HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-2-10BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
FEBRUARY 10, 2010
6:00 P.M. – LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7. Amend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional areas to add Tax Map, Parcel 32,5C4 for water and
sewer service in the Piney Mountain Development Area.
8. SP-2008-00035. Covesville Church (Sign #55). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to construct new sanctuary
building, adjacent to existing church building, to contain fellowship hall, classrooms, and activity spaces on a 3.028
acre parcel. Parking area would be relocated to accommodate new building. 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 cemetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic
and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 5883
Henderson Lane (Rt 805), approx 1,300 feet west of Monacan Trail (Rt 29 South). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 10900-00-
00-006E0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
9. SP-2009-00017. Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs (Sign #10). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit
for a dog day camp and overnight boarding for dogs. Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11(a, b c, d)
pertaining to setback, fencing, noise, other considerations when in proximity to intensive uses, and soundproof
confinement requirements. 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 (17) Commercial Kennel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 5038 Turkey Sag Rd (Rt 640) approx 1.6 miles east of Stony Point Rd (Rt 20). TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 049000000006B0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
10. SP-2009-00021. Comcast Facility Expansion (Sign # 77). PROPOSED: 16'x 30' facility expansion to install new
electronics for advanced services. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas, [EC] Entrance
Corridor overlay, [AIA] Airport Impact Area. SECTION: 10.2.2.6 Special Use Permit, which allows for unmanned
telephone exchange centers/facilities in the RA Zoning District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 1. LOCATION: Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A: in the Earlysville area about 1000 feet
from the intersection of Earlysville Road [State Route 743] and Rio Road West [State Route 631]. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. RELATED APPLICATIONS: SP-1990-019, SP-1979-32.
11. SP-2009-00022. Daylily Preschool (Signs #21&24). PROPOSED: Private preschool for a maximum of 10
children located within existing Mountain Plain Baptist Church, but not affiliated with Church. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots. SECTION: 10.2.2.7 Private School. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 4297 Old Three
Notch'd Rd, at intersection of Brown's Gap Rd (Rt 680) and Seven Hills Lane. TAX MAP/PARCELS: 57-26.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
12. STA-2009-00001. Division of Land with Existing Dwellings. Division of parcels that have multiple existing
dwellings – Amend Secs. 14-316, Approval of entrance onto public streets, 14-400, Minimum lot requirements, 14-
403, Lot frontage, and 14-404, Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway, of Chapter 14,
Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend sections 14-316, 14-400, 14-
403 and 14-404 to permit the division of parcels on which multiple dwellings exist as of a date specified in the
ordinance without satisfying otherwise applicable street frontage requirements.
13. ZTA-2009-00020. Regulating Construction of Multiple Dwellings on a Single Parcel. Site plan required for
multiple dwellings on single parcel. Amend Sec. 18-32.2, When site plan is required; waiver of drawing of site
plan, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend section 18-32.2 to
require a site plan when two or more dwellings are proposed on a single parcel where that parcel does not have
public street frontage.
14. PROJECT: ZMA-2005-00003. UVA Research Park (Sign #18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately
30.56 acres (parcels identified below) from RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to Planned Development Industrial Park (“PDIP”), which
allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses, for 700,000 square feet of
office and research use and to rezone 534 ± acres (parcels identified below) from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers
and application plan associated with ZMA-1995-04 and subsequent related ZMAs. PROFFERS: Yes. Concurrent
with ZMA-2005-00003, the following proposed special use permits (“SP”) within UVA Research Park PDIP
authorized by Zoning Ordinance § 29.2.2:
14a. SP-2008-00015 Parking structures. PROPOSED: Allow parking structures; reference Zoning Ordinance §
27.2.2(16), Parking structures.
14b. SP-2008-00062 Laboratories. PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses; reference Zoning Ordinance § 27.2.2(1),
Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
14c. SP-2008-00063 Supporting commercial uses. PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses, not to exceed a
total of 110,000 square feet of floor area, reference Zoning Ordinance § 27.2.2(14), Supporting commercial uses.
14d. SP-2008-00064 Hotels, motels, inns. PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities not to exceed
190,000 square feet of floor area under Zoning Ordinance § 29.2.2(2), Hotels, motels, inns.
The following information applies to all 5 proposals: ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP -
Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use).
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the intersection
of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map Parcels 32-18
and 32-18A (rezone from RA to PDIP with proffers; all SPs); 32-6A, 18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-
19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1 (rezone from PDIP to PDIP with amended
proffers and application plan; all SPs). MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
15. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
16. Adjourn to Thursday, February 25, 2010, 11:00 a.m., Lane Auditorium .
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: November 4, November 16 and December 10, 2009.
6.2 Resolution of Support – Journey Through Hallowed Grounds Partnership’s Civil War 150th Living Legacy
Program.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.3 Copy of letter dated December 10, 2009 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee Rasmussen,
McCallum & Kudravetz., re: LOD-2009-00015 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 112, Parcel 37D (Property of Viewmont Farm Land Trust) Scottsville Magisterial
District.
6.4 Copy of letter dated December 10, 2009 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee Rasmussen,
McCallum & Kudravetz., re: LOD-2009-00016 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 112, Parcel 21 (Property of Viewmont Farm Land Trust) Scottsville Magisterial
District.
6.5 Copy of letter dated December 10, 2009 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee Rasmussen,
McCallum & Kudravetz., re: LOD-2009-00017 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 112, Parcel 20 (Property of Viewmont Farm Land Trust) Scottsville Magisterial
District.
6.6 Copy of letter dated December 10, 2009 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Lee Rasmussen,
McCallum & Kudravetz., re: LOD-2009-00018 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT
RIGHTS – Tax Map 113, Parcel 6A (Property of Viewmont Farm Land Trust) Scottsville Magisterial
District.
6.7 Copy of letter dated January 27, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Tim Michel, re: LOD-
2009-00021 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 35, Parcel 16C
(Property of Marc C or Jenny B Spalding) Rivanna Magisterial District.
6.8 Copy of letter dated January 27, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Carter Montague, re:
LOD-2009-00022 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 94, Parcel 37
(Property of Kenneth R or Barbara E McAlpine) Rivanna Magisterial District.
6.9 Update on the review and implementation of the Resource Management Review’s recommendations.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT
JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND PARTNERSHIP’S
CIVIL WAR 150TH LIVING LEGACY PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership (JTHG) is a non -profit
organization dedicated to raising national awareness of the unparall eled history in the region, which
generally follows the Old Carolina Road (Rt. 15/231) from Gettysburg, through Maryland, to Monticello in
Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, JTHG has built a strong network of local, regional, and national partners to develop a
common vision for the conservation and enhancement of the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and
natural characteristics of the region. Additionally JTHG has developed an education outreach program to
all students and teachers within the region and nationwide; and
WHEREAS, JTHG has created a heritage tourism program that will provide economic
development opportunities through regional branding and cooperative marketing in comm unities
throughout the corridor; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood, designated the 180 -mile long
thoroughfare running through the Journey, from Gettysburg, P ennsylvania, to Monticello, a National
Scenic Byway. This is one of the highest designations the Secretary can bestow upon a publ ic road and
one that could have a profound economic impact on the local jurisdictions along the Journey Through
Hallowed Ground; and
WHEREAS, the JTHG Partnership seeks to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War
with a legacy project of national significance. During the Civil War, 620,000 American Soldiers died, many
on the battlefields within in the JTHG National Heritage Area. This “Living Legacy” project will
commemorate the individual and combined sacrifices of the fallen. The JTHG Plan is t o plant one tree for
each citizen who sacrificed their life to create this union, at a set pace along the 180 -mile Route 15/231
corridor. The trees will appear as soldiers in formation, from Monticello to Gettysburg. The intention of this
“eloquent and sim ple plan” is to create a living legacy, a constant reminder to every citizen as they drive
this route, of the sacrifices made by fellow Americans. This project will stand as a living legacy for our
Countrymen who gave “the last full measure” to define our Union; and
WHEREAS, this project further lends itself to a national service learning program as students
from around the country may research the fallen from their community, learn their stories, and dedicate a
tree in their honor; and
WHEREAS, there is no fiscal impact to the endorsement of this program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does
hereby support the Journey Through Hallowed Ground’s Civil War 150 th Living Legacy Program to assist
the Partnership as it seeks to obtain grant funding for this signature program.
View Project Description
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
-
Sesquicentennial Living Legacy Project
Background
The American Civil War, the most defining moment in our American history, will
be commemorated from 2011 through 2015.
The Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area holds the largest
concentration of Civil War battlefield sites in the country, and also the homes of
our Founding Fathers who first conceived and wrote into our American Ideals “All
Men are created equal”.
Within The Journey Through Hallowed Ground (JTHG) National Heritage Area is
the beginning (Harpers Ferry and Manassas), the middle (Antietam and
Gettysburg) and the end, (Appomattox) of the Civil War. The Route 15/20
Corridor which crosses the Mason Dixon Line travels from Monticello to
Gettysburg and serves as a link to each of the battlefields and connects over 30
historic communities, each of which was gravely impacted by the Civil War.
In advance of the Sesquicentennial each community is being asked to create a
legacy project. In lieu of creating individual monuments the communities within
the JTHG National Heritage Area are working collectively to create a legacy
project of National Significance.
