HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-1-14
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JAN UAR Y 14, 2009
6:00 P.M.
LANE AU DITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEAR INGS:
7. PROJECT: SP20080027. Field School (Signs #26,27&29). PROPOSED: Request to continue a Middle
Sc hool for boy s, with a request to increase maximum enrollment from 48 students to 70 students max.
located in the ex isting community building at Claudius Croz et Park and approv ed with SP 200600043.
ZON ING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA R ural Areas : agricultural, forestal, and fis hery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: 18.10.2.2.5 Priv ate Schools. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Designated CT 1 Development Area Preserve for Parks and Greenways in the
C rozet Master Plan. ENTRANCE COR RIDOR : N o. LOCATION : 22 acre parc el at C laudius Crozet Park,
north side of Park St, 1500 Feet east of High Street. TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 56A20172 and 72A.
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: White Hall.
8. PROJECT: SP20080049. Pine R idge Church of the Brethren (Signs #81&91). PROPOSED : Bring
existing churc h into conformanc e w ith the zoning ordinance and allow an expansion for a general purpose
room. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses ;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct
c emetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open spac e, and natural, his toric and sc enic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in
development lots ). ENTRAN CE C ORR IDOR: No. LOCATION: 5990 Buffalo R iver Road (R t 604) at the
intersection of Vintage Road; approx 525 feet northeast of Roach Ridge (R t 817). TAX MAP/PARCEL:
01900000004500. MAGISTER IAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
9. PROJECT: SP2008059. Luxor C ommercial Veterinary Office (Sign #9). PROPOSED : Ex tension of
time allowed to establish Special Use Permit (previously approved as SP 2007017/SP 2005002). ZONIN G
C ATEGORY/GEN ERAL USAGE: PD MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial largescale
c ommercial uses ; and residential by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: Section 25A.2.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hos pitals w ithin PD MC zoning.
C OMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAN D U SE/DENSITY: Urban D ens ity Residential residential (6.0134
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions , s chools, commercial, office and service uses
in Pantops (Neighborhood 3) of the Development Area. ENTRAN CE CORRID OR: Yes. LOC ATION: The
1.377 acre property is located on the north s ide of Rt 250 (Richmond Road) and east of Rolkin Road,
betw een Montes sori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D .
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: Riv anna.
10. Discussion: Res olution to request enabling legislation for the City of Charlottesville and C ounty of
Albemarle to fund transit and transportation projects.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn.
CON SENT AGEND A
FOR APPR OVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: February 13, February 20, November 5 and November 25, 2008.
6.2 Brownsville Elementary School Addition and Renovation Reappropriation.
6.3 ZTA2008003. Administrative Waivers (deferred from January 7, 2009).
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Brownsville Elementary Addition & R enovation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Brownsville Elementary Special Change Order
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Letteri, and Breeden
LEGAL REVIEW : Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 14, 2008
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION :
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Due to the recent growth in the Crozet area and the anticipated increase in student enrollment, the need for an addition to Brownsville
Elementary School was identified and addressed in a study authorized by the school system. In April, 2006, the Board appropriated
$10.2 million for design and construction of the project, and in late summer of 2007, VMDO Architects, P.C. was hired to complete
design and contract documents. The architectural program for the 31,950 square foot addition consists of 12 classrooms, 2 resource
rooms, 1 faculty work room, an expanded cafeteria, a gymnasium and renovation of the main office. The project was bid and a contract
was signed with NIELSEN BUILDERS, INC. in the late spring of 2008 for $6,705,805.00 (approximately $1.5 million below budget) and
work began in JUN '08. Construction is anticipated to be completed in AUG '09.
Based upon the low bid amount, this year’s school debt financing – which included the Brownsville project, among others – was reduced
by the $1.5 million to reflect project savings.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
Subsequent to the start of construction at Brownsville, school staff and administration identified additional project needs as follows:
Improvement Description Estimated Cost
Classroom Configuration Add'l cost to reconfigure grade levels keeping early elementary students together $200,000
Front Entrance Add'l supervision window(s) at reception; airlock vestibule; landscaping & entrance canopy $50,000
Corridors Upgrade signage/graphics, display system, lighting enhancements, paint $100,000
Front Lobby Bathrooms Renovate/expand 1960's toilet rooms at front lobby to provide ADA access & better serve
assemblies in the auditorium $100,000
Classroom Renovations
Renovate 1960's classrooms in West & Central Wings including additional cubbies; new
cubbies replacing metal lockers; abate asbestos; replacing chalk/tack boards; replacing
original base cabinets, sinks & counters; add'l. electrical outlets; overhead projectors &
associated classroom technology; paint
$350,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $800,000
The Schools acknowledge that the additional w ork needed above would normally be requested through the normal CIP process and should
be included in the original scope for this type project in the future; however, the schools believe – and the Office of Facilities D evelopment
agrees – that given the circumstances, this work might be more efficiently accomplished by issuance of a change order to our current
Brownsville construction contract, utilizing savings realized from previously completed Cale and Monticello High School projects. (During
fiscal year 2007, the Office of Facilities Development completed the Cale and Monticello School Renovation projects at an aggregate
savings of $1,035,490. These projects have been closed out and the funds returned to the capital improvements fund balance.) While
staff supports savings from other projects being used in this circumstance, we believe savings should typically be applied to future
approved projects in the CIP.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no operating budget impact. This action will require an appropriation of $800,000 to the Brownsville capital project from the capital
improvements fund balance. During the recently completed capital improvements budget process, it was anticipated that these funds
would be needed and the use of these funds is already reflected in the preliminary reserve balances.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends a special additional appropriation of $800,000 to the Brownsville Elementary School project from school project savings
to accomplish the additional renovations to reconfigure classroom spaces to more suitably match student age levels, as described above
(School Board approved this request on January 8, 2009).
Ret urn to cons ent agenda
Ret urn to regular agenda
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Larry W. Davis, County Attorney
DATE: January 8, 2009
RE: ZTA200800003 Administrative Waivers
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
At the January 7, 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Board held the required public hearing for this zoning text amendment and deferred
action until January 14, 2009 for action on its Consent Agenda.
The Board directed that the proposed ordinance be modified in two respects. Section 2.5(c) was changed to require members of the Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Commission to request in writing a Planning Commission review of a waiver request. Subsections (b) and (c) of
Section 32.2 were changed to clarify that the “site plan waiver” is not a waiver of a site plan but rather the waiver of certain details of the site plan that
otherwise would be required by the Zoning Ordinance. The changed language of the modified sections is highlighted in the attached ordinance.
Staff recommends that the Board approve ZTA200800003 Administrative Waivers by adopting the attached ordinance dated 01/07/09.
View draft ordinance
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 01/07/09
1
ORDINANCE NO. 09-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV,
Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.2.5 Modification or waiver
Sec. 4.7 Regulations governing open space
Sec. 4.7.1 Open space, intent
Sec. 4.7.2 Uses permitted in open space
Sec. 4.7.3 Open space, design requirements
Sec. 4.7.4 Ownership of open space
Sec. 21.7 Minimum yard requirements
Sec. 21.7.1 Untitled
Sec. 21.7.2 Untitled
Sec. 21.7.3 Untitled
Sec. 26.10 Minimum yard requirements
Sec. 26.10.1 Untitled
Sec. 26.10.2 Untitled
Sec. 26.10.3 Untitled
Sec. 32.2 When required
Sec. 32.2.1 Untitled
Sec. 32.2.2 Untitled
By Adding:
Sec. 2.5 Procedure for administrative waivers
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 2.5 Procedure for administrative waivers
Applications for administrative waivers submitted pursuant to sections 4.2.5, 21.7, 26.10 and 32.2 shall be
processed as follows:
a. Application. A developer or subdivider requesting a waiver shall file a written request with the
department of community development stating the reason for the waiver and explaining why the request
satisfies one or more of the applicable standards and findings in sections 4.2.5, 21.7, 26.10 or 32.2.
b. Notice to board, commission and abutting owners. When an application for an administrative waiver is
submitted, the agent shall send notice by first class mail, electronic mail (“e-mail”) or by personal de-
livery to each member of the board of supervisors, the commission and to the owner of each lot abutting
the lot for which the waiver is sought. The notice shall describe the proposed waiver, the name, address,
email address and telephone number of the agent, the location where any documents submitted with the
waiver request may be viewed, and the date by which the agent will act on the request. The notice also
shall advise each recipient of the right to request review of the waiver request by the commission and
Draft: 01/07/09
2
the date by which the review must be requested. The notice shall be mailed, sent or hand delivered at
least five (5) days prior to the date by which the agent will act on the waiver request. Notice that is
mailed to the owner of each lot abutting the lot for which the waiver is sought shall be mailed to the last
known address of the owner. Mailing the notice to the address shown on the current real estate tax
assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. If a lot abutting
the lot for which the waiver is sought is owned by the same owner, the notice shall be given to the
owner of the next abutting property not owned by that owner. The failure of any person to receive the
notice required by this subsection shall not affect the validity of a waiver, if granted.
c. Request for commission review. An abutting owner or a member of the board of supervisors or the
commission may request commission review of a waiver. Any request shall be in writing, shall state the
reasons that commission review is requested, and shall be received by the agent by the date stated in the
notice. A written request may be submitted either by regular mail, by email, or by hand delivery.
