 and maximum. Overall, our scale was considered competitive compared to the median. Refer to enclosure #3. 10,000 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 The market survey conducted this summer shows our FY02-03 teacher pay scale is above market median at steps 0, 5 and 15 but below the market median at steps 10, 20, 25, 30, and maximum. Overall, our current scale is considered to be below the market median. See enclosure #4. 60000 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Comparison of Bachelor Teacher Scale 2002-2003 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Years of Service M~X. Our teacher pay scale does not compensate for teaching service beyond 30 years. Based on market data showing the teacher scale was considerably below market at the maximum years of service, the School Board approved a longevity increase for teachers with more than 30 years. This longevity increase was approved for only FY02-03 and will be paid as a lump-sum in December. This payment is not subject to VRS. The payments are as follows: 31 years of service $200 32 years of service $400 33 years of service $600 34 years of service $800 35 years of service $1,000 35+ years of service $1,000 Step 2: FY02-03. Survey the market to determine if the average total salary increase for classified and teacher pay scales implemented achieved the strategy, Classified ~Administrator Total Salary increases The total increase for FY02-03 from the 51 localities/school divisions responding to the survey ranged from 0% - 8.0%, with a median increase of 3.0%. The WorldatWork data revised after September 11th projected a 3.3% increase. Albemarle County funded a 3.8% merit pool for FY02-03 as we lagged the market by 0.5% the previous year. The County's merit increase is at market. Refer to enclosure #5. Teacher Scale Adiustments The total increase for FY02-03 from the 26 school divisions responding to the survey ranged from 0% - 9.79%, with a median increase of 3.58% The WoddatWork data revised after September 11th projected a 3.3% increase. Albemarle County funded a 3.3% average salary increase for teachers for FY02-03. Based on the median survey data the County's teacher increase is lagging the market by 0.28%. Refer to enclosure Step 3: Projections for FYO3-04, Based on current market position and scalelsalary projections, determine the changes necessary to achieve the Board approved strategy using the WorldatWork, Eastern Region data. Refer to enclosure #7. a. Classified / Administrator Scale Ad/ustments Based on the scale adjustments of the competitive market, and the projection data from the WoddatWork survey, a scale adjustment is not proposed. b. Classified / Adminstrator ~vera.qe Sala~._!ncrease (merit2 Based on the survey data and our 3.8% merit increase, our salaries for FY02-03 are considered at market. The WoddatWork survey for the Eastern Region includes Virginia. This survey is projecting a salary increase of 3.8% in the Education/Public Administration sectors. c. Teacher Scale and Teacher Avera~e,Sala~ Increase 1. The teacher scale is based on the projected total increase obtained from WoddatWork. This survey projects a 3.8% salary increase. Any increase would include the step increase. Compared to current market, the County's median teacher salary increase is 0.28% below market. A 4.08% increase is projected to meet the market. 2. Continue longevity increases. Staff will prepare specific recommendations on the actual teacher pay scale, to include longevity increases. Recommendations: Based on the Board adopted process and compensation strategy the following budget guidelines should achieve 100% of market for salaries and scales in FY03-04. 1) No increase in the Classified Salary Scale. 2) 3~8% merit pool for Classified staff. 