The Plan
The JTHG Partnership seeks to commemorate the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War with a
legacy project of National Significance. During the Civil War 620,000 American Soldiers
died, many fought on the battlefields within the JTHG National Heritage Area. As a living
commemoration for their individual and combined sacrifices, we seek to create a “Living
Legacy” project: An eloquent and simple plan. We wish to plant one tree for each citizen who
sacrificed their life to create this union. The plan is to plant a tree, at a set pace along the 180
mile Rt. 15/20 corridor; as soldiers in formation, from Monticello to Gettysburg. The intention
is to create a living legacy, a constant reminder to every citizen of the sacrifices made to
inspire the uneducated with the sheer beauty of the esplanade of the foliage. In fifty years
times, during the bi-centennial of the Civil War this will be considered the finest example of
homage in our country. We believe this is the time to create and implement a living legacy
for those who gave “the last full measure” to define our Union.
This project further lends itself to a national service learning program as we invite students
from around the country to research the fallen from their community, learn their stories and
dedicate a tree in their honor.
Return to resolution
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resource Management Review Update – 4th Quarter
Calendar Year 2009
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
4th Quarter Calendar Year 2009 update on the review and
implementation of the Resource Management Review’s
recommendations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Ms. Jammes
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 10, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 7, 2008, the Board directed staff to initiate an external assessment of the County’s resource management in
conjunction with the County’s ongoing continuous improvement efforts. On July 2, 2008, the Board approved the
County entering into an agreement with Virginia Commonwealth University’s Commonwealth Educational Policy
Institute (CEPI) to conduct this assessment. CEPI delivered its final report to the Board on February 11, 2009. On
May 6, 2009, the Board received initial information on staff’s progress and planned actions in evaluating and
implementing the recommendations of CEPI’s assessment. Previous updates to the Board were provided in July and
November 2009.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of
public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
The Resource Management Review included 148 recommendations for local government departments and selected
community agencies. In order to improve the clarity of the report’s recommendations and allow for better management
of and reporting on recommendations, staff has consolidated similar or related recommendations and categorized
them as follows:
38 recommendations have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes
or practices.
29 recommendations are in the process of being implemented.
7 recommendations are related to providing additional resources. These will be reviewed in the context of the
County’s annual Five-Year Financial Plan and budget processes.
11 recommendations will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation.
Staff will proceed with these evaluations as soon as possible recognizing that existing staffing levels in some
departments and the scope of organizational change required by certain recommendations will determine
their timing for implementation.
A list of the recommendations included in each category is available in Attachment A. Staff will continue to provide
quarterly updates to the Board on the status and results of the Resource Management Review’s recommendations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact in analyzing the report’s recommendations at this time. Recommendations that will
require additional resources to analyze or implement beyond the reallocation of existing resources will be brought
to the Board for discussion and action.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This update is presented for the Board’s information.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status Page
Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices 2
Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented 12
Recommendations that will be reviewed in the context of the County’s annual Five-Year Financial Plan and budget processes 18
Recommendations that will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation 19
Table of Contents
Page 1
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
1 Community
Development
Consider adjusting the number of
supervisory titles and positions in Zoning
Administration. Flatten supervisory
structure.
This effort was completed in May of 2009 with the Zoning Division being flattened by
one tier and the Current Development Division as a separate report to the Director of
Community Development.
2 Community
Development
Inspections; 1) Consider transforming the
inspection process into an enterprise
operation with fees to recover costs; and 2)
continue cross-training inspectors to assist
with other code enforcement activities.
Inspection related fees were updated in August 2009 through both the Building
Regulations Ordinance and Water Protection Ordinance and were set high enough to
offset annual costs in a normal year. The department has and will continue to cross-
train inspectors as part of the organization's broader service reallocation management.
3 Community
Development
Planning Commission Procedures:
Consider 1) reducing the number of
meetings; 2) where work may be reduced
while still meeting state code requirements
(e.g. staff approval of preliminary plats, site
and subdivision plans) and 3) consider
action minutes
For 1), the Planning Commission has reduced its meetings to 2 meetings per month for
consideration of applications and 1 meeting per month for work sessions, if
needed. For items 2) and 3), these issues have been considered by both the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors, but a change was not approved.
4 Community
Development
Consider higher level sign-off on deferring
follow-up actions on minor code violation
complaints.
Currently, as set by ordinance, the Building Official is the final word on Building Code
violations and the Zoning Administrator is the final word on Zoning Ordinance
violations. The Albemarle County Board of Building Code Appeals handles any appeals
of Building Official decisions. The Albemarle County Board of Zoning Appeals handles
any appeals of decisions. Procedures are in place to encourage input being solicited
for potentially controversial decisions.
5 Community
Development
Eliminate the backlog of old incomplete
inspection permits and establish completion
deadlines and status reporting schedules to
prevent backlogs of permits.
The department has an established standard operating procedure for the closure of
inactive building permits that will eliminate the backlog of old inactive permits and
assure new permits are not added to the backlog. This process is already in place for
all permits issued since 2004 and assures new permits will not be added to the
backlog. Permits issued prior to 2004 are being systematically reviewed, with a target
completion of 2012 for eliminating the old permit backlog.
Page 2
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
6 Community
Development
Invite the County Engineer to the employee
team that defines transfer of Water
Resources personnel to Community
Development.
In 2004, there was a deliberate effort to separate the enforcement of the Water
Protection Ordinance from the stormwater program. This was done in recognition that
long-term objectives were often sacrificed by ongoing enforcement demands. To
assure the County maintained its commitment to its objectives, the water resources
staff was separated from Community Development’s enforcement efforts. The County
has revisited this issue within the past year, where a cross-departmental staff team
considered possible restructuring and determined that the current organizational
structure should be maintained.
7 Community
Development
Reduce backlog of old bonds being carried
on the books which carry costs to
developers. They should be released if
requirements are satisfied.
Staff aggressively pushes for bond completion and the release of bonds as soon as the
County’s exposure has been removed. The referenced bonds in the report have all
been reviewed by staff. The backlog has not been reduced in areas where a decision
to release the bond would require voiding an existing subdivision plat
and circumstances are beyond the control of the property owner.
8 County
Executive's Office
Reconsider the frozen auditor position in
the Finance Department.
This position is in the process of being filled as a part of the County's current staffing
reallocation efforts.
9 County
Executive's Office
Continue refinement of Key Performance
Indicators (KPI's) and reporting to make it a
more formal part of County management
practice. Continue to train staff in the
collection and utilization of KPI's to improve
performance and management.
Staff will continue its current efforts in these areas, including refining measures,
holding regular KPI discussions among organizational leadership, improving
benchmarking efforts and developing additional training for staff.
10 Emergency
Communications
Center
Replace and/or update the Computer-Aided
Dispatch (CAD) system since it is unable to
provide all statistical needs for supervisors
and plan for the expansion of the
Emergency Communications Center and its
Emergency Management Office.
Because this is a regional agency, these recommendations have been referred to the
ECC Management Board for consideration and/or implementation.
Page 3
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
11 Finance Ensure adequate resources are applied to
the successful completion of the "Access
Albemarle" project, including a
comprehensive Human Resources
Information System (HRIS). A champion
should be designated to run the project and
ensure success.
Adequate funding is currently set aside for the project and project management
assistance is in place. Staff will continue to monitor resource needs as the project
proceeds. The County Executive's Office is the primary "champion" for the project, with
strong support from key Finance and IT management staff.
12 Finance Monitor whether local-only funds diverted
from the Health Department to non-profits
are going to direct and needed services.
During the FY 09/10 budget process, the funding for the Dental Program and
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was reallocated from the Health
Department to the Charlottesville Free Clinic and Jefferson Area CHIP, respectively.
These programs will continue to be reviewed annually by the Commission on Children
and Families' Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT).
13 Fire Rescue Continue to require independent annual
audits of all volunteer departments to which
County contributes public funds.
This is a current practice that is planned to be continued.
14 Human
Resources
Identify steps to address the areas in the
2007 HR Satisfaction Survey that show
opportunities for improvement.
Human Resources has implemented improvements in the areas identified by the
Satisfaction Survey, including creating and distributing contact cards to clarify the
appropriate contacts in HR for particular issues.
15 Human
Resources
Analyze the Voluntary Early Retirement
Incentive Program (VERIP) and determine
1) whether it serves its designated purpose
and 2) include an evaluation of part-time
employee benefits as a part of this analysis.
A cross departmental team has evaluated VERIP for full and part time employees. The
team recommended policy revisions to phase out the VERIP stipend and revise
service requirement for retirees to remain on group medical and dental from four years
to meeting eligibility for VRS. These revisions to the VERIP policy were adopted by the
Joint Boards on December 2.
16 Human
Resources
Revisit collaborative efforts in training to
ensure that the needs of all schools and
local government employees are met. Work
towards more collaborative means to
address training needs for all employees.
Organizational Development classes are currently open to all local government and
school classified employees. Staff works collaboratively with representatives of both
local government and schools to ensure training needs are met. Joint trainings are
conducted as practical.
Page 4
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
17 Human
Resources
Continue several ongoing processes and
efforts of the Human Resources
Department
Staff is continuing processes and efforts that include: 1) succession planning efforts; 2)
efforts to increase diversity; 3) utilizing an employee benefits consultant to gather
comprehensive health care benefit data, make recommendations about the
competitiveness of the County's plan and keep costs from escalating while retaining
reasonable employee rates; 4) projecting the short-term and long-term costs
associated with the pay-for-performance plan; 5) analyzing scores in the performance
evaluation system and its impact on the pay-for-performance program to ensure
consistency in application; 6) providing the opportunity for feedback from employees on
their satisfaction with the pay-for-performance plan; and 7) encouraging non-
participating departments to develop standards for the Total Rewards program.
18 Information
Technology
Consider creating a County-wide IT
Steering Committee to prioritize and assign
funding to projects.
The IT Steering Committee will begin it's meetings in 2010. A group developed a
charter and project ranking criteria. This criteria will be used to assign funding to major
IT projects.