d. Procedure if commission review requested. If review of a waiver by the commission is timely
requested, the commission shall review and act on the waiver request within thirty (30) days of the date
of the request for review. In its review and action on the waiver, the commission shall apply the
applicable standards and findings in sections 4.2.5, 21.7, 26.10 or 32.2. In granting a waiver, the
commission may impose such conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or
welfare.
e. Appeals. The denial of a waiver, or the approval of a waiver with conditions objectionable to the
developer or subdivider, may be appealed from the agent or the commission to the commission or the
board, as the case may be, as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code,
or the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the waiver pertains. A waiver
considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be
subject to review by the board of supervisors. In considering a waiver on appeal, the commission or the
board may grant or deny the waiver based upon the applicable standards and findings in sections 4.2.5,
21.7, 26.10 or 32.2, amend any condition imposed by the agent or the commission, and impose any
conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
f. Waivers include modifications. For the purposes of this section 2.5, the term “waiver” or any form
thereof, includes the term “modification” as used in this chapter.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.2.5 Modification or waiver
Any requirement of section 4.2 may be modified or waived in an individual case, as provided herein:
a. A developer requesting such modification or waiver shall file a written request in accordance with
section 32.3.10.4 of this chapter and shall in such request address each concern set forth in section
4.2. No such modification or waiver shall be granted until the commission shall have considered
the recommendation of the agent. The agent in formulating such recommendation may consult with
the county engineer, Virginia Department of Health, water resources manager and other appropriate
officials. The county engineer shall evaluate the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water
pollution in accord with current provisions of the Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage
Manual, the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and Virginia
State Water Control Board best management practices, and where applicable, Chapter 17, Water
Protection, of the Code. (Amended 11-15-89)
b. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon
finding that: (Amended 11-15-89)
Draft: 01/07/09
3
1. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11-15-89)
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent proper ties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11-15-
89)
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11-15-89)
c. In granting such modification or waiver, the commission may impose such conditions as it deems
necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that such development will be
consistent with the intent of section 4.2.
d. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver of any requirement of section 4.2
only as follows:
1. The denial of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification or waiver with
conditions objectionable to the developer may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an
appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as
provided in section 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains. A
modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a
special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors.
2. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or waiver
based upon the findings set forth in subsection (B), amend any condition imposed by the
commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in
subsection (c).
Any requirement of section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 may be modified or waived as provided herein:
a. Modification or waiver by the commission. The commission may modify or waive any requirement that
is not subject to an administrative waiver as provided in subsection (b), as follows:
1. Request. A developer or subdivider requesting a modification or waiver shall file a written
request in accordance with section 32.3.10(d) of this chapter and identify and state how the
request would satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3). If the
request pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing slopes of twenty-
five (25) percent or greater (hereinafter, “critical slopes”), the request also shall state the reason
for the modification or waiver, explaining how the modification or waiver, if granted, would
address the 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 resources, and, in the event
of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as the
“public health, safety, and welfare factors”) that might otherwise result from the disturbance of
critical slopes.
2. Consideration of recommendation; determination by county engineer. In reviewing a
request for a modification or waiver, the commission shall consider the recommendation of the
agent as to whether any of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3) can be made by the
commission. If the request pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing
Draft: 01/07/09
4
critical slopes, the commission shall consider the determination by the county engineer as to
whether the developer or subdivider will address each of the public health, safety and welfare
factors so that the disturbance of the critical slopes will not pose a threat to the public drinking
water supplies and flood plain areas, and that soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and
septic disposal issues will be mitigated to the satisfaction of the county engineer. The county
engineer shall evaluate the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution that
might result from the disturbance of slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater in accordance
with the current provisions of the Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, the
Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook and Virginia State Water
Control Board best management practices, and where applicable, Chapter 17, Water Protection,
of the Code.
3. Findings. The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification
or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering
practices; and at least one of the following:
a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of
this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and
purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting
the disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the
use of the property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent
properties; or
d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import
than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or
waived.
4. Conditions. In granting a modification or waiver, the commission may impose conditions
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that the
development will be consistent with the intent and purposes of section 4.2.
5. Appeal. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver as follows:
a. The denial by the commission of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a
modification or waiver by the commission with conditions objectionable to the
developer or subdivider, may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of a
denial of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as
provided in section 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the modification or waiver pertains.
A modification or waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an
application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of
supervisors.
b. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification
or waiver based upon the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3), amend any
condition imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary
for the reasons set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(4).
Draft: 01/07/09
5
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent
may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not within the Rural Areas (RA),
Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR) zoning districts in the following
circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a
site plan approved by the county; or (ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing
structure located on the critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to
replace the existing structure with a new structure whose footprint does not exceed the footprint of the
existing structure. The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and
a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property
identified for protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical
slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an
erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a
plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural
and man-made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space
element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and
subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through
design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best
management practices.
(12-10-80, § 4.2.5; 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01)
Sec. 4.7 Regulations governing oOpen space
Sec. 4.7.1 Open space, intent
Open space provisions are intended to encourage development approaches reflective of the guidelines of the
comprehensive plan by permitting flexibility in design. More specifically, open space is intended to serve such
varied comprehensive plan objectives as:
-Provision of active/passive recreation;
-Protection of areas sensitive to development;
-Buffering between dissimilar uses; and
-Preservation of agricultural activity.
To this end, in any rezoning, subdivision plat, or site development plan proposing inclusion of open
space areas, the commission shall consider the appropriateness of such areas for the intended usage in
terms of such factors as location, size, shape and topographic characteristics.
Sec. 4.7.2 Uses permitted in open space
Unless otherwise permitted by the commission in a particular case, open space shall be maintained in a
natural state and shall not be developed with any man-made feature. Where deemed appropriate by the
Draft: 01/07/09
6
commission, open space may be used for one or more of the following uses subject to the regulations of
the zoning district in which the development is located:
-Agriculture, forestry and fisheries including appropriate structures;
-Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and the like;
-Noncommercial recreational structures and uses;
-Public utilities;
-Wells and septic systems for emergency use only (reference 4.1.7) (Amended 6-3-81)
-Stormwater detention and flood control devices.
Sec. 4.7.3 Open space, design requirements (Amended 11-15-89)
4.7.3.1 In addition to provision of section 4.7.1 and section 4.7.2, in reviewing development proposing
incorporation of open space, the commission may require inclusion in such open space of:
(Amended 11-15-89)
-Areas deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development such as but not limited to: land in the
one hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales; land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent
or greater; major publictutility easements; stormwater detention and flood control devices; and lands
having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (Amended 11-15-89)
-Areas to satisfy provisions of section 4.16 Recreation Regulations; (Added 11-15-89)
-Areas to provide reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within such development and between
such development and adjoining properties. (Added 11-15-89)
4.7.3.2 The commission may require redesign of such proposed development to accommodate open space areas
as may be required under this provision; provided that, in no case, shall such redesign result in reduction
of the total number of proposed dwelling units otherwise realizable under this ordinance for
conventional development. (Added 11-15-89)
4.7.3.3 In such case where open space is required by provisions of this ordinance ordinance, not more
that eighty (80) percent of such minimum required open space shall consist of the following:
(Added 11-15-89)
a. Land located within the one hundred year flood plain; and (Added 11-15-89)
b. Land subject to occasional, common or frequent flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water
Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of
Albemarle County, Virginia, August, 1985; and (Added 11-15-89)
c. Land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater; and
(Added 11-15-89)
d. Land devoted to stormwater or flood control devices except where such feature is incorporated into
a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the commission to constitute a desirable
open space amenity. (Added 11-15-89)
Sec. 4.7.4 Ownership of open space
Draft: 01/07/09
7
Open space in private ownership shall be protected by legal arrangements sufficient to ensure its
maintenance and preservation for purposes for which it is intended. Such arrangements shall be subject
to commission approval as a part of the site development plan and/or subdivision plat approval process.
Open space may be dedicated to public use subject to approval and acceptance by separate resolution of
the board of supervisors. Open space so dedicated shall be counted as a part of the minimum required
open space.
Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows:
a. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive to
development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The
commission and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance
of open space in their review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the
site plan agent (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “agent”) shall apply the following principles
when reviewing open space provided on a subdivision plat or site plan.
b. Uses permitted. Open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed
with any improvements, provided that the agent may authorize the open space to be used and improved
for the following purposes: (i) agriculture, forestry and fisheries, including appropriate structures; (ii)
game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and similar uses; (iii) noncommercial recreational uses and
structures; (iv) public utilities; (v) individual wells and treatment works with subsurface drainfields
(reference section 4.1.7); and (vi) stormwater management facilities and flood control devices.
c. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows:
1. Lands that may be required. The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas deemed
inappropriate for or prohibited to development including, but not limited to, land in the one-
hundred year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty-five (25)
percent or greater, public utility easements for transmission lines, stormwater management
facilities and flood control devices, and lands having permanent or seasonally high water tables;
(ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16, and (iii) areas to provide reasonable buffering between
dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and adjoining properties.
2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed development to
accommodate open space areas as may be required under this section 4.7, provided that the
redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning
district.