3) 4.08% funding for Teacher increases (including step) to be distributed along the scale 4) Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers. Section ;2: Other Factors and Recommendations impacting Compensation Classifie~ / Administrator Merit Distribution The distribution of merit increases is based on a formula implemented in 1996. At the time of implementation, the vast majodty of our classified employees were below the midpoint of their pay grade. The formula incorporated an 'acceleration factor' and a 'deceleration factor' which had two effects. First, the 'acceleration factor' gave larger merit percentages to those further below the midpoint thus moving them to the midpoint faster. Second, the 'deceleration factor' gave smaller merit percentages to those further 4 above the midpoint. These 'factors' were recommended by the consultant in 1996 to improve the distribution of employees within each pay grade. The consultant also recommended that the formula be modified once greater distribution was achieved. In the past five years, the current formula, plus market adjustments in 2001, has provided a greater distribution of employees within each pay grade as seen in the chart. The 'deceleration factor' is now having a negative impact and does not support our goal to reward and retain employees. Staff recommends modifying the formula by eliminating the 'deceleration factor'. This change will not affect the total funds distributed in the merit process but more equitably allocates these funds. ClassifiedlAdmstr Comp-ratio Distribution (Oct 2002) 200 180 160 140 120 100 8O 60 40 20 0 Comp-ratio The average Comp-ratio is 0.95. 30.2% are in the bottom quartile, 35.5% in the second quartile, 30.3% in the third quartile, and 3.8% in the top quartile. School Board Priority In addition to the steps outlined in Section I above, the School Board adopted 2002-2004 priorities, one of which is "During the 2002-2003 budget cycle, methodology used to analyze the division's salary and compensation structure relative to its defined market will be reevaluated". Staff will be working on this School Board priority over the next months. As a preliminary step to this reevaluation, the following are possible factors to consider: Position relative to the adopted market: The expectations, outcomes and performance of the Albemarle County Schools can be a factor in establishing a different strategy for school division salaries and scale relative to the adopted market. · If expectations for School Division performance are to be in the top quartile, then rewards for performance can be benchmarked against all school division's in Virginia in the top quartile. Preliminary survey data of teacher pay scales for 130 Virginia school divisions shows Albemarle is in the top quartile only at steps 0 and 5. See enclosure #8. ,, Should the compensation target be adjusted to reflect both performance expectations and accomplishments? Consider use of market average or linear estimator instead of market median: The joint committee agreed to use the median measurement. The median avoids any extremely high or Iow data points but also may not take into consideration the complete distribution of data. Using the average gives equal weight, to each data element, however, it can be distorted by any extremely high or Io~,~aJue. A measure that takes 5 into consideration the features of the median and the average is a statistic called the '~inear estimator" that usually results in a number between the average and the median. Based on market average, instead of median, the FY02-03 Teacher pay scale is less competitive as only step 0 and step 5 are above the market; the Classified/Administrator scale is 0.79% below market instead of 0~5% above market~ Different market for different positions: The adopted market of 26 other school divisions is a cross-section of localities from across Virginia but heavily represented by surrounding school divisions (11 of 26). This market may adequately represent our competition for some positions but not all. This market may not adequately represent our salary scale competitiveness for positions in a wider geographic market, such as for teachers, principals, and other management-level or professional-level positions~ Developing different markets can be considered. Section 3: Benefits ~tra~tegy; Market Anai~~i_q0~ for Medical Insurance Premiums FY0'~ ~)2 Plan Year (October through September) A presentation to the joint Boards on July 8, 2002 noted that our claims experience