19 Information
Technology
Consider allocating staff positions from
other departments to IT or allocate
additional funding for part-time or contract
staff for critical system support. If not a
possibility, consider partnering with
neighboring localities to share technical
support.
The department shares resources with School IT department and benefits from subject
matter expert assistance from other localities and organizations. Any staff reallocations
will be considered as part of the County's current broader effort to reallocate staffing
and services. As Access Albemarle or attrition in the IT Department creates additional
workload, further evaluation of using non-IT staff to support technology initiatives will
be evaluated.
20 Information
Technology
Incrementally create a "dashboard" of
projects so the community and Executive
Management can see projects that IT is
working on as well as the projects' status.
Create indicators for project success such
as "on time," "within cost," etc.
This dashboard is developed and in use. One of the items for the Tech. Steering
Committee is to develop a plan for releasing this type of information to the community
(through albemarle.org or other means.)
Page 5
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
21 Information
Technology
Vendor management: 1) Implement
formalized reporting structure to document
vendor management savings; 2) negotiate
with existing vendors for lower maintenance
costs; and 3) Continue to work with vendor
partners to creatively approach server
consolidation.
1 & 2) The department works closely with Purchasing to evaluate and obtain cost
savings on all purchases, including negotiating to lower maintenance costs. IT has
developed a system on their home page where each cost savings measure is
documented and available for analysis. 3) The department is actively moving servers to
a virtualized environment, saving power and computer room floor space.
Working with the Community Development Department and Purchasing, IT found a
cost effective way to engage an existing service provider to provide a potential solution
for digital records management. We have a means to document vendor management
savings and have successfully consolidated 6 production servers on one redundant
virtual server host.
22 Information
Technology
Update documentation (Network diagrams,
Mainframe, Change control, Disaster
Recovery Plan and IT Strategic Plan). Store
a printed copy of the IT Disaster Recovery
Plan offsite.
IT updated network diagrams, et. al and provided digital copies for our external audit.
We will ask our auditor to become our offsite storage for this material.
This is an ongoing priority and will be completed as part of the update to the Security
Plan.
23 Information
Technology
Create a Project Management Office
(PMO) within IT to manage large projects in
the County. Staff it with Project
Management Professional (PMP's).
IT project management is handled by our Coordinator of Systems Projects. The
Access Albemarle project is handled by a Project Manager from the Office of Facilities
development.
This recommendation will be evaluated considering the need, scope of projects and
existing project management resources.
24 Information
Technology
Access Albemarle: 1) Hire a full time
Project Management Professional; 2)
implement a more effective
communications plan; 3) institute load and
integration testing prior to migration; and 4)
allocate and train at least two Systems
Administrators
1) Dedicated project management assistance is currently in place to ensure the project
stays on track and is well managed. 2) Plans are in place to enhance communication
throughout the organization with the start of work on the Financial Management
System replacement over the next few months. 3) This is an ongoing part of the
project. 4) This training is part of the Access Albemarle migration plan.
Page 6
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
25 Office of Facilities
Development
Enlist the assistance of architects,
engineers, and building contractors to
review design and architectural plans
before they are put to bid to advise the
County about design elements that might
save costs.
It is currently the practice of Facilities Development to engage outside resources to
evaluate plans in advance of bidding. Examples include the last three major school
projects currently under construction. In each of these cases, independent firms were
contracted to perform plan reviews and constructability reviews on the projects. This
experience has resulted in significant savings from the avoidance of plan conflicts or
more costly construction methods.
26 Office of Facilities
Development
Implement "value engineering" as a matter
of policy in every building project and
regularly track and report the savings.
The Office of Facilities Development employs "value engineering" practices in the
execution of larger capital projects. Examples include "constructability reviews"
conducted by independent firms or organizations and operational peer reviews.
Facilities Development is currently in the process of engaging an outside consulting
firm to conduct a “value engineering” exercise in connection with the Crozet Library
project. Results of the exercise will inform final stages of the design process. The
Office is currently in the process of revising its Project Delivery Manual which will
formally incorporate "value engineering" in its design process as a standard
requirement for larger, more complex projects. Post value engineering estimates will
be compared to preliminary project estimates to calculate estimated savings from the
process.
Page 7
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
27 Office of Housing Consider establishing a regional
consortium and oversight body for the
allocation of Section 8 vouchers.
Establishing a regional consortium has been discussed in the Regional Housing
Directors' Council with interest from Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson,
Orange, and Madison and determined to not be feasible at this time. The County's
program is ranked as a "high performer" and is considered a small PHA (public
housing agency). As such, the County's program is not subject to the more stringent
administrative requirements set forth in the federal regulations for larger PHAs and
troubled PHAs. Furthermore, establishing a regional body with the City will also include
bringing in the public housing portion which continues to be problematic for the City. It
is not recommended that Albemarle County enter into such an arrangement since
costs of liabilities associated with public housing could become obligations of the
County. There would also be a very limited possibility that a combined program could
save on costs of operations as each program is currently employing the minimum
number of program personnel to handle the assigned caseloads.
Every effort will be made to continue to coordinate with all Housing Choice Voucher
Administrators in Planning District 10.
Creation of an oversight body does not seem feasible due to complexities of
overseeing agencies that operate under different contracts. The City and County have
contracts with HUD and other localities and agencies have contracts through the
Virginia Housing Development Authority for the administration of the program.
28 Office of Housing Develop key performance indicators that
measure the Office's role in increasing the
stock of affordable housing for residents.
Affordable housing data is presently tracked as part of the County's performance
management efforts; however, because the Office of Housing's role is primarily to react
to and support private-sector activities, this data is more a measure of private
development initiatives rather than direct Office of Housing activities.
Page 8
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
29 Office of Housing Include outcome measures for Albemarle
Housing Improvement Program (AHIP) and
Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
applications. Review annually by an
intergovernmental team to supplement the
review by Housing Director and OMB.
Currently, as part of the agency budget review process, AHIP and PHA provide
outcome measures as part of their applications that are reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget and Office of Housing. After this analysis is complete,
recommendations are reviewed with the City of Charlottesville.
After appropriations, the Office of Housing executes a memorandum of agreement
(MOA) with AHIP and PHA for the appropriated funding identifying the expected
outcomes to be accomplished. The MOA provides for quarterly reporting by AHIP and
PHA and quarterly payments by the County to the two organizations. Funding is not
released each quarter until the quarterly report is received and reviewed by the Chief of
Housing. The review and refinement of the agencies' outcomes will continue in the
future.
30 Parks and
Recreation
Consider collapsing the reporting
relationships for maintenance staff with
ratios of 1:8 instead of current 1:1 reporting
relationships.
A recently frozen Parks Foreman position has required the department to revise its
maintenance staffing structure by combining park maintenance and athletic field crews.
Due to the large size of both the County and parks system and the limited number of
staff, park maintenance is regionalized within the County so that a given crew will
maintain the northern, western or southern facilities in the County. This structure is
more efficient because it allows staff to spend more time performing maintenance in
the parks due to reduced travel times. This structure also reduces related travel costs
such as fuel consumption, which since the change in structure has been reduced about
35% over a three month period in a year-to-year comparison of gallons consumed. It
should be noted that the supervisory employee in this reporting relationship is also
completing maintenance duties in the park and furthermore, the reporting ratio
increases to 1:4 when seasonal employees are added.
31 Parks and
Recreation
Consider increasing the use of inmate labor
for maintenance at school grounds when
schools are not in session.
The department currently utilizes this program where possible and plans to continue to
do so in the future, though it is limited by the number of inmates that qualify for the
program that the jail can make available. Because of the program's requirements, very
few inmates meet the qualifications to be released to this program.
Page 9
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
32 Parks and
Recreation
Develop mechanisms for tracking
performance data for park maintenance,
trails, ball fields and facilities, including
utilizing customer satisfaction surveys on
web, at program sites and comment boxes.
The department has an established ongoing survey system; however, this
recommendation is presently being evaluated further, including more formal comment
boxes, web-based surveys and examining performance data collected by other
jurisdictions.
Performance data to be tracked included in Park Maintenance KPI's. Web survey is
now available and survey boxes are in the parks. Survey results are reviewed in
weekly management meeting for information and action when necessary.
33 Parks and
Recreation
Legal Department should review all proffer
deeds prior to sending them to Parks and
Recreation Department.
Presently, staff from Parks and Recreation and County Attorney's Office work
concurrently to review proffer deeds. The County Attorney's Office's review provides for
proper legal form and language and Parks and Recreation provides input on the
substance of the proffers, both of which are critical aspects in the review. For this
reason, this review is best done jointly and this arrangement is planned to continue in
the future.
34 Police Continue efforts with other jurisdictions to
staff the Jefferson Area Drug Enforcement
(JADE) Task Force.
This is a current effort that is planned to be continued.
35 Police Within existing staff, 1) assign resources to
expand the Volunteers in Police Services
Program (VIPS) and 2) schedule both
detectives and traffic officers for both day
and evening shifts on weekdays and at
least one on weekends.
Detectives are now scheduled to work on Saturdays. The traffic unit periodically
schedules traffic unit members to work on Saturdays.
36 Social Services Collect data on usage and benefits of
Career Center in Social Services, then
seek grant support and encourage
Workforce Investment Board (WIB) to pay
for this function.
The survey data from participants is now automated and collected at each visit. The
department submitted a proposal to the WIB for funding support in the amount of
$57,895 and was awarded $6,000 for FY 2010 as a stipend toward the Career Center
satellite. We are in continuing our discussion now with the new One Stop Operator
regarding the expectations and requirements for use of the funds but their start-up as
the new contractor has slowed this process down. The department regularly reviews
other potential grant sources for funding support but to date has not found any that
would provide funding for the Center.