3. Limitation on certain elements. If open space is required by this chapter, not more than eighty
(80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i) land located
within the one-hundred year flood plain; (ii) land subject to occasional, common or frequent
flooding as defined in Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August,
1985; (iii) land in slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater; and (iv) land devoted to
stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the facility or feature
is incorporated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to
constitute a desirable open space amenity.
d. Ownership of open space. Open space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use. Open space in
private ownership shall be subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation of the
open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the
Draft: 01/07/09
8
subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the
manner provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required
open space.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 21.7 Minimum yard requirements
The minimum yard requirements in the commercial districts are as follows:
21.7.1a. Adjacent to public streets:. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be erected closer than
thirty (30) feet to any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located
closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of- way. (Amended 7-10-85; 7-8-92)
(12-10-80, § 21.7.1; 7-10-85, 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
21.7.2b. Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts:. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off-street parking or
loading space shall be located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
(Amended 7-10-85; 7-8-92)
21.7.3c. Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts:. No construction activity, including
grading or the clearing of vegetation, shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural
areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92)
1. Waiver by the commission. Except, tThe commission may waive this requirement the
prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a
particular case where it has been the developer or subdivider demonstrateds that grading or
clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a.(i) Mminimum
screening requirements are met; and b. (ii) Eexisting landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7-10-85)
2. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the
agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in
the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i) adequate landscape screening does not
currently exist and the installation of screening which meets or exceeds the requirements of this
chapter would result in disturbance to the buffer; (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies
that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard; (iii) the county
engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing
drainage problem; or (iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the
use of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case,
the developer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without
disturbance of the buffer and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance
of the buffer.
Sec. 26.10 Minimum yard requirements
The minimum yard requirements in the industrial districts are as follows:
26.10.1a.Adjacent to public streets:. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be erected closer than
fifty (50) feet to any public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading space shall be located
closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way. (Amended 7-10-85; 7-8-92)
Draft: 01/07/09
9
26.10.2b.Adjacent to residential or rural areas districts:. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be
located closer than fifty (50) feet to any rural areas or residential or rural areas district and no off-street
parking space shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to any rural areas or residential or rural areas district.
For In the heavy industry (HI) district, no portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located
closer than one hundred (100) feet to any rural areas or residential or rural areas district and no off-street
parking shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to any rural areas or residential or rural areas district.
(Amended 7- 10-85; 7-8-92)
26.10.3c.Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts:. No construction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas
district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9-9-92)
1. Waiver by the commission. Except, tThe commission may waive this requirement the
prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a
particular case where it has been the developer or subdivider demonstrateds that grading or
clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a.(i) Mminimum
screening requirements are met; and b. (ii) Eexisting landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7-10-85)
2. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the
agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in
the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i) adequate landscape screening does not
currently exist and the installation of screening which meets or exceeds ordinance requirements
would result in disturbance to the buffer; (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that
trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard; (iii) the county engineer
determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing drainage
problem; or (iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use of a
berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case, the
developer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without
disturbance of the buffer and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance
of the buffer.
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.2 When site plan is required; waiver of drawing of site plan
A site plan meeting the requirements of section 32 and all other applicable regulations shall be required as
follows:
32.2.1a. When required. A site plan shall be required for any construction, use, change in use or other
development in all zoning districts; provided that no site plan shall be required for the following:
a1. The construction or location of any single-family detached dwelling which is located upon on a
lot whereon are located or proposed to be located an aggregate of on which not more than two
(2) or fewer dwellings are located or proposed to be located.
b2. The construction or location of a two-family dwelling on any lot not occupied by any other
dwellings.
c3. Any accessory structure that is accessory to a single-family detached or two-family dwelling.
d4. Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided in section 5.0.
Draft: 01/07/09
10
e5. Any change in or expansion of a use provided that: (1i) such the change or expansion does not
occasion require additional parking under the requirements section 4.12 of this chapter; (2ii) no
additional ingress/egress or alteration of existing ingress/egress is recommended required by the
Virginia Department of Transportation based on the intensification of the use; and (3iii) no
additional ingress/egress or the alteration of existing ingress/egress is proposed by the
developer. (32.2.1, 1980)
32.2.2b. Waiver of certain details of site plan by the commission. The foregoing notwithstanding, aAfter
providing notice in accordance with as provided by section 32.4.2.5, the commission may waive the
drawing of a site plan certain details of a site plan otherwise required by sections 32.5 and 32.6 in a
particular case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan details waived would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; provided that no such waiver shall be
made until the commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may
recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of such the waiver. In the case of conditional
approval If the agent recommends approval of the waiver with conditions, the agent in his
recommendation he shall state the relationship of the recommended condition to the provisions of this
section. No condition shall be imposed which could not be imposed through the application of the
regulations of section 32.0. The waiver shall identify the details otherwise required by sections 32.5 and
32.6 that are waived. (32.2.2, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
c. Waiver of certain details of site plan by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in
section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive certain details of a site plan otherwise required by
sections 32.5 and 32.6 if: (i) the site review committee finds that all of the details required by
sections 32.5 and 32.6 are not necessary for its review of the proposed development; and (ii) the zoning
administrator, in consultation with the county engineer and the manager of zoning enforcement, finds
that the details waived are not necessary to determine that the site is developed in compliance with this
chapter and all other applicable regulations. The waiver shall identify the details otherwise required by
sections 32.5 and 32.6 that are waived.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutzky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
September 19, 2008
Todd Barnett, Head of School
P O Box 4234
Charlottesv ille, VA 22905
RE: SP200800027 Field School A mendment
TAX MA P/PA RCEL: 56A20172 and 72A
Dear Mr. Barnett:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 9, 2008, rec ommended approval of the
abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors, by a vote 5:0.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be s eventy (70) students;
2. Hours of operation for the sc hool shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ;
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan (Attachment
C ). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an amendment to this Special Use
Permit (SP2008027);
4. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain open and
available for public use during the hours of s chool operation;
5. The athletic fields at the park shall not be av ailable for the s chool’s use after 4:00 p.m. on w eekdays and
s hall not be available on weekends;
6. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
R ecreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is authorized
by the Department of Parks and R ecreation;
7. Special Use Permit 2008027 s hall be valid until June 30, 2014; and
8. Shuttle bus s erv ice for students to and from sc hool shall be provided each s chool day
View s taff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on N ovember 5, 2008.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Ragsdale
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2008027 Field School Staff: Rebecc a R agsdale
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 9, 2008
B oard of Supervisors Public H earing:
To Be Determined
Owners: C laudius Crozet Park, Inc.
(Robert A. Maupin, President)
A pplicant: Todd Barnett, H ead of School
Field School
Acreage: 22.396 Special Use Permit: Private School
18.10.2.2.5 of the zoning ordinance applies
to this proposal.
TMP: 56A20172 and 72A
Location: Claudius C rozet Park in Crozet, north
side of Park Street
Existing Zoning and Byright use:
R A Rural A reas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential dens ity (0.5 unit/ac re);
public uses and parks
Magisterial District: White Hall C onditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): Crozet R equested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Applic ant requests an amendment to
SP 06043 to extend special use permit approval
for a private middle sc hool for boys of up to 70
students.
C omprehensive Plan Designation:
Open Space and C rozet Transect (CT) 1
D evelopment Area Preserve
Character of Property: The parcels s ubject to the
special use permit are part of Crozet Park.
U se of Surrounding Properties: The building in
w hich the school is located is surrounded by
recreational uses and parking. The nearest homes
are located at the end of H illtop Street and on
Indigo Road, adjacent to the park to the north.
Factor Favorable:
1. The private s chool w ill prov ide
expanded educational
opportunities to the community,
located near residential areas.
Factor Unfavorable:
1. No unfavorable factors have
been identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions noted
on page 6 of this staff report.
STAFF PERSON : REBECCA R A GSDALE
PLAN N IN G COMMISSION: September 9, 2008
B OAR D OF SUPER VISORS: To B e Determined
SP 2008027 FIELD SCH OOL AMENDMENT
Petition:
PROJEC T: SP 200800027 Field School
PROPOSED : R eques t to continue a Middle School for boys, w ith a request to increas e maximum
enrollment from 48 students to 70 students max. located in the existing community building at Claudius
Crozet Park and approv ed with SP 200600043
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery us es;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 18.10.2.2.5 Private Schools
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND USE/DEN SITY: Des ignated CT 1 D evelopment Area Preserve for
Parks and Greenways in the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : N o
LOCATION: 22 acre parcel at Claudius C rozet Park, north side of Park St, 1500 Feet east of High Street
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 56A20172 and 72A
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: White Hall
C haracter of the Area:
The park site is 22 acres and includes a community building, swimming pool, one acre lake,
baseball and Tball fields, soccer field, basketball courts, 2 large picnic pavilions, 2 new
playgrounds and space for special activities such as the C rozet Arts and Crafts festival. The park
community building is currently available for rental for private functions but there are no
recreational programs planned for the building at this time.
Surrounding the park site to the north and w est are the Parkside Village and Hilltop/Myrtle
neighborhoods. There are also some residences south of the park site, across Park Road. There
is undeveloped property surrounding the eastern corner of the park site. Properties surrounding
the park are zoned R 2, R 4, and R6 residential districts. Please refer to the attached location maps
for more information. (Attachment AAerial, Attachment BZoning)
Specifics of Proposal:
The Field School of Charlottesville is requesting a special use permit amendment for a private
school, to allow a middle school for boys to continue using the community building at Claudius
C rozet Park. The school is using the existing onestory 80’x60’ C ommunity Building in the Park as
their temporary location for the first 35 years of the school’s startup. The school will be seeking
a more permanent facility as needed, based on growth of the school. (Attachment C Concept
Plan and Detail)
H istory:
The private school use w as originally approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 2, 2007 w ith the
conditions. (SP 2006043) Minutes of the Planning Commission’s review and discussion of the original
special use permit request are provided as Attachment D. Minutes of the Board of Supervisors public
hearing are provided as Attachment E. When the previous application was submitted, the applicant also
requested approval for 70 students. Impacts of the proposed special use permit w ere analyzed based on
that maximum enrollment, w ith staff recommending a maximum of 70 students to the Commission.