was higher than projected for February through June and if this trend continued the tota~ claims wou~d exceed the premiums collected. Ctaims through September continued above projections. The p~an-year ended September 30, 2002. Total costs (c~aims + administration + reinsurance) were $11,'~29,937. This exceeded revenues by $1,138,998, or 11%. Medica~ reserves were sufficient to cover the shodfall and as a result have decreased to $1,222,455~ These high c~aims are partially a result of a ~arger number of 'high cost' claims which we have not experienced in the recent past. Whether these are reflective of a 'bad year' and wil~ revert to more normal ciaims experience in 2002-2003 or continue at this higher ~evei is unknown at this time. $1,200,000 FY 02.1)3 Plan Year At the July 8, 2002 meeting the Boards approved 2002-2003 plan-year premiums. These premiums were based on a projected 16% increase in total claims using claims data through April 2002. The Board absorbed the full increase resulting in the Board contribution increasing 25% from $255/month to $320/month for a full-time employee. During this presentation, it was noted that if this trend of higher claims continued throughout the current year, our revenues will not cover the costs and our $1.2M in reserves may not cover the shortfall. The new plan-year started October Ist and claims will be monitored on a weekly basis, If this trend continues adjustments in premiums may be warranted sometime during this plan-year. See enclosure ~9. FY03-04 Plan Year Projection Information provided by Mr. Tom Mackay, our consultant with PalmerCay, indicates medical trends Continue at 16% and is proJecting this for 2003-2004. This is consistent with escalating medical costs that other employers are facing nationally. As we have just started the new plan year, staff will continue to monitor claims experience and develop recommendations for both plan design and premiums as part of the County Executive's and Superintendent's budget proposals. Summary of all proiections: These projections are presented to the BoardS for their consideration in providing direction to both the County Executive and Superintendent for FY03-04 budget preparation. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available state and local revenue. Budget Development Projections are: 1) No increase in the Classified Salary Scale. 2) 3.8% merit pool for Classified staff. 3) 4.08% funding for teacher salary increases (including step) to be distributed across the scale. 4) Continuation of a longevity increase for teachers. 5) Eliminating the 'deceleration factor' in the classified / administrator merit formula. 6) Anticipate a 16% - 30% increase in medical plan costs but defer decision until budget development in December/January. Enclosure #1 Albemarle County Adopted Competitive Market Augusta County City of Charlottesville City of Chesapeake City of Danville City of Harrisonburg City of Lynchburg City of Roanoke City of Staunton City of Virginia Beach City of Williamsburg Buckingham County Chesterfield County Fauquier County Fluvanna County Greene County Hanover County James City County Loudoun County Louisa County Madison County Montgomery County Nelson County Orange County Prince William County Roanoke County Rockingham County Spotsylvania County Albemarle County Service Authority Martha Jefferson Hospital UVA Health Systems Enclosure #2 2002-2003 Salary Survey Data (October 2002) Classified / Administrator Average Scale Increase Locality, Avfl.,, Scale Inc. {%), , Augusta County Government 0.00 Augusta County Schools 0.00 Buckingham County Government 0.00 Buckingham County Schools 0.00 Charlottesville City Government 0.00 Chesapeake City Government 0.00 Chesapeake City Schools 0.00 Chesterfield County Government 0.00 Chesterfield County Schools 0.00 Danville City Government 0.00 Danville City Schools 0.00 Hardsonburg City Government 0.00 Loudoun County Government 0.00 Lousia County Government 0.00 Lousia County Schools 0,00 Lynchburg City Government 0.00 Lynchburg City Schools 0.00 Montgomery County Schools 0.00 Nelson County Government 0.00 Orange County Government 0.00 Orange County