Page 10
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that have been resolved either by implementation or continuing existing County processes or practices
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
37 Social Services Work to improve outcomes of Adult
Services (APS) and Child Protective
Services (CPS).
While low staffing capacity has challenged the department to improve these outcomes,
the department has implemented strategies including 1) shifting some work to
prevention units to alleviate the pressure in CPS and 2) obtaining approval from VDSS
to eliminate aspects of the Structured Decision Making Model that cannot be met with
current staffing levels. Recent decreases in referrals for APS and CPS have helped to
improve outcomes in both areas.
38 Social Services Work with the University of Virginia to
provide Department of Social Services staff
ability to conduct Medicaid enrollment in all
localities.
The Department has received approval form VDSS and UVA on the contract and the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) required to be signed by contiguous localities
for enrollment. The MOU has been sent to eight localities and all but one has signed
the MOU. Once all the signatures are obtained, the state will sign off on the contract
and we can begin enrollments. Contracts and MOU's have all been signed and staff at
the UVA unit are enrolling cases for the localities identified.
Page 11
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
1 Board of
Supervisors
Consider 1) including school debt as part of
the transfer to the schools budget 2)
annually adjusting the "60/40 split" based
upon population, enrollment and other
considerations, and 3) negotiating an
appropriate fund balance for the schools to
maintain.
Including school debt service as part of the transfer to schools was considered by the
two Boards on July 1st at a joint meeting and was determined not to be a change that
either Board supported. Local government and school staff are working together with
the two Boards to consider the other two issues which are planned to be considered
during future joint meetings. Final determination is scheduled to occur over the course
of the next year with any proposed changes to be implemented as part of the FY 10/11
and FY 11/12 budget processes, should any changes be approved.
2 Community
Development
Process Management: 1) Define "critical
paths" for initiatives, including labor and
material estimates; and 2) cost should be
part of the criteria when selecting projects.
Demands for public hearings, reports, work
sessions and revisions may be reduced.
Staff has begun to implement this recommendation as part of the Crozet Master Plan
update that started this year. Results will be reported with completion of Crozet Master
Plan update and refined process applied to future efforts.
3 Community
Development
Geographic Data Services : 1) Document
the anticipated and actual cost savings to
the County of their services; and 2) conduct
an independent analysis to determine the
potential cost savings and benefits of
moving Geographic Data Services (GDS)
within IT.
This item will be evaluated in the broader context of IT staffing and the County's
service reallocation as the County proceeds with the Access Albemarle project. This
reorganization was considered as part of the 2002 GIS Project Evaluation and based
on that study, the County decided that the GDS was properly located. This decision will
be periodically reviewed by the County’s GIS Steering Committee as part of its annual
work program considerations. Staff now considers this an ongoing review rather than a
new initiative.
4 Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA):
Administrative
Issues
1) Make it a priority to reduce costs to
localities and the number of at-risk children,
2) reduce the number administrative
meetings, 3) advocate for "community-
based" rather than "congregate" care, and
4) reduce or eliminate the "threshold"
category
1) This recommendation has been made a priority due to the financial implications of a
recent change in State match rates and evidence-based practices that show best
results when children remain in their home communities. To this end, the County, City
and its CSA partners are working to implement a broad-based community approach
(Systems of Care) for at-risk children.
2 - 4) The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains similar
recommendations. A City/County staff workgroup has been formed to evaluate these
recommendation and develop alternative models with specific means for achieving
efficiencies. The work group will report its findings to the County Executive & City
Manager in the fall of 2009.
Page 12
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
5 Comprehensive
Services Act
(CSA): Policy
Issues
Consider reorganization of CSA
administration to streamline system,
including 1) housing CSA staff within Social
Services while retaining a regional focus
and 2) redefining the CSA Coordinator's
role through the Commission on Children
and Families (CCF).
The City of Charlottesville's Resource Management Study contains similar
recommendations. A City/County staff workgroup has been formed to evaluate these
recommendations and develop alternative models with specific means for achieving
efficiencies. The work group will report its findings to the County Executive & City
Manager in the fall of 2009.
6 County
Executive's Office
Enhance areas of opportunity to further
cooperate or consider consolidating with
the City of Charlottesville for benefit of the
region and to realize efficiencies.
Staff will evaluate the specific recommendations noted in the report, including potential
opportunities in Office of Housing and Parks and Recreation department. The
Resource Management Review noted the County currently utilizes extensive regional
collaborations.
7 County
Executive's Office
Where not presently used, encourage the
use of performance-based contracts and
memorandums for partners.
As part of the Agency Budget Review Team (ABRT) process, staff will work where
possible to develop performance-based contracts with agencies that receive
funding. Prepared contracts will be targeted to be in place for FY 10/11.
8 County
Executive's Office
Legislative: Bring to the attention of the
General Assembly 1) the disadvantageous
effects of the 2006 telecommunications tax
reform legislation; and 2) the
circumstances that legislative actions
regarding annexation policy have placed
upon the County
These recommendations will be considered for emphasis amongst the Board of
Supervisors' 2010 legislative priorities and discussions with legislators.
9 County
Executive's Office
Establish an internal operational "County
Calendar" that lists all the key dates for the
coming year as part of an internal
communications strategy.
Community Relations staff will assess whether existing internal communication tools
effectively provide this information and whether the upgrade to the County website that
is underway will allow for additional opportunities. Currently, many internal processes
have calendars maintained by departments such as the budget, Board of Supervisors
packet preparation and accounting procedures. These dates are regularly
communicated to relevant internal audiences.
10 County
Executive's Office
For those community agencies where it is
not a current practice, request and review
quarterly progress reports on outcome
measures.
Where not currently done, staff will work in collaboration with the City of Charlottesville
to develop outcome measures and quarterly progress reports for community agencies
as appropriate.
11 Finance Increase efforts to determine whether or
not County businesses with Charlottesville
zip codes are making payments to the
proper locality.
Staff is in the process of internally filling the Business Auditor position that will work
with current resources from the Office of Geographic Data Services to move this effort
forward.
Page 13
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
12 Finance Ensure citizens understand the nuances of
state funding formulas that make the
County's operations more dependent upon
local revenue sources.
Staff is preparing information about State funding formulas for the FY 2010/2011
budget document and budget presentations.
13 Finance Re-examine the need to have a separate
and distinct set of procurement regulations
and revisit the policy of not issuing key
employees purchasing cards.
The County generally follows State purchasing guidelines with the exception of stricter
spending limits due to the smaller size of County operations compared to the State.
However, current procurement regulation will be reviewed to determine if any changes
should be considered. Purchasing cards are being evaluated as part of the
implementation of the Access Albemarle project.
14 Finance Develop memorandums of understanding
with entities that routinely receive County
services and project agreements for one-
time projects that are managed on behalf of
agencies. Also, formalize the roles
associated with services provided to the
Schools.
Staff will work with agencies that use the County as fiscal agent to formulate a
standard agreement for services. The roles associated with services provided to the
Schools will also be evaluated and documented.
15 Finance Undertake a study of the staffing needs for
the financial operations of the County while
moving forward with "Access Albemarle."
The department's staffing needs are continually being reviewed as part of the County's
efforts to manage its frozen positions and service reallocations. This effort will continue
during the implementation of the Access Albemarle project. A more formalized staffing
study will be considered once Access Albemarle has been completed.
16 Finance Establish a proactive risk management and
internal control function and consider
holding a "table top" disaster drill
associated with recovery of a major
disaster impacting County financial
operations.
Current staffing levels and financial constraints limit the department's ability to provide
a proactive risk management function at this time. Staff will work with the IT
department to consider a drill for a disaster impacting financial operations.
17 Fire Rescue Implement as soon as practical a revenue
recovery program for medical transports.
On September 9, 2009 the Board of Supervisors adopted an Ordinance establishing a
framework for revenue recovery. It is anticipated that County-owned ambulances will
commence billing on February 1, 2010. Discussions continue with volunteer rescue
squads to determine if they will participate in billing. Still on track for 2/1/2010
18 Fire Rescue Utilize the career department with the
volunteer departments as one cohesive
professional agency.
Direction from the Board of Supervisors is needed for consideration of this matter.
Page 14
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
19 Human
Resources
Maintain the employee wellness program
and expand its range of activities as
funding permits.
Continue partnership with ACAC@Work to provide wellness services to employees
and work with Southern Health's wellness department to identify services that are
included in its existing policy to prevent duplication of services. Currently initiating a
medically supervised weight loss pilot program with identified program measurements
to measure impact on medical insurance experience, employee productivity and
absenteeism. Planning for future programs, which include offering health screenings
and coaching to employees.
20 Human
Resources
Create a systematic plan for safety audits
to assess current and potential health and
safety problems for schools and local
government.
A safety audit program for local government has been implemented and the process is
underway to audit each department on a quarterly basis. The safety team has been
trained and has completed the first quarterly departmental safety audit.
21 Human
Resources
Develop employee handbooks to serve as
a quick reference for questions related to
policies and guidelines.
The department is currently developing an employee handbook for all local government
employees.
22 Human
Resources
Extend the HR Satisfaction and Employee
Climate Surveys to school employees to
receive feedback from all segments of
County. For local government, add
performance evaluation and pay-for-
performance plan questions on the Climate
Surveys.
In December 2009, School and Local Government staff made a joint decision to
postpone the next Employee Climate Survey until the end of 2010.
Page 15
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
23 Information
Technology
Security: Implement 1) regular external
and internal penetration testing for IT
networks; 2) more formal security and
awareness training for County employees;
and 3) formal Security Architecture Review
(SAR) process reviews by committee.
We received approval to contract with an outside IT Security Firm to perform a Security
Audit. This work will be complete by March 2010. The work will include a list of key
items for IT attention which we will address.