H owever, the Commission recommended approval of the SP w ith a maximum enrollment of 48 students.
This allow ed temporary approval of two years, w hich would then allow the C ommission to assess the
impacts of the school use at the park, should a special use permit extension be requested. The Board
approved the SP with the following conditions:
1. Maximum enrollment shall be fortyeight (48) students;
2. Hours of operation for the sc hool shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ;
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan (Attachment C
c opy on file in Clerk’s office). Any additional building or site changes for the s chool use will require an
amendment to this Special Us e Permit (SP2006043);
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning c learance for the private school us e, water line dedications to the satisfaction
of the Albemarle County Servic e Authority are required;
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain open and
available for public use during the hours of s chool operation;
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be av ailable for the s chool’s use after 4:00 p.m. on w eekdays and
s hall not be available on weekends;
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
R ecreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is authorized
by the Department of Parks and R ecreation;
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the C rozet Park covenants and restrictions allow the use;
9. Special Use Permit 2006043 s hall be valid until June 30, 2009; and
10. Shuttle bus servic e for students to and from school shall be prov ided each sc hool day.
The applicant is seeking to modify conditions #1 and #9 with this special use amendment request. In
addition to seeking a maximum enrollment increase to 70 students, the applicant is seeking to remove
condition #9 and anticipates that the Field School would be at the park location for no more than five
years. C onditions # 4 and #8 have been satisfied.
The Field School has provided the following description of their use of the site in the SP amendment
application:
Site History & Park Operation:
The park was zoned R2 R esidential but rezoned to RA R ural Areas during the comprehensive
rezoning in 1980. The site has been in use as a park for more than 50 years and the community
building is possibly historic. SDP 99093, the most recent site plan, w as approved for additional
ball fields and to allow overflow parking.
C laudius Crozet Park, Inc. owns and operates the park in cooperation w ith the Albemarle County
D epartment of Parks and Recreation. The Crozet Park board determines use of the community
building and not the County Parks and Recreation department. H owever, C ounty Parks and Rec.
has a member on the Park’s Board. The County has an agreement w ith the park, by which it is
made available for public recreation and the C ounty maintains the park grounds. Parks and Rec.
has made comments relative to the special use permit and has indicated they have no issues with
the applicants requested amendments to the special use permit. Parks and Rec. does not believe
that the proposed use will have a negative impact on the public recreational use of the park,
provided that the conditions of usage stipulated by Parks and R ec. are followed. These have been
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this special use permit.
C onformity with the C omprehensive Plan:
C rozet Master Plan
The Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map (inset below ) does not designate the majority of the park with a
land use color because it is existing open space. A portion of the park, in the northwest corner, is
designated as CT2 D evelopment Area Preserve. This CMP land use designation was applied to all
schools and parks in Crozet. Both the C T 1 and CT 2 land use recommendations are described together
in Table 1and Table 2 of the CMP. These areas are intended to be predominately parks and preserved
open space, with agricultural and civic uses such as schools, usually defining the edge of the C rozet
D evelopment Area or neighborhood edges. Limited residential uses are intended in theses areas at a
density no greater than 1 unit/20 acres.
The Green Infrastructure Map (inset below) designates C rozet Park as an existing park and proposes
greenway connections to the park. Establishing greenw ay trails (for pedestrians and bikes) from
Lickinghole Creek Basin to Crozet Park and dow ntown is a priority in the master plan. The Field School is
open to partnering w ith the greenways program to further trails shown on the Green Infrastructure map.
The school has completed projects in the park to make it more walkable, including a stairway dow n to the
soccer field, and hopes to continue similar projects during this school year.
Place Type & Built Infrastructure Map Green Infrastructure Map
Neighborhood Model
The N eighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the D evelopment
Areas. This special use permit request is for a private school use within an existing building and no site
development changes are proposed. As such, staff has not undertaken an analysis of its relationship to the
12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model, but notes that the park does serve as a neighborhood center, so
locating a school w ithin the park w ould be consistent with the principle of Neighborhood Centers.
Staff Comment:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special U se Permits provided for 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,
Staff does not anticipate any substantial detrimental impacts of the increased enrollment to
adjacent property. The school w ill continue to utilize existing facilities that can be shared by
several users, and the applicant has addressed potential traffic and parking impacts with the use
of a bus. The proposed school will be limited in size to 70 students and compared to other uses of
the park, will be fairly low intensive.
D uring discussion of the original special use permit request, there were concerns raised about the
compatibility of this use w ith the park and its activities. Specifically, the C ommission w as
concerned that the Field School would compete for use of the athletic fields or cause an increase
in the maintenance budget for the park grounds. The school has been in operation for one school
year at the park and no issues or concerns have been raised by Parks and R ec. The school use
appears to be complimentary to the park. Conditions of approval #5#7 are meant ensure that
public and athletic programs receive priority use of the park. Given the Commission’s previous
concerns and desire to only approve the school as a temporary use at the park, C ondition #9 has
been modified to allow 5 additional years of approval to 2014, beyond the original 2 year approval
period. (R efer to recommended conditions of approval on Page 6)
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
There will be no site development changes and new buildings on the property. The proposed
private school w ill continue to make use of the community building, which has always been
available for use during the daytime hours that the Field School proposes to use the building.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose of the R ural Areas Zoning District is the preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and
activities; w ater supply protection; limited service delivery to the rural areas; and conservation of natural,
scenic, and historic resources. H owever, in this case, the R ural Areas Zoning is located central to a
D evelopment Area and the intent is to preserve the property for primarily park uses. Since the school w ill
be using an existing building and park uses will be unchanged, the use is not in conflict w ith Rural Areas
Zoning.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Park and public uses are permitted by right in the Rural Areas zoning district and the continued school use
should not conflict w ith any other byright R A zoning uses. As mentioned, the park is further limited in
terms of land uses allowed by the restrictive covenant agreement with the C ounty.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in section 5.0 that address private schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general w elfare of the community are protected through the special
use permit process w hich assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the location
requested. The Building Official has verified acceptability of the structure for school use and the
Fire Marshall offered no objection to the proposed increased enrollment in this building. The
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has indicated that the site is served by water and
sew er
Access to Crozet Park is provided by Park R oad (R te. 1204), which ranges from 20.5 to 21 feet
w ide and has a maximum capacity of 1750 vehicle trips per day. Total trips on Park R oad w est of
C laudius Crozet Park were 1900 ADT based on July 2006 VD OT traffic counts. Given the limited
size of the school use requested and that a bus is used to reduce car trips, there are no significant
concerns w ith additional traffic impacts. The school operates during offpeak hours of park use
and is a very low traffic generator compared to the more intensive uses already taking place by
right in the park. The applicant has estimated that approximately ¾ of the total enrollment of 70
students will ride the bus to the school. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
indicated that site distance is adequate at the entrance into the park, but has also noted that, w ith
future development that may occur in that area of C rozet, Park Road (Rt. 1204) w ill need to be
further addressed.
SUMMAR Y:
Staff has identified the follow ing factors favorable to this application:
1. The private school w ill provide expanded educational opportunities to the community,
located near residential areas.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application:
1. No unfavorable factors have been identified.
R EC OMMEN DED A CTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special U se
Permit 2008027 Field School, with the following conditions (noting changes from original
conditions of approval with SP 2006043):
1. Maximum enrollment shall be fortyeight (48) seventy (70) students;
2. Hours of operation for the sc hool shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ;
3. The school is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan (Attachment
C ). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an amendment to this Special Use
Permit (SP2008027);
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning c learance for the private school us e, water line dedications to the satisfaction
of the Albemarle County Servic e Authority are required;
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, with the exception of the Community Building, will remain open and
available for public use during the hours of s chool operation;
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be av ailable for the s chool’s use after 4:00 p.m. on w eekdays and
s hall not be available on weekends;
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
R ecreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is authorized
by the Department of Parks and R ecreation;
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the C rozet Park covenants and restrictions allow the use;
9. Special Use Permit 2006043 2008027 shall be valid until June 30, 2009 2014; and
10. Shuttle bus servic e for students to and from school shall be prov ided each sc hool day
A TTA CHMENTS
A . Aerial Map
B . Zoning Map
C . Concept Plan
D . Planning Commission Minutes, April 3, 2007 meeting, SP 2006043 Field School Public
Hearing
E. Board of Supervisors Minutes, May 2, 2007 meeting, SP 2006043 Field School Public
Hearing
F. Virginia D epartment of Transportation C omments, letter from Joel D enunzio, PE to Bill
Fritz, dated July 23, 2008
Return to PC actions letter
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 9, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday,
September 9, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Jon Cannon, Vic e Chairman; Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield and Calvin
Morris, C hairman. Abs ent w ere Marcia J oseph and Eric Strucko. J ulia Monteith, AIC P, nonvoting representative
for the University of Virginia was abs ent.