Schools 0.00 Roanoke City Government 0.00 Roanoke City Schools 0.00 Roanoke County Government 0.00 Roanoke County Schools 0.00 Rockingham County Govemment 0.00 Staunton City Schools 0.00 UVA Hospital 0.00 Hanover City Schools 1.00 Nelson County Schools 1.10 Hanover City Government 1.40 Charlottesville City Schools 1.50 Montgomery County Government 1.50 Virginia Beach City Government 1 James City County Schools 2.00 Madison County Schools 2.00 Virginia Beach City Schools 2.00 Williamsburg City Govemment 2.00 Greene County Government 2.50 Madison County Government 2.50 Rockingham County Schools 2.50 Spotsylvania County Government 2.50 Spotsylvania County Schools 2.50 Greene County Schools , 2.61 Fluvanna County Government 3.00 Loudoun County Schools 3.30 Fluvanna County Schools 3.90 Staunton City Government 4.00 Harrlsonburg City Schools 4.56 Fauquier County Schools 5.00 Prince William County Schools 5.70 Pdnce William County Govemment 6.50 Average: 1.29 Median: 0.00 Albemarle County 3.00 Compared to median -- Variance from median 3.00 Compared to average 2.322% Variance from average 1.71 Enclosure #3 Revised Bachelor Degree Teacher's Salary Scales 2001-2002 (As of October 2002) Minimum 5 Years t0 Years t5 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 Years Maximum Augusta C. $28,125 $29,780 $31,530 $33,666 $37,172 $41,040 $44,548 $45,060 BuckinghamC. $29,000 $29,500 $30,750 $32,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 $40,000 Charlottesville $31,000 $33,061 $36,310 $39,078 $42,919 $46,190 $50,000 $50,000 Chesapeake $29,750 $31,840 $35,062 $37,364 $39,531 $44,031 $50,946 $50,946 Chesterfield C. $32,000 $33,631 $35,347 $37,820 $39,643 $44,621 $49,283 $51,253 Danville $29,500 $30,400 $32,800 $34,800 $38,250 $42,000 $46,400 $48,600 Fauquier C. $29,990 $33,931 $36,540 $39,350 $41,342 $43,761 $49,304 $52,304 Fluvanna C. $30,856 $33,511 $35,455 $42,334 $44,225 $46,117 $50,000 $50,000 Greene C. $29,260 $29,925 $31,800 $34,226 $37,496 $41,045 $45,060 $45,060 Hanover C. $32,055 $32,136 $36,360 $41,138 $47,235 $47,235 $47,235 $53,040 Harrlsonburg $30,300 $31,500 $33,700 $36,700 $39,900 $44,100 $46,500 $48,750 WmsbglJames City C. $30,000 $31,534 $35,765 $37,612 $40,612 $43,612 $43,612 $43,612 Loudon C. $32,945 $40,083 $44,914 $51,539 $60,330 $64,253 $66,309 $68,431 Louisa C. $30,383 $32,390 $33,443 $35,652 $36,811 $41,834 $49,089 $55,788 Lynchburg $30,150 $31,430 $33,270 $36,590 $39,400 $43,610 $50,000 $50,000 Madison C. $~-q,500 $29,947 $30,991 $33=436 $40,073 $42,330 $42,330 $42,330 Montgome~/C. $35,087 $38,931 $47,025 $47,025 $47,025 $47,025 $47,025 $47,025 .%'el=on C. $29,464 $30,377 $31,927 $33,556 $38,149 $43,084 $43,084 $43,084 Orange C. $28,000 $30,514 $32,082 $36,775 $41,513 $41,918 $42,323 $42,525 Prince WriJ!iam C. $32,592 $36,645 $42,352 $48,871 $56,311 $56,311 $56,311 $56,311 Roanoke City $30,629 $31,376 $33,470 $36,870 $43,679 $46,173 $48,185 $48,175 Rn_ ~qOke County $30,500 $32,500 $34,500 $36,500 $44,160 $44,160 $44,160 $44,160 Rockingham C. $29,800 $30,400 $32,160 $35,000 $37,900 $41,600 $44,500 $44,500 Spoteylvania C. $32,000 $32,761 $34,432 $38,600 $49,893 $50,392 $52,440 $53,448 Staunton $28,230 $29,873 $33,095 $36,749 $38,774 $40,966 $42,947 $42,947 Virginia Be=ch $30,835 $32,397 $37,370 $43,323 $52,454 $52,454 $52,454 $52,454 Average: $30,460 $32,322 $35,094 $38,330 $42,800 $45,379 $47,848 Median: $30,225 $31,687 $34,066 $36,823 $40,343 $43,896 $47,130 $48,675 Albemarle C. $30,855 $31,840 $34,333 $37,823 $40,406 $43,360 $47,186 $47,186 Compared to median 1.02% 1.01% 1.01% 1.03% 1.00% 0.99% 1.00% 0.97% Variance from median $630 $153 $267 $1,001 $64 -$536 $56 -$1,489 Compared to average 1.01% 0.99% 0.98% 0.99°/0 0.94% 0.96% 0.99% 0.97% Variance from average $395 -$482 -$761 -$507 -$2,394 -$2,019 -$662 -$1,653 Enclosure #4 Bachelor Degree Teacher's Salary Scales 2002-2003 (As of October 2002) Locality Minimum 5 Years 10 Years 15 Years 20 Years 25 Years 30 years Maximum Auo,_~_~a County Schools 28,850 30,397 32,026 33,743 37,255 · 41,133 45,023 45,973 Buckingham County Schools 29,435 30,196 31,465 32,988 40,600 40,600 40,600 40,600 Charlottesville City Schools 31,620 