Due to competing priorities CyberSecurity Training was only provided as a seminar
format in 2009. We are continuing work on the department by department training to
be provided in Feb./March 2010 with the assistance of unpaid University of Virginia
Interns.
We are in the process of contracting for a complete security audit and are down to two
finalists. This work needs to be completed by an outside resource, funds are allocated
but we are attempting to minimize expenses. Due to budget constraints we are using
in house developed tools to help with providing data security training. This training will
start in Oct. 2009 with plans to complete for all employees by end of CY2009.
1) The department will complete at least one Security Audit during 2009 and
subsequent years. 2) The department is evaluating solutions, including VA Interactive,
which was identified by the report's consultants. 3) This is a formal, but undocumented
process; the department will document this process as part of its Security Plan Update.
24 Office of Housing Clarify role of Housing Committee and their
deliverables. Reevaluate the time used by
four different housing committees in the
region and explore opportunities for
regional consolidation.
The Housing Committee will ask for guidance from the Board of Supervisors for
prioritizing their strategies. With regard to exploring regional consolidation, it is unlikely
that this can occur unless the City and County agree to common policies and
ordinances and sharing of investments for affordable housing. The City appoints its
committee, the County appoints its committee, and the Regional Directors' Council
provides support to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in the
administration of the HOME Consortium. There is a fairly good level of cooperation and
collaboration between the City and County and the other four counties in the Planning
District especially in respect to the administration of federal HOME funds.
25 Office of Housing Develop a strategic plan to guide
investment and partnership decisions of the
Office of Housing and affordable housing
policy.
The Housing Committee completed the development of a strategic plan in August
identifying four areas of focus and establishing subcommittees to address these
areas. The Committee is preparing a report to the BOS for one of its February
meetings to provided a status on its strategies and receive guidance for moving
forward. The Committee has also developed a draft proposal for use in allocating
proffered funds for affordable housing. The draft will be discussed at their January
meeting.
Page 16
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that are in the process of being implemented
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
26 Parks and
Recreation
Make it a priority to develop a web-based
registration system for parks and recreation
activities to reduce the burden on
administrative staff and increase revenues.
The department has inquired with both other jurisdictions and internal departments to
identify potential solutions and issues in implementation. The department is currently
in contact with Vermont Systems Inc. regarding their Rec Trac product which is
currently used by the City of Charlottesville. Due to the significant cost of going to a
web-based registration system this request will be presented to the newly established
Technology Resources Steering Committee for evaluation and prioritization with other
County technology improvements.
27 Parks and
Recreation
Identify one person to serve as the
coordinator for volunteer programming.
Consider jointly hiring or funding this
position with the City of Charlottesville.
Currently, the department manages volunteer recruitment and supervision within
existing staff (Greenway Supervisor and Park Service Officer). These volunteers are
primarily used for trail and greenway development and maintenance. Over time, as
workload increases in these areas, these position's responsibilities related to
volunteers will increase correspondingly.
28 Regional Jail
Authority
Support 1) options for jail expansion; 2) a
review of the current gate/pass system with
a biometric system; and 3) efforts to repair
the locator system
Because this is a regional agency, these recommendations will be referred to the
Regional Jail Board for consideration and/or implementation.
29 Social Services Assess cost savings from Community
Services Board (CSB) Diagnostic Center,
and if positive, encourage local usage.
VCU is in the process of evaluation but VCU has been slow to respond and the
Program sub-committee of the CPMT may have to pursue a new vendor to perform a
full analysis. In the meantime monthly reports indicate a total of forty-eight children
referred and of those thirty-five have been able to remain in the community and not go
into congregate care.
Page 17
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that will be reviewed in the context of the County’s annual Five-Year Financial Plan and budget processes
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
1 Commonwealth
Attorney's Office
Provide local funding for an Assistant
Commonwealth's Attorney position if
position is approved by State
Compensation Board.
To be evaluated during budget process if an additional Assistant Commonwealth
Attorney is approved. As of this report, the State Compensation Board has not
approved this position.
2 County
Executive's Office
Offer IT services to help review the
feasibility of automating medical records to
support the Regional Jail Authority.
This is a responsibility of the Regional Jail Board and will need to be considered during
the annual budget process. Due to current staffing limitations within the County's IT
department, no resources are available to offer at this time.
3 Finance Review all fees on an annual basis to keep
the appropriate costs in discretionary
services up to date.
Updates to fees are being considered as part of the annual budget process.
4 Finance Ensure employees remain current on
aspects of operations and compliance and
continue training and development
opportunities for staff; address the aging
Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal system
(CAMA) to ensure timely and fair appraisals
in the future.
Staff is currently reviewing potential systems to replace the CAMA system. Training
and development opportunities for staff will also be evaluated as part of the annual
budget process and as part of the Access Albemarle project implementation.
5 Fire Rescue Evaluate the need for hiring another
Battalion Chief for better coverage and
more reasonable span of control.
This recommendation will be evaluated as part of the annual budget process.
6 Information
Technology
Budget Issues: Consider funding 1) a
recovery service located at least 100 miles
away to restore systems faster; 2 Intrusion
Detection/Protection Systems (IDS/IPS) to
better provide IT security; and 3) an
additional desktop support staff member
IT is designing a business continuity and disaster recovery plan during FY 2010/2011,
IT will request the funds to create and maintain an offsite disaster recovery site outside
our region. We plan to keep our backup systems at COB 5 and create a second option
with the new service.
These recommendations will be considered as part of the annual budget process.
Presently, IT has recovery options using its two data centers located in the County
office buildings at McIntire Street and 5th Street.
7 Police Consider funding various positions and/or
resources to improve Police services
Placed on hold---budgetary constraints.
Page 18
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
1 Board of
Supervisors
Approve a strategic plan that could make
economic development a priority and
identify this area as a potential major
generator of revenue.
The Economic Development section of Comprehensive Plan was recently revised.
Board of Supervisors direction is needed regarding whether this issue should be
addressed in the Strategic Plan as a new priority. This item will be revisited with the
Board as a part of future strategic planning discussions.
2 County
Executive's Office
Conduct a review of the performance
management system with input of the
Board and citizens to increase
transparency and improve the significance
of key performance indicators.
This recommendation will be considered for evaluation as the County's performance
management efforts continue to evolve. As part of the current website upgrade, staff
will work to better present County-related data on the website for the benefit of citizens.
Presently, the Board receives this information through such venues as its annual
Strategic Planning Retreat and budget document.
3 Fire Rescue Consider painting all fire and rescue
vehicles (both paid and volunteer) the same
color with the same markings so vehicles
can be transferred between stations for
better management of apparatus' life
cycles.
This will be evaluated once the Board of Supervisors provides direction on the "Utilize
the career department with the volunteer departments as one cohesive professional
agency" recommendation.
4 Fire Rescue Work towards requirement that all first
responders (both volunteers and County
staff) adhere to standards of Incident
Command, all radio standard operating
procedures and discipline.
This will be evaluated once the Board of Supervisors provides direction on the "Utilize
the career department with the volunteer departments as one cohesive professional
agency" recommendation.
5 Fire Rescue Develop a central automated Emergency
Medical Services (EMS) reporting system.
This will be evaluated once the Board of Supervisors provides direction on the "Utilize
the career department with the volunteer departments as one cohesive professional
agency" recommendation.
6 Parks and
Recreation
Evaluate the shared responsibilities
between the Director and the Deputy
Director and clarify job descriptions.
Consider adding partnership development
and revenue generation to Deputy
Director's role.
This recommendation will be evaluated in the future giving consideration to flexibility
needed in roles to manage a relatively small department. The current department
structure allows for flexibility between the two positions in managing both capital
improvements in parks as well as day-to-day operations. It should be noted that
partnership development is an ongoing process for the department, which was
identified during the recently completed benchmarking survey in the Recreation Needs
Assessment. Presently, revenue generation is a shared responsibility between all
department divisions.
Page 19
Attachment A - Status of Resource Management Review Recommendations
Status: Recommendations that will require further evaluation by staff before they can be considered for implementation
#Department Recommendation Comments/Next Steps
7 Parks and
Recreation
Evaluate whether the joint operation of
Albemarle and Charlottesville Parks and
Recreation Departments will improve
efficiencies and enhance resources.
While not a joint operation, the City and County Parks and Recreation departments
presently collaborative extensively. As an example, the City and County departments
will soon be jointly conducting a study on field use and allocation and will seek to create
a formal policy on field allocation to be used by both departments in fairly assigning
field space annually. This study will also better identify field needs so that the
departments can jointly plan for the provision of addition field space in the future.
Beyond the current cooperative efforts between the two departments, a formal study of
a jointly operated Parks and Recreation department will need to be initiated by the
Board of Supervisors. It is worth noting that a combined department may not
necessarily reduce and could in fact increase County costs, as although the County
has approximately 70% of the localities' population, for FY 09/10, the County
department's operating budget was about $2.3 million compared to the City
department's operating budget of about $7.7 million.
8 Parks and
Recreation
Develop a more comprehensive strategic
plan that includes longer term master
planning for parks and recreational
programming.
This recommendation will be evaluated within the broader context of the County's
financial situation, which has resulted in the delay of several short and long-term capital
projects and limited recreational programs.
9 Police Expand the use of volunteers in Animal
Control.
This has been placed on hold until Spring 2010.
10 Sheriff's Office Coordinate regular traffic enforcement and
traffic control during emergencies between
the Sheriff and Police to help avoid
duplication of efforts. Also, Sheriff should
report to the Police Department the number
of traffic tickets issued.
Staff will work to prepare a memorandum of understanding between the Sheriff's Office
and Police Department.
11 Social Services Assess the benefits of consolidation with
Head Start including an assessment of
costs and savings.