Other officials pres ent w ere R ebecca R agsdale, Senior Planner; David Benis h, Chief of Planning; Megan Yaniglos,
Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Wayne C ilimberg, Director of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
R egular Items:
SP200800027 Field School
PROPOSED : The request is to c ontinue a Middle Sc hool for boys, w ith a request to increase maximum enrollment
from 48 students to 70 students max . located in the existing community building at C laudius C rozet Park and
approved w ith SP 200600043
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R A Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses ; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: 18.10.2.2.5 Private Schools
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: D esignated CT 1 Development Area Preserve for Parks and
Greenways in the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : N o
LOCATION: 22 acre parcel at Claudius C rozet Park, north side of Park St, 1500 Feet east of High Street
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 56A20172 and 72A
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: White Hall
(Rebecc a R agsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale made a pow erpoint presentation and explained the propos al. (See staff report)
The s chool uses a shuttle bus that cuts down on some of the car trips that would come into the park . The
school is using the existing community building and has the potential to use s ome of the fields at the park .
There is a preference for public uses in terms of priority if there is an athletic program that needs to use the
park.
The applicant requested 70 students w hen the Field School reques t was previously reviewed. There w as
some discussion and concerns expressed at the C ommission meeting about the impacts of the use in the
park and compatibility of this type of use with the exis ting athletic programs and public use of the park. The
request was approved temporarily for only 48 students by the C ommission. It was review ed the first time
around and this time by staff and all of the review ers for a max imum of 70 students. The school operation
seems to be going w ell and staff has not heard any public concerns in the review of this request. No
concerns have been expressed by the reviewers.
The County Parks and Rec Department has commented on the use. The park is owned by the Claudius
Crozet Park Board and c ommunity. The county has an arrangement w ith them to provide maintenance of the
fields. There hav e been some c ounty monies that have gone to the park and a Parks and R ec person does
serve on the Park Board. There are no issues brought up by Parks and Rec about the use. There are
conditions of approval recommended regarding park use of the fields to make sure that there are no conflicts.
Based on the findings c ontained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special U se Permit
2008027 Field School, with the following conditions as listed in the staff report (noting changes from
original c onditions of approval w ith SP 2006043):
1. Maximum enrollment shall be fortyeight (48) seventy (70) students;
2. Hours of operation for the sc hool shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ;
3. The school is limited to exis ting buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan (Attachment
C ). Any additional building or site changes for the school use will require an amendment to this Special U se
Permit (SP2008027);
4. Prior to issuance of a Zoning clearance for the private school use, water line dedications to the satisfaction
of the Albemarle County Servic e Authority are required;
5. The playgrounds and the park grounds, w ith the exception of the Community Building, will remain open and
available for public use during the hours of s chool operation;
6. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the sc hool’s use after 4:00 p.m. on week day s and
s hall not be available on weekends;
7. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
R ecreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is authoriz ed
by the Department of Parks and R ecreation;
8. The school use may begin and continue only if the C rozet Park covenants and restrictions allow the use;
9. Special Use Permit 2006043 2008027 shall be valid until June 30, 2009 2014; and
10. Shuttle bus servic e for students to and from school shall be prov ided each sc hool day
Two of the previous c onditions (4 and 8) have been met. The covenants have been amended so that the school use
can be allow ed in the park.
Mr. Loach asked if the s chool’s proposal has the support of the Park Board, and Ms. Ragsdale replied yes.
Mr. Loach asked if the school still averaged about onehalf of the students on the shuttle bus, and Ms. Ragsdale
replied y es that is what the applicant has indicated.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Planning Commission.
Dr. Todd Burnett, Head of the School and founder, pres ented a powerpoint presentation to show the improvements
the sc hool has made to the park. He noted that Field School is a middle school for boys, w hich s tarted last year
with grades 5 and 6. This year the school has grades 5, 6 and 7 and w ill add 8th grade next year. The s chool had
23 boys last year. This year the school will have 30 boys. The idea is for the school to grow to 65 to 70 students .
The school has followed the rules set out last year and has been a benefit to the park. They renovated the building,
picked up trash and planted trees and grass. The school’s pres ence has deterred some of the v andalism that
historically has been a problem for the property. The park remains open to other groups in the ev enings and
weekends for such events as park meetings, birthday parties and weddings . The use of the building has increas ed
this pas t y ear according to Brian Campbell.
Dr. Burnett continued noting that the school has various dropoff and pickup points. Twothirds of the children ride
the shuttle. There really is not that much traffic generated. There are three cars and two buses that sit on site during
the day . Therefore, the traffic seems to be a nonissue. They hav e lived up to the county’s expectations in the past
year and have surpassed the hopes of the Park Board. The park is a better place for everyone who uses it. They
have prov ided an alternative all boy s’ school and hav e not spent any tax money in educating the children in their
independent school. Most of the students are county residents. They have provided 100 percent of the
demons trated financial aid need. They have a student body w ith both ethnic and socially ec onomic diversity.
However, they do need to grow. Their goal is to remain at C rozet Park for another four years before moving on to
their own facility . He hoped to bring a proposal for their own facility to the Commission soon. H e asked for
approval from the Commission to allow a maximum of 70 students in the school.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. He asked what the increase in the traffic would be with the increas ed
enrollment.
Mr. Burnett replied that about twothirds of the families will use the shuttle to get to the school. Currently they have
three sets of brothers. Therefore, if they are making two trips per day that is 44 trips plus they have 6 faculty
members, w hich totals about 50 c ar trips per day. With the high gas prices he felt that number would go down
because many parents are eager to find ways to c ar pool. H e realized that it adds traffic on the road when the
students are not riding county or city school buses, but the traffic in the park seems to be a nonissue during the
school day.
Mr. Morris invited public c omment.
Robbie Maupin, President of the C laudius Crozet Park Board, spoke in support of the school. He agreed w ith
everything Mr. Burnett has said and that the s chool has been a great addition to the park. The improvements made
by the sc hool to the building have been very beneficial to the park . It is great having somebody in the park year
round to help with security in the park. The school’s present has deterred vandalis m to the park. R egarding the
traffic concerns, there is very little traffic in the park during the offseason w hile the school is open. During the
summer when the pool is open the school was closed. Therefore, that was not an issue. Therefore, the Claudius
Crozet Park Board supports the school.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris c losed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning
Commis sion.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Ms. Porterfield s econded to recommend approval of SP200800027, Field School
with the conditions recommended by s taff.
1. Maximum enrollment shall be s eventy (70) students;
2. Hours of operation for the sc hool shall be from 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday ;
3. The s chool is limited to existing buildings and park grounds as indicated on the concept plan (Attachment
C ). Any additional building or site changes for the s chool use will require an amendment to this Special U se
Permit (SP2008027);
4. The playgrounds and the park grounds, w ith the exception of the Community Building, will remain open and
available for public use during the hours of s chool operation;
5. The athletic fields at the park shall not be available for the school’s use after 4:00 p.m. on week days and
s hall not be available on weekends;
6. The athletic fields shall not be available for school use when closed by the Department of Parks and
R ecreation for inclement weather, overuse, fields restoration, or when any other scheduled use is authoriz ed
by the Department of Parks and R ecreation;
7. Special Use Permit 2008027 s hall be valid until June 30, 2014; and
8. Shuttle bus s erv ice for students to and from sc hool shall be provided each s chool day
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0.
Mr. Morris said that SP2008027, Field School will go before the Board of Superv isors at a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
December 19, 2008
Stephen Shifflett
10167 D yke Road
Stanards ville, Va 22973
RE: SP200800049 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
Tax Map 19, Parcel 45
Dear Mr. Shifflett:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 9, 2008, by a vote of 6:0, recommended
approval of the abovenoted petition to the Board of Supervisors with the 5 conditions recommended by staff at the
meeting with the understanding that the 5th condition w ill be further modified before the Board of Supervisors’
meeting to reflect sugges tions by the County Attorney.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be developed in general
acc ord with the conceptual plan provided by the applicant and rec eived September 12, 2008;
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of an 88seat sanctuary ;
3. There shall be no day care center or private sc hool on site without approval of a separate special use permit.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light aw ay from all abutting properties. A lighting
plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be subject to approval by
the Planning D irec tor.
5. No grading, dis turbance or tree removal s hall take place within the drip lines of the trees unless a "Tree
Protection Plan" in accord w ith section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance is submitted to the county for review
and approval prior to any disturbance.
View Exec Summary
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on January 14, 2009.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 200849 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Construc tion of an 18’ x 24’ addition on the rear
of the c hurch to serve as a multipurpos e area
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Cilimberg, Brennan
LEGAL R EVIEW: No
AGENDA DA TE:
January 14, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: YES
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Planning Comm ission held a public hearing for this project on December 9, 2008. At t hat meeting the
Planning Commission direct ed st aff t o draft a condit ion of approval establishing a tree preservat ion provision
since t he proposed addit ion does not require a site plan.
DISCU SSION :
Planning and Zoning st aff , wit h t he assist ance of t he County At torney’s of f ice, have creat ed a condition
est ablishing a tree prot ection provision that requires t he dripline of the exist ing t rees t o be surveyed in order t o
tie the condit ion of approval t o existing condit ions on t he sit e.