33,722 37,036 39,860 43,777 47,114 52,000 53,000 Chesapeake City Schools 31,500 33,728 37,886 40,5i2 44,251 47,418 52,295 56,588 Che_~f_erfield County Schools 32,500 34,297 36,047 37,885 40,019 44,621 49,733 52,791 Danville City Schools 30,000 30,625 32,975 34,525 37,925 41,675 46,125 49,225 Fauquier County Schools 30,500 34,511 39,049 44,183 44,183 44,183 44,183 44,183 Fluvanna County Schools 31,998, 34,751 36,767 43,900 45,861 47,823 49,784 49,784 Greene County Schools 30,869 32,019 33,708 35,273 38,569 41,985 46,862 46,862 Hanover City Schools 32,322 33,047 36,100 39,328 42,054 46,371 50,994 53,316 Har~isonburg City Schools 31,800 33,400 35,700 . 39,000 42,400 46,600 49,000 51,250 Wmsburg!James City County Sch 30,000 33,098 36,606 39,478 42,478 45,478 I 45,478 45,478 L_nudoun County Schools 34,398 39,312 47,461 55,988 65,538 69,799 69,799 69,799 Lousia County Schools 31,000 32,390 [ 35,652 36,811 38,007 41,834 50,684 55,788 Lynchburg City Schools 30,750 31,800 33,600 36,900 39,600 43,710 51,000 51,000 Madison County Schools 30,385 30,845 31,735 33,770 40,073 43,600 43,600 43,600 Montgomery County Schools 28,775 29,375 31,475 33,975 37,375 41,375 45,775 45,775 Nelson County Schools 30,221 31,137 32,725 34,394 37,053 44,161 44,161 44,161 Orange County Schools 29,800 30,960 32,700 36,100 41,900 42,200 42,600 43,325 Prince William County Schools 34,423 40,149 46,723 54,270 62,934 62,934 62,934 62,934 Roanoke City Schools 31,057 31,815 33,938 37,386 44,290 46,008 48,048 48,848 R_ne__qoke County Schools 30,500 32,903 34,953 37,003 44,895 49,895 I 54,895 64,895 Rockingham County Schools 31,000 31,400 32,900 35,800 39,300 42,200 45,500 45,500 Spotsylvania County Schools 33,000 33,744 35,465 39,758 51,390 51,904 54,013 55,093 $~-~ton City Schools 28,870 30,458 33,095 36,749 39,043 41,045 43,685 43,685 Virginia Beach City Schools 32,500 34,155 38,255 41,175 43,682 52,374 55,563 57,230 Average: $31,080 $32,855 $35,617 $38.875 $43,248 $46,463 $49,397 $50,795 Median: $30,935 $32,646 $35,209 $37,194 $41,977 $44,402 $48,524 $49,505 Albemarle County Schools $31,500 $33,195 $35,120 $38,055 $41,105 $44.045 $47.640 $48.640 Compared to median 1.02% 1.02% 1.00% 1.02% 0.98% 0.99% 0.98% 0.98% Variance from median $566 $549 -$89 $861 -$872 -$357 -$864 -$865 Compared to average 1.01% 1.01% 0.99% 0.98% 0.95% 0.95% 0.96% 0.96% Variance from average $420 $340 -$497 -$820 -$2,143 -$2,418 -$1,757 -$2,155 Enclosure #5 2002-2003 Salary Survey Data (October 2002) Classified I Administrator Average Salary Increase Localit ~,vq. Salary Inc. Buckingham County Government 0.00 Chesapeake City Govemment 0.00 Chesapeake City Schools 0.00 Danville City Govemment 0.00 Loudoun County Government 0.00 Montgomery County Schools 0.00 Roanoke City Schools 1.40 Buckingham County Schools 1.50 Danville ,City Schools 2.00 Harrisonburg City Government 2.00 Lynchburg City Government 2.00 Lynchburg City Schools 2.00 Orange County Schools 2.00 UVA Hospital 2.00 Orange County Government 2.35 Charlottesville City Government 2.50 Nelson County Government 2.50 Roanoke County Government 2.50 Roanoke County Schools 2.50 Staunton City Schools 2.50 Augusta County Schools 2.61 Augusta County Government 3.00 Chesterfield County Government 3.00 Chesterfield County Schools 3.00 Lousia County Government 3.00 Roanoke City Govemment 3.00 Rockincjham County Government 3.00 Lousia County Schools 3.25 Charlottesville City Schools 3.50 Hanover City Government 3.50 Hanover City Schools 3.50 Montgomery County Government 3.50 Nelson County Schools 3.50 Vir~linia Beach City Government 3.50 James City County Schools 4.00 Madison County Schools 4.00 Spotsylvania County Schools 4.00 Virginia Beach City SchOols 4.00 Williamsburg City Government 4.00 Spots¥1vania County Government 4.50 , Rockin~lham County Schools 4.56 Greene County Govemment 5.00 Greene County Schools 5.00 Madison County Government 5.00 Fluvanna County Government 5.16 Loudoun County Schools 5.30 Fluvanna County Schools 5.70 Staunton City Government 6.00 Harrisonburg City Schools 6.50 Fauquier County Schools 6.70 Prince William County Schools 7.10 Prince William County Government 8.00 Average: 3.25 Median: 