The department has recently partnered with the County School Division to create the
Albemarle Pre-School Network that includes the Bright Stars, Head Start, Title I and
SPED programs as a collaborative body. The application for parents among programs
has been consolidated and in the coming year is planned to include the Charlottesville
pre-school program. The benefits of consolidation above these efforts have not been
fully assessed.
Page 20
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
(ACSA) Amendment, Piney Mountain Development Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing to consider including Tax Map 32, Parcel
5C4 in the Piney Mountain Development Area in the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 10, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 2, 2009, the Board approved an amendment to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation to include all of
the previously undesignated properties in the Piney Mountain Development Area that are east of U.S. 29 for water and
sewer service consistent with the policies for the extension of utilities in the Comprehensive Plan. The Piney Mountain
Development Area includes areas both east and west of Route U.S. 29 north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. The
area west of U.S. 29, which contains the Camelot and Briarwood residential developments and the GE plant, was already
designated for water and sewer service. Most of the area east of U.S. 29 is undeveloped. The Rivanna Station military
installation /existing NGIC facility is located to the east of U.S. 29, but was not included in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area
under the Board’s action in December.
This is a proposal to add Tax Map 32, Parcel 5C4 to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service. This
parcel is owned by the Federal Government and is part of the site of the Rivanna Station military facility.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
1. Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
2. Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following guidance concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the
Development Areas:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
The parcel proposed for inclusion in the ACSA Jurisdictional Area does not lie completely within the Piney Mountain
Development Area. Generally, to be consistent with the water and sewer service policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
only the portion of the parcel located within the Development Area should be designated for water and sewer service.
Also, as a general policy, the County avoids designating parcels with a split ACSA designation until there is a method to
clearly identify the portion of the property that is within the Development Area and is to be served with utilities (such as by
a ZMA, site plan, or subdivision approval).
However, in this case, Tax Map 32 Parcel 5C4 is owned by the federal government and is part of the Rivanna Station
military base facility. Because the parcel is federally owned and is used for federal governmental purposes, it is exempt
from local land use regulations. A large Defense Intelligence Agency building is currently under construction on the
parcel (outside of the Development Area). Based on development plans for the parcel recently provided to staff, most of
the parcel will be developed as part of the Rivanna Station military installation. Development of this scale should be
served by public sewer and water.
Given the specific circumstances in this case, staff opinion is that this parcel should be included in the ACSA
Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service.
AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area (ACSA) Amendment, Piney Mountain
Development Area
February 10, 2010
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact to the County from this action. Property owners/project developers typically bear the costs for
water and sewer installation and connection.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends, after the public hearing, that the Board approve the amendment to the ACSA Jurisdictional Area to
include Tax Map 32, Parcel 5C4 for water and sewer service.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Location Map with Development Area Boundary
Return to regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Comprehensive Plan Areas
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ACSA JA Amendment, Piney Mtn.-- Location Map with Growth Area Boundary Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia January 26, 2010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 8, 2009
Keeney & Company Architects PLC
1416 Sachem Place, Suite One
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP200800035 Covesville Church (Sign # 55)
Tax Map, Parcel10900-00-00-006E0
Dear Mr. Keeney;
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 2009, recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Action on SP-2008-00035 Covesville First Baptist Church:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved SP-2008-00035 with the following conditions,
as modified.
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “First Baptist
Church Covesville: New Sanctuary Building,” prepared by Keeney & Co. Architects, and
dated October 9, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
limits of disturbance
building orientation
building mass and shape,
location of buildings and structures
location of parking areas
as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of a 180-seat sanctuary.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
4. Health Department approval shall be obtained prior to site plan approval.
5. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval prior to site plan approval and the commencement of the special use.
Action on Waiver:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved a waiver from section 32.7.9.7(b) regarding the street
trees.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 10, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: First Baptist Church Covesville/R. Smith
P O Box 92
Covesville, VA 22931
Covesville First Baptist Church; Edward R Henderson, Rauzelle Smith, E
1508 Trailridge Road
Charlottesville, Va 22903
SP 2008-35
PC December 15, 2009
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 15, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2008-35 First Baptist Church Covesville
Petition:
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to construct a new sanctuary building, adjacent to the existing church
building, to contain a fellowship hall, classrooms, and activity spaces. Parking area would be relocated to
accommodate new building.
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 cemetery
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 5883 Henderson Lane (Rt. 805), approximately 1,300 feet west of Monacan Trail (Rt. 29 South)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 10900 -00-00-006E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
Character of the Area:
The surrounding context is comprised of primarily large forested parcels to the south and west. Large
single-family home parcels to the north and east create a few open patches in what would otherwise be
contiguous forest (Attachment A). The church is located in the Cove Creek watershed, and several parcels
of land approximately one mile north are under conservation easement. The church is located one-half mile
south of the intersection of Monacan Trail (Rt. 29 South) and Heards Mountain Road, and is accessed by
the approximately 1,500 foot gravel Henderson Lane. A cemetery is located 200 feet west of the existing
church (Attachment B).
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is seeking approval to construct an approximately 3,200 square foot sanctuary 34’ east of the
existing church. The new sanctuary would mirror the existing church, and the entrance porticos would be
connected by a covered breezeway. The existing sanctuary seating would be relocated to the new sanctuary,
and the old church would be used as a fellowship hall, with Sunday school classrooms and offices in the
basement. The proposed development would not increase the maximum number of 180 seats in the sanctuary
allowed by the current Special Use Permit, SP 89-21, and no day-care, after-school program, or kitchen
facility is proposed.
A new paved parking area is also proposed north of the church. The proposed parking would be able to
accommodate 37 parking spaces, as opposed to the current 29 informal parking gravel spaces east of the
existing church.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the landscaping requirements of Chapter 18, Section 32.7.9.7B
of the Code of Albemarle, which requires landscaping in and around parking areas. Given the rural
character of the site, requiring landscaping and screening for parking areas would be inconsistent with
previous Special Use Permits in the Rural Areas district and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning History:
In 1989, Special Use Permit SP 89-21 was approved for the construction of a new church facility, with a
seating capacity not to exceed 180 persons.
SP 2008-35
PC December 15, 2009
Staff Report Page 2
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and
protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options.
Part of this vision also includes the support of agricultural and forestal communities through community
meeting places, at rural scales, that provide the opportunity to take part in community life.
Under the Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan, allowing an addition to this rural community
church supports the following Guiding Principles:
“Protect the Rural Area’s historic, archeological, and cultural resources.”
“Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural Area residents.”
“Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further suburbanization
of the Rural Areas.”
The proposed new sanctuary for First Baptist Church Covesville would help sustain the continuing presence
of a community church, thereby enhancing the quality of life of its rural congregation. The propose new
sanctuary also addresses the needs of rural residents without encouraging suburbanization, contributing to the
creation of a defacto growth area, or impacting the character of local historic, scenic, or cultural resources.
STAFF COMMENT:
The new sanctuary would not represent an increase in intensity in the use of the site and would serve to
support existing activities more efficiently; however, a site plan will be required. The applicant has shown
proposed parking spaces over the drainfield on the concept plan, which will be discussed with the Health
Department as it may cause damage to the drainfield. Approval by the Health Department will be required
as part of the site plan review process.
This application is subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key provision of RLUIPA
states:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a
substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution,
unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or
institution – (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least
restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (italics added)
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1) treat a religious assembly or
institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions; (2) not discriminate against any
assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious
assemblies, or unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. §
2000cc(b).
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use 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,
The proposed addition to an existing church building does not represent an increased intensity of use, as the
new sanctuary would be limited to 180 seats. Associated traffic patterns or overall activity on the site would
not change as a result of this proposal. The proposed addition would have a minor visual impact on the
SP 2008-35
PC December 15, 2009
Staff Report Page 3
neighboring property owner to the east; therefore, the applicant has proposed the addition of four Leyland
Cypress trees along the east property line.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The church, constructed in the 1990s, sits on a rise on a primarily cleared parcel, surrounded by vast expanses
of wooded land with intermittent agricultural fields and clearings occupied by churches and residences
(Attachment C). The proposed 3,200 square foot addition would mirror the existing church and a breezeway
would connect the two porticos of the existing church and the new sanctuary (Attachment D). The massing
and footprint of the proposed sanctuary does not exceed that of the existing church; and therefore, staff feels
that the proposed addition is conceived in a manner that would minimally impact the existing character of the
church building, the site, and the surrounding district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: “This district
(hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning
map for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)”
The construction of a new sanctuary would allow for a more convenient and functional place of worship, and
would encourage the congregation of First Baptist Church Covesville to continue its active presence within
the local community, which is a purpose compatible with other purposes in the district.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The uses permitted by right under RA zoning include the preservation of agricultural and forestal activities.
Sustaining the County’s Rural Area zoning district is dependent on including uses that support agricultural
and forestal communities, such as meeting places, at rural scales, which provide the opportunity to take part in
community life. The proposed new sanctuary for First Baptist Church Covesville would allow the
congregation to continue to support agricultural and forestal community life at a rural scale by providing
additional space for the necessary functions of the church.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordin ance,
There are no regulations in Section 5.0 of the Ordinance that apply to church buildings and adjunct
cemeteries.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Albemarle County Engineer has indicated that a stormwater management plan and erosion control plan
would be required as part of the site plan review process. Health Department approval would also be required
as part of the site plan review process.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The new sanctuary would help sustain the continuing presence of a vibrant community church,
enhancing the quality of life of its rural congregation.