RECOMMENDA TION :
With t he addition of condition five t o address the Comm ission’s request , staf f and t he Planning Com mission
recom m end approval of SP 200849 Pine Ridge Church of t he Brethren wit h t he f ollowing conditions:
1. The church’s im provem ent s and the scale and locat ion of t he improvement s shall be developed in
general accord wit h t he concept ual plan provided by t he applicant and received Sept ember 12, 2008;
2. The area of assembly shall be lim ited t o a m axim um of an 88seat sanct uary;
3. There shall be no day care cent er or privat e school on site wit hout approval of a separat e special use
perm it.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded t o ref lect light away from all abut t ing properties. A
lighting plan lim iting light levels at all propert y lines to no great er t han 0.5 f oot candles shall be
subject to approval by t he Planning Direct or.
5. No t ree removal, grading, or dist urbance shall t ake place wit hin t he driplines of t he trees. The
applicant shall have t he dripline of t he t rees surveyed and shall m ark t he dripline in t he f ield wit h
t em porary fencing. Any grading or disturbance wit hin 10 feet of any dripline shall necessit at e
subm it tal of a "Tree Prot ect ion Plan" in accord wit h section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
No grading or disturbance wit hin 10 f eet of any dripline shall be permit t ed unt il a) t he survey and
f encing have been com plet ed and b) t he Planning Director approves a plan which shows t he grading
or dist urbance and the surveyed dripline of the exist ing trees.
Go to s taf f report and attac hments
Ret urn t o PC act ions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200849 Pine Ridge Church of
the Brethren Addition
Staff: Eryn Brennan
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Dec ember 9, 2008
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
January 14, 2009
Owner: General Miss ion Board of the Brethren c/o
Charles Herring
Applicant: Stanley H eatwole, Pine Ridge Church
of the Brethren
Acreage: 1.5 acres Special Use Permit: Section 10.2.2 (35)
Church building and adjunc t c emetery
TMP: Tax Map 19 Parcel 45
Location: The parcel is located at 5990 Buffalo
River R oad, off Buc k Mountain Road (Route 663),
north of Earlysville.
Existing Zoning and Byright use: Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestral, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of D welling U nits: N /A
Proposal: To construct a 18’ x 24’ (432 square
foot) addition on the rear of the church to serve as
a multipurpose area
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestral, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic
resources/dens ity (0.5 unit/ac re)
Character of Property: Pine Ridge Church of the
Brethren is a cross shaped building located on the
top of a rise and includes a cemetery to the
northw est.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The
surrounding context is compris ed of mixed
hardwood fores t and single family homes. A large
forested parcel located to the south/east is under
conservation easement.
Factors Favorable:
1. No impacts on adjacent property resulting
from the proposed addition.
2. The addition to the church supports the
continuing us e of an historic building,
encouraging its long term protection.
3. The addition will help sustain the
continuing presence if a vibrant
community church, enhanc ing the quality
of life of its rural congregation.
4. The addition will minimally impact the
existing character of the c hurch building
and will not be visible from the road.
5. This application will bring the church into
conformanc e w ith the zoning ordinance.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to
this application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special U se Permit, w ith conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 9, 2008
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: January 14, 2009
SP200849 Pine Ridge C hurch of the Brethren A ddition
Petition:
PRO JECT: SP200849 Pine Ridge Churc h of the Bre thre n Addition
PRO POSED : To construc t a 18’ x 24’ (432 squa re foot) addition on the re a r of the churc h to serve a s
cla ssroom spac e a nd a dining area
ZO NIN G CA TEGORY/GENERAL USE: RA Rura l A re a s: a gric ultura l, fore stral, and fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre)
SECTIO N: 10.2.2.35 Churc h building a nd adjunc t ce me tery
COMPREHENSIVE PLA N LA N D U SE/D ENSITY: Rural Are as – pre serve a nd protec t a gric ultural,
fore stra l, ope n spa ce , a nd na tural, historic a nd sce nic resourc es/de nsity (0.5 unit/a c re )
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: Yes___ N o_x__
LO CA TION: 5990 Buffa lo River Roa d, off Buc k Mounta in Roa d (Route 663), north of Ea rlysville
TA X MAP/PARCEL: Tax Ma p 19, Pa rc el 45
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: White ha ll
C harac te r of the A re a:
The surrounding c onte xt is c omprise d of hea vily fore sted ridge line s including a prima rily de c iduous
ma trix a nd a few e ve rgre e n stands. Re side nce s and a gric ultura l fields c re a te a fe w ope n patc he s in wha t
w ould othe rwise be c ontiguous forest. Lying to the northe ast of the churc h is the N orth Fork Riva nna
River, and a dja c ent to the southe a st portion of the pa rc e l is a la rge tra ct of la nd unde r c onse rvation
ea se ment. The c hurc h is loca ted approxima te ly 400 fee t from w he re V inta ge Road forks off of Buffalo
River Roa d (Route 604), a fter a 90 de gree curve in the road. Approxima tely 35 fe e t behind the c hurc h is
a c eme tery. A 180 foot gra ve l drive stretc he s from Buffalo Rive r Roa d to the church, whic h is loc a te d in
the c entra l portion of the lot equidista nt from the north a nd south prope rty line s.
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren ha s re que ste d a n 18’ x 24’ a ddition to the ma in c hurc h building to
serve a s a multipurpose a re a. The church is a crosssha pe d pla n, a nd the propose d re cta ngula r a ddition
w ould c onnec t the north a nd e a st w ings on the building. The proposed addition would not inc lude
additional sea ting in the sanc tua ry; the re fore , no a dditiona l parking w ould be require d.
Planning and Zoning:
Pine Ridge Church of the Brethre n is lega lly nonconforming; this spe c ia l use permit re que st is the first
pla nning a nd z oning a pplica tion for this prope rty sinc e the adoption of the Zoning Ordina nc e a nd w ill
bring it into c onformanc e with the Zoning Ordina nc e.
C onformity w ith the C ompr ehensive Plan:
The Compre hensive Plan designa tes the subje ct prope rtie s a s Rura l Are as e mpha sizing the pre serva tion
and prote c tion of agricultura l, fore sta l, ope n spa ce , a nd na tural, historic a nd sce nic resourc es a s land use
options. Unde r the Rura l Area s Sec tion of the Compre he nsive Pla n allowing a n a ddition to this rura l
community c hurch supports the following Guiding Principle s:
“Protec t the Rural Are a’s historic, arc heologic al, and c ultural re sourc es.”
“Prote ct and e nhanc e rural quality of life for prese nt and future Rural Area residents.”
“Addre ss the ne e ds of ex isting rural re side nts without fostering growth and furthe r
suburbanization of the Rural Areas.”
The propose d a ddition to Pine Ridge Church of the Brethre n w ill help susta in the c ontinuing pre se nc e of
a community c hurc h, e nha ncing the qua lity of life of its rural congrega tion. The proposed c hurc h
addition a ddre sse s the nee ds of rura l re side nts without e nc oura ging suburba niz ation, c ontributing to the
crea tion of a defac to growth a re a , or impac ting the cha ra cte r of loc al historic , sc enic , or cultura l
re sourc es.
STA FF COMMENT:
Staff a ddresse s ea c h provision of Se ction 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nc e :
31.2.4.1: Spe cial Use Pe rmits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Superv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detriment to adjace nt prope rty,
The propose d addition to an existing c hurc h building does not re prese nt a n inc re a sed intensity of use.
A ssoc iate d traffic pa tte rns or ove ra ll a c tivity on the site w ill not c hange a s a re sult of this proposa l.
Staff fee ls there will be no impa c ts on adjac e nt property re sulting from the proposed 18’ x 24’ addition to
the ma in c hurc h building.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
A plaque in Pine Ridge Churc h of the Bre thren indic ate s that the c hurc h was built in 1937. With few
exc eptions, inc luding a ste e ple a nd vinyl siding a dded to the church in the midtwe ntie th c entury, the
church ha s re ma ine d unc hange d since its construc tion. The w hite frame churc h is situate d on a rise , and
extensive forest cove r c ha ra c te riz es the ne arby district w ith intermittent c lea rings oc c upied by c hurche s
and re side nce s.
The proposed a ddition to Pine Ridge Churc h of the Bre thre n, tota ling 18’ x 24’ (432 square fe e t), is
propose d to c onne ct the north a nd e a st w ings of the building w ithout e xte nding be yond the fac e of the
side s of the e xisting churc h building. Sta ff fee ls the proposed addition is conce ive d in a manner tha t will
minima lly impa ct the e xisting c harac te r of the c hurc h building, the site, and the surrounding distric t.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinanc e,
Se ction 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning O rdina nce outlines the purpose of Rura l Area s zoning: “This
distric t (he re a fter refe rred to as RA ) is hereby c re ate d a nd ma y he re a fter be e sta blished by ame ndment
of the zoning map for the following purposes:
Pre se rvation of a gric ultura l a nd foresta l lands a nd ac tivitie s;
Wa te r supply prote ction;
Limite d se rvic e delive ry to the rura l a re a s; a nd
Conserva tion of na tural, sc e nic, and historic re source s. (A me nde d 11889)”
A llow ing for a more c onvenient a nd functiona l pla c e of worship e nc ourage s the c ongre ga tion of Pine
Ridge Churc h of the Bre thren to c ontinue its a ctive pre senc e within the loc al c ommunity, dire c tly
supporting the c onse rvation of both historic a nd sc e nic re sourc e s in the County.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The use s permitte d by right unde r RA z oning include the prese rva tion of agricultura l a nd fore sta l
ac tivities. Susta ining the County’s Rura l A re a z oning distric t is depe nde nt on inc luding use s that support
agric ultura l a nd fore sta l c ommunitie s, including me eting pla ce s, a t rura l sc a le s, providing the opportunity
to take pa rt in c ommunity life. The proposed addition to Pine Ridge Churc h of the Brethre n will allow
the congre gation to c ontinue to support a gricultura l a nd fore sta l c ommunity life at a rura l sc ale by
providing an indoor community ga the ring pla ce .
with the additional re gulations prov ide d in se ction 5.0 of this ordinance ,
The re are no regula tions in Sec tion 5.0 of the Ordinanc e tha t apply to c hurc h buildings and a djunc t
ce me te rie s.