3.00 Albemarle County 3.80 Compared to median 1.267% Variance from median 0.80 Compared to average 1.168% Variance from average 0.55 Enclosure #7 5 Eastern National Albemarle [] 2002 Actual [] 2003 Proj. Enclosure #8 Bachelor Degree Teacher's Salary Scales 2002-2003 (As of October 2002) (Source: Preliminary VEA data for 130 School Divisions) IMinimuml 5 Years I 10Years I 15Years I 20Years I 25Years I 30 Years IMaximum Average: $29,922 $31,729 $34,290 $37,073 $40,714 $43,962 $46,472 $47,767 Median: $30,000 $31,251 $33,372 $36,207 $39,328 $42,643 $45,775 $46,516 Albemarle County Schools $31,500 $33,195 $35,120 $38,055 $41,105 $44,045 $47,640 $48,640 Compared to median 1.05% 1.06% 1.05% 1.05% 1.05% 1.03% 1.04% 1.05% Variance to median $1,500 $1,944 $1,748 $1,848 $1,777 $1,402 $1,865 $2,125 Compared to average 1.05% 1.05% 1.02% 1.03% 1.01% 1.00% 1.03% 1.02% Variance from average $1,578 $1,466 $830 $982 $391 $83 $1,168 $873 I Top Quartile Is At Position 33 Of 130 School Divisions Albemarle Rat~k"'~'g 2002-2003 27th 32nd 40th 36th 44th 52nd 44th 51st I I Albem~?~i:nk~i~g 1998-1999 58th 40th 27th 25th 34th 48th 46th 48th Enclosure ~9 2001-2002 Plan-Year Health Insurance Fund and Cost Projections Oct. 2001 Medical Reserve Fund Balance Revenue: Premiums and Bd. Contributions Other (interest, rebates, etc) Expenditur, Claims and Fixed Costs Transfer and Bank Acct. Medical Reserve Fund Balance $9,855,039 $159,900 $11,129,937 $24,000 $10,014,939 $11,153,937 $2,36t,453 $1,222,455 2002-2003 Plan-Year Proiection #1 (Based on 18 months of claims history; average $782,782/month) Board Contribution is $320/month Oct. 2002 Projected Projected Medical Reserve Fund Balance Revenue: Premiums and Bd. Contributions Other (interest, rebates, etc) Expenditur, Claims and Fixed Costs Transfer and Bank Acct. Medical Reserve Fund Balance $11,993,758 $60,O00 $12,802,393 $27,500 $12,053,758 $12,829,893 $1,222,455 $446,320 Projection #2 (Based on 6 months of claims histOry; average $908,124/month) 2002-2003 Play-Year Board Contribution is $320/month Oct. 2002 Medical Reserve Fund Balance Projected Revenue: Premiums and Bd. Contributions Other (interest, rebates, etc) Projected Expenditur, Claims and Fixed Costs Transfer and Bank Acct. Medical Reserve Fund Balance $11,993,758 $6o,ooo $13,629,260 $27,500 $12,053,758 $13,656,760 $1,222,455 ($380,547 To keep reserves @ $500,00 would require an increase (for each employee): In montlhy revenue if started in Dec. 02 of: $40 In montlhy revenue if started in Jan. 03 of: $45 RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING Date: Agenda item #: Clerk's Initials:_ Albemarle County Joint Board Compensation and Benefits Strategy (Budget Guidance) 11/6/02 November 2002 Joint Board Adopted Compensation and Benefits Strategy Overall Goal - Support mission, goals and interests - Attract and retain high-performing employees - Motivate employees - Reward innovation and performance - Maintain internal equity and external competitiveness - Support teamwork - Promote ease and flexibility 11/6/02 Joint Board Adopted. Compensation and Benefits Strategy Competitive Market (30 Organizations) - Counties and Schools of similar size within the State of Virginia - Counties and Schools in the same geographic region of Virginia Local private employers Base Salary At market levels (i.e., 100th percentile) Internal Equity Benefits - Slightly above market levels (i.e., '105~ percentile) School Board Goal During the 2003-2004 budget cycle, reevaluate the methodology used to analyze the division's salary and compensation structure relative to the market. 