2. The new sanctuary addresses the needs of rural residents.
3. The new sanctuary would minimally impact the existing character of the church building.
SP 2008-35
PC December 15, 2009
Staff Report Page 4
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application:
1. The new sanctuary would have a minimal impact on the adjacent property to the east.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2008-35
First Baptist Church Covesville with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “First Baptist Church
Covesville: New Sanctuary Building,” prepared by Keeney & Co. Architects, and dated October 9, 2009,
(hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
limits of disturbance
building orientation
building mass and shape,
location of buildings and structures
location of parking areas
shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made
to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of a 180-seat sanctuary.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use
permit.
4. Health Department approval shall be obtained prior to site plan approval.
5. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval prior to site
plan approval and the commencement of the special use.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Site Context
Attachment B – Aerial
Attachment C – Site Photos
Attachment D – Concept Plan
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2008-00035 COVESVILLE CHURCH 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 15, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, December
15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design
Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2008-00035 Covesville Chruch
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to construct new sanctuary building, adjacent to existing church
building, to contain fellowship hall, classrooms, and activity spaces on a 3.028 acre parcel. Parking area
would be relocated to accommodate new building.
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 cemetery
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 5883 Henderson Lane (Rt. 805), appx. 1,300 feet west of Monacan Trail (Rt. 29 South)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 10900-00-00-006E0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Eryn Brennan)
Eryn Brennan made a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
This is a proposal to locate an approximately 3,200 square foot sanctuary 34’ east of the existing church.
The surrounding area is comprised of primarily large forested parcels to the south and west. The church
is located in the Cove Creek Watershed. Several parcels of land approximately one mile North are under
conservation easement. The Covesville Historic District is located about a quarter of a mile south of this
parcel. Please note this correction on attachment A in the staff report.
The new sanctuary would mirror the existing church, and the entrance porticos would be connected by a
covered breezeway. The existing sanctuary seating would be relocated to the new sanct uary, and the old
church would be used as a fellowship hall, with Sunday school classrooms and offices in the basement.
The proposed development would not increase the maximum number of 180 seats in the sanctuary
allowed by the current Special Use Permit, SP 89-21, and no day-care, after-school program, or kitchen
facility is proposed.
A new paved parking area is also proposed north of the church. The proposed parking would be able to
accommodate 37 parking spaces, as opposed to the current 29 informal parking gravel spaces east of the
existing church.
The applicant is requesting a waiver from the landscaping requirements of Chapter 18, Section 32.7.9.7B
of the Code of Albemarle, which requires landscaping in and around parking areas. Given the rural
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2008-00035 COVESVILLE CHURCH 2
character of the site, requiring landscaping and screening for parking areas would be inconsistent with
previous Special Use Permits in the Rural Areas district and with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The new sanctuary would help sustain the continuing presence of a vibrant community church,
enhancing the quality of life of its rural congregation.
2. The new sanctuary addresses the needs of rural residents.
3. The new sanctuary would minimally impact the existing character of the church building.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The new sanctuary would have a minimal impact on the adjacent property to the east.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit
2008-35, First Baptist Church Covesville with the conditions listed in the staff report.
There being no questions for staff, Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
come forward to address the Commission.
Ron Keeney, of Keeney and Company Architects, noted that there were two possible questions that might
have arisen in their minds.
One question was why they are building this. They are building a new sanctuary. There is an
existing sanctuary built 20 years ago. It has a wood floor with a basement under it. When they
get a full congregation on the wood floor the noise is so loud the basement cannot be used for the
children. They have requested a new sanctuary with a sloped concrete floor in order to have a
better sanctuary facility. They will use the existing building to house their children and their
classroom that occur during their meetings. They are not anticipating any additional growth to the
sanctuary. The extra parking is being provided because it is different from 20 years ago.
The second issue that may be a question was in regards to the parking lot down the side line.
They are putting the building down that lot line. They were originally asked to by the County
because there was some question as to the landscaping along the side lot line. The landscaping
waiver they are asking for, which normally would occur along the parking that now was going in
the front, would be to put the landscaping down the side lot line where the old parking area was
located. Other than that they are available for comment.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Joseph asked if the County would allow a gravel parking lot in lieu of concrete.
Mr. Keeney replied that he was not sure they know that at this point. One of the things they were looking
at is to try to do a rather unique permeable concrete parking area that would allow the water to drain
through the concrete and down off the back of the parking space down the grassy slope as oppose to
having a hard surface. They have to work that out with the Health Department because of the septic field
location.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the ma tter
before the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they need to add the four Leyland Cyprus as a condition because the applicant is
saying that they are going to do that. The four Leyland Cyprus would help buffer the house next door.
She asked if the Commission needs to take action on a waiver of that section.
Ms. Brennan replied that the waiver is for the landscaping required for the parking only.
Ms. Porterfield noted that in addition to the approval of the special use permit with condition s the
Commission also needs to do a waiver.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2008-00035 COVESVILLE CHURCH 3
Ms. Brennan noted that in this case she did not think the waiver needs to be a condition of approval. In
terms of the four trees shown on the concept plan she presumed Mr. Cilimberg can speak to this better,
but if shown on the concept plan that would be what is then taken to Current Development for the site
plan.
Ms. Joseph asked to speak to the Leyland Cyprus. She asked that Leyland Cyprus not be used, but to
be something like American Holly or something that one would expect to see out there.
Mr. Strucko asked what the difference was.
Ms. Joseph noted that Hollies are indigenous, which she felt would be more appropriate in this setting at
4’ to 6’.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that in actuality the applicant can use an other type of tree if they so choose because
there are minor modifications allowed under condition #1.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP -2008-00035, First Baptist
Church Covesville with the conditions as recommended by staff.
1. Development of the use shall be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan entitled, “First
Baptist Church Covesville: New Sanctuary Building,” prepared by Keeney & Co.
Architects, and dated October 9, 2009, (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in conformity with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
limits of disturbance
building orientation
building mass and shape,
location of buildings and structures
location of parking areas
as shown on the Conceptual Plan.
Minor modifications to the Conceptual Plan which do not conflict with the elements above
may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The area of assembly shall be limited to a maximum of a 180-seat sanctuary.
3. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit.
4. Health Departm ent approval shall be obtained prior to site plan approval.
5. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away
from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no
greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their
designee for approval prior to site plan approval and the commencement of the special
use.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Action on Waiver:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of the waiver of section 32.7.9.7(b)
regarding the street trees subject to the following conditions.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2008-00035 COVESVILLE CHURCH 4
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit
200900022 Daylily Preschool” prepared by the County of Albemarle, signed by the applicant and
dated December 4, 2009 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, devel opment
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
location of buildings and preschool
location of parking area and entrance to be used for the preschool
relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed 10 children, without approval of an amendm ent to this
special use permit.
3. The hours of operation for the preschool shall not begin earlier than 8 A.M. and shall end not later
than 1 P.M. each day, Monday through Friday.
4. The use shall not operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services, as required by Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The building shall be accessible for the Albemarle County fire official to allow periodic inspections
of the premises, at his/her discretion
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that SP-2008-00035, Covesville First Baptist Church would go to the Board of
Supervisors on February 10 with a recommendation for approval. The waiver does not have to go to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Keeney requested to speak. He said that they were looking at the most patient man he had ever
worked with in his 25 years in the County. He met as a pre -application meeting on May 19, 2008. The
site plan was submitted in July, 2008. This is a renewal of a special use per mit that they have had for 20
years on that site. It has taken 18 months to get here through three different staffers. All the way through
they have had nothing but approvals. The letter from September 18 has no objection from six planners
on it. As an architect considering applying for Ms. Joseph’s seat he suggests that this is an example of
“process”. When Williamson speaks to process that is something that needs to be looked at. As another
example tonight, the dog owner had been there for ten years without a complaint and with one phone
they had to go through this process. That is what development community is concerned about, which
simply is the length and magnitude of the process.
Mr. Strucko noted that they did not have all the facts and reasons for this delay, but his point was taken.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 13, 2009
Blair L Morgan
5038 Turkey Sag Road
Keswick VA 22947
RE: SP200900017 Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs (Sign # 10)
Tax Map, Parcel 049000000006B0
Dear Ms. Morgan;
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 2009, recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of SP-2009-00017, Hugs and Kisses
Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs with the conditions as recommended by staff, as amended.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP200900017 Hugs
& Kisses Camp and Hotel for Dogs subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “SP200900017 Hugs
& Kisses Dog Care” prepared by the applicant and submitted on September 21, 2009
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
Areas noted “where dogs allowed” within fenced areas
Gate at entrance
Pond
Two structures: residence and barn,
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with
the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum number of dogs attending the Hugs & Kisses daytime camp shall be 20 dogs at
any one time (does not include personal pets owned by the applicant).
3. The maximum number of dogs attending the hotel (overnight) shall be 5 dogs (not including
personal pets owned by the applicant) at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM,
except for occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Dog Camp (day care) shall not begin earlier than 9 A.M. and
shall end not later than 5 P.M., each day, Monday through Friday.
6. An on-site sign for the dog care business shall not be permitted.
7. Transport of the dogs to and from the site shall be by the applicant, except in emergency
situations.
8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
9. Approval of Waivers from Section 5.1.11(a) and (b) shall be required.
10. Dogs attending the daytime camp or boarding overnight shall not howl, bark or make other
animal noise that is audible from any other parcel which continues for thirty (30) consecutive
minutes or more with no cessation of the sounds for greater than five (5) minutes during the
thirty (30) consecutive minute period.