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
The Albemarle County Engine e r ha s indic a te d that this projec t is not in the A lbe ma rle County Se rvic e
A uthority jurisdic tiona l a re a for wa te r a nd sewer se rvic e .
The propose d Spe c ia l Use Pe rmit would not impa ct groundwa ter re source s.
The propose d Spe c ia l Use Pe rmit doe s not ge ne ra te the ne ed for a site plan.
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. The a ddition to the church supports the continuing use of an historic building, e nc ouraging its long
term prote ction.
2. The a ddition w ill he lp sustain the c ontinuing prese nce of a vibrant c ommunity c hurch, enhanc ing
the qua lity of life of its rura l c ongre ga tion.
3. The c hurc h a ddition a ddre sses the ne e ds of rural re side nts.
4. No impa c ts on adjac e nt property re sulting from the proposed addition.
5. The a ddition w ill minima lly impa ct the e xisting c harac ter of the c hurch building.
Staff ha s not ide ntified any fac tors unfavora ble to this applic ation.
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings c onta ined in this staff re port, staff re c omme nds a pproval of Spe c ia l U se Pe rmit
200849 Pine Ridge Churc h of the Bre thren w ith the following c onditions:
1. The c hurc h’s improvements a nd the sca le and loca tion of the improvements sha ll be de ve loped in
ge ne ra l a cc ord with the conc e ptual pla n provide d by the a pplica nt and re c eived Septembe r 12,
2008;
2. The a re a of asse mbly sha ll be limited to a ma ximum of an 88se at sanc tuary;
3. There shall be no day ca re ce nte r or private sc hool on site without a pproval of a se parate spe c ia l
use pe rmit.
4. All outdoor lighting sha ll be arranged or shielded to refle c t light away from all a butting prope rtie s.
A lighting pla n limiting light le ve ls at a ll property line s to no gre a te r than 0.3 foot c andle s shall
be subje c t to approva l by the Planning Dire c tor.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A Conce pt a pplic a tion pla n
A ttac hme nt B – Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren ae ria l deta il
A ttac hme nt C – Pine Ridge Churc h of the Bre thre n a e rial conte xt
A ttac hme nt D Site photogra phs
Re turn to PC a c tions le tte r
Attachment A
SP 2008-049 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
PC 12-12-08 BOS 1-14-09 2
Attachment B
SP 2008-049 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
PC 12-12-08 BOS 1-14-09 3
Attachment C
SP 2008-049 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
PC 12-12-08 BOS 1-14-09 4
Attachment D
Albemarle C ounty Planning C ommission
December 9, 2008
The Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on
Tuesday, December 9, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire R oad, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Jon C annon, ViceChairman; Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton,
Eric Strucko and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Marcia Joseph was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Elaine
Echols, Principal Planner; Wayne C ilimberg, D irector of Planning and Greg Kamptner, D eputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800049 Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren
PROPOSED: Bring existing church into conformance with the zoning ordinance and allow an expansion
for a general purpose room
ZONIN G C ATEGOR Y/GENERAL U SAGE: R A R ural Areas agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 C hurch building and adjunct cemetery
C OMPR EH EN SIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: R ural Areas preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTR ANC E CORRIDOR : No
LOCATION: 5990 Buffalo River Road (R t. 604) at the intersection of Vintage R oad; approx. 525 feet
northeast of R oach Ridge (Rt. 817)
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 01900000004500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
This is a request for a special use permit for Pine Ridge Church of the Brethren to add an 18’ x 24’
addition on the rear northeast corner of the building. The expansion w ill accommodate a multi
purpose area for a community gathering space after services. No additional seating or parking is
requested. The onsite parking is sufficient to accommodate the 88seat sanctuary. It was
determined that 22 parking spaces located in the current parking area could accommodate the 30
vehicles. The current congregation consists of 22 to 28 people. The addition would not be visible
from adjacent residences.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The addition to the church supports the continuing use of an historic building,
encouraging its long term protection.
2. The addition w ill help sustain the continuing presence of a vibrant community church,
enhancing the quality of life of its rural congregation.
3. The church addition addresses the needs of rural residents.
4. No impacts on adjacent property resulting from the proposed addition.
5. The addition will minimally impact the existing character of the church building.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use
Permit 200849 Pine R idge Church of the Brethren with the conditions listed in the staff report with
the following change The fourth recommendation regarding the 0.3 foot candles should be
changed to 0.5 foot candles. Zoning has suggested in response to a question by Ms. Joseph that
a tree preservation provision should be included as a condition of approval since the application
does not require a site plan. Condition 5 is an attempt in putting that language together. Mr.
Kamptner suggested adding language to tie it to the existing conditions.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Stephen Shifflett, representative for Pine Ridge Church, noted that no public presentation was
desired.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing w as closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loach moved to approve SP200800049 Pine R idge Church of the Brethren subject to the conditions
crafted by staff. He asked the applicant if condition 5 was acceptable regarding no tree removal and
keeping the existing tree cover.
Stephen Shifflett, representative for the church, noted that condition 5 was acceptable.
Mr. C ilimberg noted that condition 5 w ould probably have a little more refinement before it gets to the
Board of Supervisors. Also, staff w ould make the correction in condition 4.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Strucko seconded to approve SP200800049, Pine Ridge Church of
the Brethren with the conditions as recommended by staff, as modified.
1.The church’s improvements and the scale and location of the improvements shall be
developed in general accord with the conceptual plan provided by the applicant and
received September 12, 2008;
2.The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of an 88seat sanctuary;
3.There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
4.All outdoor lighting shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.5 foot
candles shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director.
5. No grading, disturbance or tree removal shall take place w ithin the drip lines of the trees unless a
"Tree Protection Plan" in accord with section 32.7.9.4 of the Zoning Ordinance is submitted to the
county for review and approval prior to any disturbance.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said that SP200800049, Pine Church of the Brethren would go to the Board of Supervisors
on January 14, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
C OUN TY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SU MMA RY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 200800059 Luxor Commercial Veterinary
OfficeExtension
SU BJECT/PR OPOSA L/R EQUEST:
Request for extension of time allowed to
establish special use permit for veterinary
office.
STAFF:
Rebecca R agsdale
PLANN IN G C OMMISSION:
January 6, 2009
BOARD OF SUPER VISORS:
January 14, 2009
OWNER/APPLICA N T: Nigel Bray, owner; D enico Development (Denise LaCour), applicant
B ACK GROU ND
The Luxor Commercial rezoning and accompanying special use permits to allow the drivethru bank and
veterinary office were approved in October 2005. The project included a rezoning of 3.523 acres from R
6, and R 15 (Residential) to a Planned District Mixed Commercial (PD MC) and a rezoning of 1.377 acres
from C 1 (Commercial) to PD MC to allow a 1,500 square foot bank and 80,000 square feet of mixed
commercial, including an SP for the vet use. (Attachments A & B Location maps) The approval letter for
the rezoning and special use permits, including proffers, and the staff report for original action are attached
for reference. (Attachments E)
SP# 200700017 w as subsequently submitted to request additional time to establish the veterinary use
and was approved on August 1, 2007; there were no issues raised by review ers or staff. The special use
permit w as approved with the same original conditions, w ith minor modifications and the time extension of
18 months:
1. A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance w ith Section d;
2. No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted;
3. The veterinary clinic be identified as located in building 4 and;
4. Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness;
5. Special Use Permit 2007017 shall be valid eighteen (18) months from its date of approval.
D ISCU SSION
The applicant is requesting an additional four years for the use to be established. The applicant has been
delayed in establishing the vet use due to difficulties during the site plan approval process, including
obtaining easements and complications with utilities on the site. The applicant is nearing final site plan
approval for the phase of the project that will include the building for the vet use. (Attachment C Letter
requesting extension)
The purpose of the time period provision for special use permit approvals in the ordinance is to allow any
ordinance changes to be applied at the time the extension is reviewed. It allows the C ounty to consider
w hether there have been changes in circumstances such that the granting of the special use permit should
be revisited. In the case of this request for extension, there is no reason to revisit the special use permit
and there have been no ordinance changes since the SP was approved in 2005. Staff does not foresee
any upcoming amendments or changes of circumstance to suggest the use w ill not be appropriate at this
location.
Staff has found that a modification to Section 5.1.11(B) should also be approved by the Planning
C ommission. (Attachment D Section 5.1.11)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two hundred (200) feet
to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest
agricultural or residential property line shall not exceed fiftyfive (55) decibels; (Amended 111589; 614
00)
The building in which the vet would be located is less than 200 feet from the adjoining R 6 Zoning D istrict
boundary to the east. (See Attachment B) This area of R 6 zoning is rightofw ay for a road located
between the Luxor Commercial D evelopment and the Aunt Sarah’s commercial property. The vet will be
located as originally proposed and will still comply with the soundproofing requirements of Section 5.1.11.