11/6/02 Compensation and Benefits Strategy July 2002-Steps Taken To Achieve Strategy CLASSIFIED · Adjusted scale by 3.0% (Data showed Albemarle lagged market by 2.5%)-only impacted new hires and employees below minimum · Merit pool increase amount 3.8% TEACHERS · , Adjusted scale and built in projected 3.3% average increase Compensation Strategy Processes Joint Boards adopted to maintain strategy: · Annually survey market ~, Based on market data, determine if current scales/salary increases lead, lag, or meet market ~, Obtain salary increase projections from non-profit compensation association (Worldatwork) · Project scale and salary increases to meet Board Strategy I l I6/02 Why we need to stay competitive Ability to Attract, Retain, and Motivate Externally competitive Internally equitable Flexible Simple to administer and communicate Compatible with performance-based pay Competitive Review Closing The Gap Classified Salary Scale [] Albemarle · Market 1 I/6/02 Competitive Review CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES' INCREASE Market Salary Survey - July 2002 · Where we started - scale 2.5% below; salaries 0.5% below · What they did (median) - 0.0 scale; 3.0% salary · What we did - 3.0% scale; 3.8% salary(merit) · Where are we now- scale 0.5% above; salary at market Competitive Review CLASSlFIED EMPL 0 YEES' SA LA R Y INCREA SE Of 51 I'ocalities/schools responding to survey: · Twenty were below 3% · Nineteen were between 3.0% and 4.5% · Eleven were between 4.6% and 8.0% Albemarle County's was 3.8% 11/6/02 Competitive Review TEACHERS' INCREASE Market Salary Survey - July 2002 · Where we started - At market · What they did - 3.58% salary · What we did - 3.3% salary (includes step) · Where are we now - --Above market median only at steps 0, 5, and 15 + Below market median at 10, 20, 25, 30 and maximum Competitive Review TEACHER'S SCALE (Bachelor Degree) Market Salary Survey - July 2002 60000 50000 4OO0O 30000 20000 10000 0 Market Survey - Median 5 10 15 20 25 Years of Experience 30 Max. Albemarle · Market 11 ~6~02 JointBoard' s Process for Establishing Salary Increase WorldatWork (American Compensation Association) Geographic Region: Eastern Scope Measure: Educational Services/Public Administration Projected Total Salary Increase: 3.8% WorldatWork Salary Increase Projections 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Eastem National [] 2002 Actual · 2003 R'oj. Albemarle 11/6/02 Benefits Strategy Target slightly above market levels (i.e., 105th percentile)' Medical Insurance benefit design and premiums is the benchmark Premiums Medical Insurance Premiums for FY 03~04 ,, FY 01/02 -Claims exceeded revenue by 11% Albemarle County Medical Plan Claims History $1.200 000 $1.000.000 ~ .~. s~°0-°°°I 11/6/02 Premiums (Cont.) Medical Insurance Premiums for FY 03~04 ,~ FY 02~03 - , Premiums based on national trend, an increase of 16% is projected Claims may exceed revenue; monitor claims weekly ,, Mid-year premium adjustment may be necessary FY 03104 - Anticipate a 16% to 30% increase: defer decision until later in budget development process FY 03/04 Planning, Projections Project 3.8% Merit-Pool .......... Project Teachers Salary Increase of 4.08% (to include step increase) No classified salary scale adjustment Plan on 16% - 30% increase in medical insurance plan; monitor claims; defer until later in budget development cycle 11/6/02 Other Factors I.m. pacting Compensation - Merit Formula 1996 adopted current formula Includes an 'acceleration' and deceleration' factor In t996 vast majority of employees below midpoint (middle) of paygrade In 2002 distribution is more widely disbursed ,, Midpoint comp-ratio = 1.0 * Average comp-ratio = 0.95 Other Factors l~pacting Cgmpensat~dn - ~lVlent Formula ClassifiedlAdmstr Comp-ratio Distribution (Oct 2002) 20O 180 160 140 120 100 B0 60 40 20 0 Comp.ratio 10 11/6/02 Other Factors I.m. pacting C_o_mpensat~on - Merit Formula Recommend eliminating the 'deceleration factor' for FY 03-04 merit increase calculation · , No change in total dollars available · Still 'accelerates' people in the bottom-half of the range toward midpoint · Redistributes total dollars School Board Priority Reevaluate the methodology Possible factors to consider: ....... · Competitive Position Relative to Market · Compare to market average or other measure · Different markets for different positions 11 11/6/02 Reevaluate the methodology Competitive Position Relative to Market Compensation reflects Division performance, expectations and accomplishments Top quartile of all divisions in Virginia? ~, Target something more than 100% of market? How does our teacher scale compare to 130 other School Divisions in Virginia: .. Top