R EC OMMEN DATION
Staff has found no unfavorable factors to this request and recommends approval of SP 2008059 for the
Veterinary Office, w ith the following conditions of approval, with updates to conditions in bold italics:
1. A separate entrance and exit shall be provided for the clinic in accordance w ith Section 5.1.11d;
2. No outdoor exercise area shall be permitted;
3. The veterinary clinic shall be located in building 4, as shown on the plan entitled “Application
Plan for Luxor Commercial Center”, prepared by R ivanna Engineering, dated October 13,
2004, last revised July 25, 2004 and;
4. Architectural R eview Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness;
5. Special U se Permit 2008059 shall be valid fortyeight (48) months from its date of approval.
Staff recommends a modification of Section 5.1.11(b) to allow the vet to be located in a building less than
200 feet from the R 6 zoned property line to the east.
A TTA CHMENTS:
A . Location MapAerial
B . Location MapZoning
C . Letter from applicant, Denico D evelopment dated November 18, 2008 requesting time extension
D . Section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance
E. Approval letter dated October 25, 2005 for ZMA 2004012 Luxor Commercial & SP 20040038 & SP
2005002 and Staff R eport dated August 30, 2005 for ZMA 200412, SP 200438, and SP 2005002
View PC minutes of July 10, 2007
Return to regular agenda
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 10, 2007
R egular Items:
SP2007017 Luxor C ommercial Vet Expansion (Sign #8)
PROPOSED : Extension of time allowed to establish Special Use Permit
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: PDMC Planned Dev elopment Mixed Commercial largesc ale
commercial uses; and res idential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)
SECTION: Section 25A.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary offices and hospitals within PDMC
zoning
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAN D USE/DEN SITY: U rban Density Residential residential (6.0134 units/ac re) and
supporting uses suc h as religious institutions, sc hools, commercial, office and service us es in Pantops
(Neighborhood 3) of the D evelopment Area.
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : Yes
LOCATION: The 1.377 acre property is located on the north side of Route 250 (Richmond R oad) and east of Rolkin
Road, betw een Montes sori School and Aunt Sarah's Restaurant.
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: Tax Map 78, Parc el 55D
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Rivanna (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale presented a power point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a request for an extension of a special use permit that w as approved in October, 2005 that went
along with the Luxor Commercial rez oning that w as also approv ed in October, 2005. This is for the vet use
that is proposed or one of those commerc ial buildings at Luxor. The rezoning was for a total of 80,000
s quare feet of mixed commercial and then a stand alone bank of about 15,000 square feet. The property is
located on R oute 250 East in Pantops. It was rezoned to Planned District Mixed Commercial. A c o
applicant has been involved with the Luxor Commercial Project.
Staff noted that on the approved application the vet us e was approved for this building and requires a
s pecial use permit in the C O, C ommercial Office D istrict, which was part of the mix ed commercial that w as
approved. It is the building near R oute 250. The properties around it are ow ned by someone else other than
the vet applic ant.
Based on the site plan approval process and difficulties w ith easements and utilities the process took longer
than expected. Special use permits are approved for two years based on the ordinance. In this case the
applicant did not request any special condition to allow a longer period of time. This application plan also
s how s two trees, which were shown for preservation in the plan, one of which has come down. One of the
trees was blown over in a storm. But, there are provisions in the proffers and the site plan process to
address replanting and to work with the ARB to replace that evergreen tree.
The applic ant is in the preliminary site plan approv al process. They have just s ubmitted revisions in they
are towards the end of the proc ess . As the applicant mentioned they have been w ork ing through the issues
and initially requested 18 months additional time for the special use permit. Staff put that in the staff report
as a recommended c ondition of approval. But, since the ordinance specifies two years staff is
recommending that the sixth condition is not needed. So what the Commis sion has before them is the
s ame conditions that w ere approved w ith the original s pecial use permit that staff is recommending approval
of again except that they are noting there are no longer two trees . There is one tree.
Ms. Joseph asked if there w ere any questions for Ms. Ragsdale.
Mr. Morris asked w hy the applicant needs an extension because in driv ing by it does not appear the applicant has
done anything for almost two years.
Ms. Ragsdale suggested that the applicant address that issue specifically in terms of some of the bumps in the road
with the preliminary site plan.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Commiss ion.
Denise La Cour, President of D enico Development representing the owner of the property, Nigel Bray , said that as
staff s aid this property was a part of a much larger c ommercial project that was done in 2005. That was the Lux or
Commercial Project. Dr. Bray is a local veterinary w ho purchased this property several years ago with the intent of
ultimately building a v eterinary practic e on that piece of property. He w as approached in 2004 by the adjoining
landowner about the possibility of going into a joint application for a rez oning. He agreed to do so because it would
make a better plan for everybody involved. They had hoped to break ground this summer. The problem with a s ite
plan joint application is that authoriz ation from both parties is required to go forward. While Mr. Bray has been
anxious to move forward the coapplic ant has not due to a quasirestructuring of their c ompany. It put a hold on a lot
of their projects while they analyzed them. The coapplic ant or D DR has now authorized the site plan to move
forward. A representative from DDR is present to verify that.
Ms. Joseph asked if there w ere any questions for the applicant. There being none, public comment was invited.
There being none, the public hearing w as closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph noted that one of the two trees to be bonded as per condition 3 has died. She questioned if the one tree
to be bonded was worth saving because it w as covered with ivy. The question arose whether the Commiss ion
should ask the ARB to do something to augment agains t the tree lost.
Mr. Craddock asked the applicant to address the tree issue.
Ms. La C our replied that the tw o trees were part of the Board of Supervisors condition for approv al during the
rezoning. They actually had to have a certified arboris t provide a report. The certified arborist had some questions
about whether they s hould be saving those trees. Due to the fact that it was a c ondition and staff said that they
would have to go back through the entire process again to amend that one condition they elected not to do that since
they wanted to mov e forward. The ARB has ask ed repeatedly that they get rid of those trees. They repeatedly told
the AR B that they could not get rid of the trees bec aus e it was a condition of the rezoning. That tree blew dow n,
which emphasizes what the certified arboris t said that the pine trees w ere in bad condition. They would like to get
that condition removed and w ould be happy to work with the ARB. The AR B has already provided alternate plans in
case the trees did die.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the condition be removed.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the condition in the special use permit is simply requiring that the applicant show the tree
on the plan. It is the proffer that went with the rezoning that required that the trees be pres erved. So the
Commis sion will not be able to delete the requirement in this proceeding anyw ay.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, for approval of SP2007017, Luxor C ommerc ial Vet Expansion,
with the conditions recommended by s taff, as follows :
1. A separate entranc e and exit shall be provided for the clinic in acc ordance with Sec tion 5.1.11d.
2. No outdoor exercis e area shall be permitted.
3. A note shall be added to the plan to identify the one tree that shall be bonded.
4. The v eterinary clinic s hall be identified as located in building 4.
5. Architectural Rev iew Board issuanc e of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Joseph stated that SP2007017, Lux or C ommerc ial Vet Expansion w ill go before the Board of Supervisors on
Augus t 1, 2007 with a recommendation for approv al. The Commission c ould not get rid of the condition because it
was part of the rezoning.
Return to exec summary
RES OLUTION TO REQUEST ENABLING LEGISLATION
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE AND THE CITY OF CHARLOTTES VILLE
TO FUND TRANS IT AND TRANS PORTATION PROJ ECTS
WHEREAS , transportation planning and systems are regional in scope; and
WHEREAS , transportation planning in the Charlottesv illeAlbemarle area includes b oth
transpo rtation projects and the operation of a transit system; and
WHEREAS , the County o f Albemarle and the City of Ch arlottesville desire to extend transit
services to developin g areas and to provide faster, more frequent service to th e existing system, and to
impro ve transportation in the Charlo ttesvilleAlbemarle area; and
WHEREAS , the County o f Albemarle and the City of Ch arlottesville are seeking en ab ling
legislation to establish a Regional Tran sit Authority to coordinate regional transit planning and o perations;
and
WHEREAS , additional fun ding is necessary to fund th e expanded services of a Regional Transit
Authority; and
WHEREAS , there is a dire n eed for transp ortation funding for identified and necessary
transpo rtation projects that are curren tly unfunded o r underfund ed by the Virginia Department o f
Transp ortation; and
WHEREAS , the County o f Albemarle and the City of Ch arlottesville are seeking a fu nding source
to fun d necessary tran sportation improvement projects that can not otherwise be reasonably o r timely
funded; an d
WHEREAS , a local sales and use tax of u p to one percent designated to be spent solely for the
purpo ses of transit and transportatio n initiatives wo uld provide a reasonable local source of fu nding for such
initiatives; and
WHEREAS , the impositio n of the propo sed local sales and use tax of u p to one percent would be
subject to approval by local referen dum and the use of such fun ding would b e limited to tran sit costs,
including funding fo r each locality’s share of the cost of a Region al Transit Autho rity, and tran sportation
projects selected from th e region’s Con strained Long Range P lan, the City’s Urb an Road Prog ram, or the
County ’s S econdary Ro ad P rogram; and
WHEREAS , enabling legislation is necessary to enable a lo cal sales an d use tax to fu nd transit an d
transpo rtation needs in the County o f Albemarle and City of Charlottesville.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RES OLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Sup ervisors hereby
requests th at the Virginia General Assembly enact legislation to enable the Cou nty of Albemarle and the
City of Charlottesville to levy a local sales and use tax of up to on e percent to fun d to fund transit and
transpo rtation projects in the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville.
Return to regular agenda