quartile at steps 0 and 5 · Second' quartile at al other steps Reevaluate the methodology Consider using market average or other measure Based on market average teacher scale is at or above market only at steps 0 and 5 instead of at or above market at steps 0, 5, and 15 using median Based on market average, classified scale is 0.79% below market instead of 0.5% above market using the median ]2 I 1/6/02 Reevaluate the methodology Different markets for different positions -- 11 of 26 school divisions from surrounding area result in a heavy local focus Pay grades for some positions many not be competitive in hiring staff with a state or national market (teachers, administrators, senior management, etc) Summary FY 03/04 budget projections based on 'adopted methodology: ,. 3.8~/~.~ri_t.. po0!fO¥;-c!assif'ted i . .i- ....:.;'; -. · No Classified scale increase · 4.08% average teacher increase · Defer on medical contributions Other considerations: · Eliminate 'deceleration factor' · School Division reevaluation of methodology 13 Public Participation Meetings for the Rural Area Comprehensive Plan Sponsored by Albemarle County County residents are cordially invited to attend one of the public meetings listed below to learn more about our rural areas and to share their thoughts about what is important about rural Albemarle County. Why These Public Meetings are being Held: The meetings are planned to help attendees learn about and get involved _in the County's Comprehensive Plan Review process, to discuss, trends in development and population that impact the rural area, and to receive feedback from citizens about what elements are critical to our rural areas. What Happens Next: Information generated by the meetings will be included in a report to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to be presented in February, 2003, and will be used in the drafting of the Rural Area Chapter of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Meeting Schedule: (all meetings will be held from 7:00- 9:00 pm) 'November 13, 2002 Wednesday Broadus Wood Elementary 185 Buck Mountain Road Om November 20, 2002 Wednesday Red Hill Elementary 3901Red Hill School Road in North Garden December 4, 2002 Wednesday Stony Point Elementary 3893 Stony Point Road J December 11, 2002 Wednesd ay Scottsville Elementary 7868 Scottsville Road For more information please contact Joan McDowell in the Department of Planning and Community Development, (434)296-5823, or visit the Rural Area link on the CoUnty website at www.albemarle.org Page 1 of 1 Ella Carey From: tjpdc [tjpdc@tjpdc.org] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:40 PM To: bccampbell@tjpdc.org Subject: Un JAM Round 2 Come help us unjam our roads! The UnJAM Round 2 workshop will be Wednesday, November 20, 2002 7:00pm- 9:00pm Senior Center (comer of Greenbrier and Hillsdale) It's time for us to make some tough choices - and we need your help. The Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) are the organizations where City, County, and State policy-makers determine which major transportation projects to plan over the next 25 years. These decisions will be formalized in the United Jefferson Area Mobility Plan - or the Ur~JAM 2025 Plan - which will be used to determine the most important transportation projects in our region. As you may recall, UnJam Round ! workshops were held in the spring. We now invite you to our UnJAM Round 2 workshop to take a fresh look at some of the draft concepts and help identify what is important to you, your families, neighbors, and businesses. Please join us for the UnJAM Round 2 workshop as we review, discuss, and prioritize concepts and transportation projects. Open house will begin at 7:00 pm and the-workshop will start at 7:15 pm. This workshop is focused mainly on the urban/suburban Charlottesville area with workshops in the rural areas planned for late winter. Additional information in the form of a downloadable flier can be found at www. tjpdc.org/trans/unjatrdunjam_flyer.html More detailed information can be found at www.tjpdc.org/tran~q/unjam/unjamr2pr.pdf. Contact TJPDC office at (434) 979-7310 or tjpdc(~_,tjpdc.org