Action on Waivers:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission approved waivers from sections 5.11.1(a) and 5.11.1(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance pertaining to setbacks, fencing, noise, and other considerations.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 10, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: Stratos, Timothy S or Janie M
1612 Kenwood Lane
Charlottesville Va 22901
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200900017 Hugs & Kisses
Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs with Special
Needs
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Rural Areas
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 15, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To Be Determined
Owner: Timothy/Janie Stratos Applicant: Hugs & Kisses Day Camp and
Hotel for Dogs with Special Needs
Acreage: 5 acres Special Use Permit: Zoning Ordinance
Section 10.2.2 (17) Commercial Kennel
TMP: 49-6B
Location: 5038 Turkey Sag Road
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Section 10.2.2.17 Commercial
Kennel - day care for dogs and some
overnight care ; Waivers Requested:
Sections 5.1.11(a), 5.1.11 (b), 5.1.11 (c);
5.1.11(d)
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Rural in character
with rolling terrain, steep slopes, forested
areas, scattered residential and farmland
Use of Surrounding Properties: Open
space, residential, mostly forested
Factors Favorable:
1. The nearest residence is over 1,500
feet away from the subject site and the
subject property is surrounded by
wooded areas.
2. The applicant transports the dogs;
therefore additional traffic is not
anticipated.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The dog care facility does not meet
the requirements of Section 5.1.11
(a) and (b) without approval of
waivers.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with
conditions, including approval of Waivers from Sec. 5.1.11 (a) and (b)
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 15, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
SP 200800017 Hugs & Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs with Special Needs
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900017 Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a dog day camp and overnight boarding for
dogs. Waivers have been requested from Section 5.1.11(a), (b), (c), and (d)
pertaining to setback, fencing, noise, other considerations when in proximity to
intensive uses, and soundproof confinement requirements
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 (17) Commercial Kennel
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 5038 Turkey Sag Rd. (Rt. 640) appx. 1.6 miles east of Stony Point Rd.
(Rt. 20)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000006B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area: Rural in character with rolling terrain, steep slopes,
forested areas, scattered residential and farmland.
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has requested approval of a special use
permit to be allowed to operate a dog day camp facility, with overnight dog (hotel)
available inside her home when this service is needed by the pet owners. The
concept plan is included as Attachment A and the location map is included as
Attachment B. The applicant has advised that all of the dogs in her care have a
variety of special physical or emotional needs such as arthritis, allergies, diabetes,
and separation anxiety. Pet owners visit the property on their initial visit and only
occasionally afterward. The business web page can be accessed at
www.blairsbabies.com. The applicant has provided the following specifics of the
operation:
Day Camp
Days of operation – Tuesday through Thursday; alternate days (Monday
and/or Friday) if inclement weather or other reasons prevents opening on the
regular days
Hours of operation – 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Dogs picked up by the applicant at the respective homes of the dog owners
and returned to their homes by the applicant at the end of the day
No employees
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 3
Number of dog guests – between 10 and 15 at a time
Dogs are kept outside in fenced areas
Closed five weeks per year – these weeks vary from year to year
Overnight (Hotel)
Open seven days a week and 24 hours a day
Dogs are kept inside the residence during the night, except for occasional,
supervised walks outside
A maximum of 5 dog guests at a time
The applicant currently owns two dogs that have not been included in the number of
dog guests listed in the operation information listed above, as they are her personal
pets.
The entrance to the property is gated.
The applicant has also requested Waivers from Section 5.1.11 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of
the zoning ordinance.
Letters in support of SP200900017 are included as Attachment C. No objections to
the application have been received.
Planning and Zoning History:
In 1999, the applicant applied for a Home Occupation Class A permit to be allowed
to have a dog training business on the property. A Class A permit requires that the
occupation be conducted inside the residence and not in the yard. It was determined
that there would be a change to the outside appearance of the residence as well as
visible and audible evidence of the conduct of the home occupation; therefore, the
permit was denied since it did not meet the definition for Home Occupation Class A.
The applicant was also advised that the use would require approval of a special use
permit for a Home Occupation Class B. (Attachment D)
In 2009, an anonymous complaint against the business was filed with the Zoning
Division, resulting in this special use permit application to relieve the zoning
violation.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject property as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land
use options. The dog care operation would not change the rural character, would
not require any additional structures, and would not cause any adverse
environmental impacts. Therefore, although the use would not further the goals of
the Plan, the goals would not be adversely affected.
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 4
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use 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,
The dog care operation is in an isolated area surrounded by forests. The applicant
provides regular transportation for the dogs, with exceptions for the initial visits to
see the property and infrequent visits from pet owners thereafter. There are no signs
advertising the business and, with the exception of seeing several dogs at the pond
area, there is no visible evidence of the dog care business from adjacent properties.
No negative impacts are anticipated.
that the character of the district will not be changed
The dog care business would cause limited impact on the character of the district.
No structures or signage would be constructed and traffic impacts would be minimal.
thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas
zoning: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may
hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning map for the following
purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources. (Amended 11-8-89)”
The dog care business would not cause any negative impacts on preservation, water
supply, and conservation of the Rural Areas, and it would not create a demand for
service delivery to the RA.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The dog care business would not conflict with the agricultural, forestal, and
residential uses allowed by right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The applicant has requested waivers from the additional requirements of Section
5.1.11. Although this use may be approved without approval of waivers of Section
5.1.11 (a), (b), (c) and (d) (discussed below), the proposed operation of the dog care
is dependent on the approval of the waivers. Therefore, a condition of approval of
the special use permit has been offered that would require that the special use permit
be subject to the approval of the waivers.
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 5
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The applicant transports the dogs to and from the property; therefore, visits to the
site by pet owners is limited. The Virginia Department of Transportation and the
Virginia Department of Health did not have any comments on this proposal.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The nearest residence is over 1,500 feet away from the subject site and the
subject property is surrounded by wooded areas.
2. The applicant transports the dogs; therefore additional traffic is not anticipated.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application.
2. The dog care facility does not meet the requirements of Section 5.1.11 (a) and
(b), without approval of waivers.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP200900017 Hugs & Kisses Camp and Hotel for Dogs subject to the following
conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled
“SP200900017 Hugs & Kisses Dog Care” prepared by the applicant and
submitted on September 21, 2009 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as
determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning Administrator. To be in
accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following
major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
Areas noted “where dogs allowed” within fenced areas
Gate at entrance
Pond
Two structures: residence and barn
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do
not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum number of dogs attending the Hugs & Kisses daytime camp
shall be 20 dogs at any one time (does not include personal pets owned by
the applicant).
3. The maximum number of dogs attending the hotel (overnight) shall be 5 dogs
(not including personal pets owned by the applicant) at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 PM
and 6:00 AM, except for occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Dog Camp (day care) shall not begin earlier
than 9 A.M. and shall end not later than 5 P.M., each day, Monday through
Friday.
6. An on-site sign for the dog care business shall not be permitted.
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 6
7. Transport of the dogs to and from the site shall be by the applicant, except in
emergency situations.
8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect
light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels
at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to
the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval
9. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (b) shall be required.
Waiver Requests
The applicant has requested waivers from the following zoning ordinance
requirements.
[Section 5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR
HOSPITAL, ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary and animal hospital shall be subject to the following:]
Waiver from Section 5.1.11(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-
conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred
(500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an
external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the
animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by
the zoning administrator;
Applicant‟s Justification: This requirement is not needed for the following reasons:
The owners of the adjacent property (tax map 49-06) will state as follows:
They have no complaint or objection to „Hugs and Kisses‟ business operations and /
or any aspects of the same.
Their property surrounds the subject property. Their land is undeveloped,
mountainous and in land use.
Owners of property (TMP 49-06B) property on which Hugs & Kisses operates will state:
They object to solid fencing, as it would destroy the natural beauty and rural nature of
the surrounding area.
During many unscheduled visits, they have never witnessed barking dogs; d=had any
neighbors complain about barking dogs; observed dogs out of control and/or
unsupervised.
Staff Analysis: The owners of the subject property are also the owners of the parcel that
borders the subject parcel on the west, east, and north, sides (TMP 49-06). The Nature
Conservancy owns the three adjacent parcels on the south, across Turkey Sag Road. These
parcels are part of the Walnut Mountain preserve and are under conservation easement held
by the Nature Conservancy. None of the adjacent parcels contain residences. The concept
plan (Attachment A) provides approximate distances for the house to the property line and
staff has measured approximate distances from the fence to the property lines.
Adjacent parcel (west, east, and north TMP 49-06) – approximately 95‟ from residence to the
closest property line and approximately 15‟ from the fence to the closest property line.
Adjacent parcels on the south (TMP 49-8M, 21.6 acres; TMP 49-8N, 16.9 acres; TMP 49-8P,
25.8 acres) TMP 49-8P is approximately 40‟ from the pond and approximately 25‟ from the
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 7
fence surrounding the pond and approximately 230‟ from the residence. The center parcel
(TMP 49-8N) on the southern border is approximately 200‟ from the residence and
approximately 100‟ from the closest fence. The westernmost parcel (TMP 49-8M) is
approximately 100‟ from the closest fence and 280‟ from the residence.
Outside areas where the dogs are allowed do not meet the 500‟ minimum setback distance to
agricultural or residential lot lines and the existing fencing materials used to confine the dogs
consists of 6‟ high wire mesh fencing.
The nearest residence is over 1,500 feet from the subject property and the surrounding area
consists of mostly undeveloped parcels and forested areas and scattered residential. All of
the parcels along the south side of Turkey Sag Road spanning at least 1,500‟ feet on either
side of the subject parcel are under conservation easement held and owned by the Nature
Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has advised that there are no plans to develop the
properties and that they have no objection to the dog care facility.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of
Section 5.1.11(a), as the particular circumstances of this parcel prevent conformance with the
standards; the characteristics of the location would isolate the dog care facility from
surrounding properties and any existing residences; and solid fencing would not be necessary
for sound attenuation and would not be in character with the Rural Areas.
2. Waiver from 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 fifty-five (55) decibels;
Applicant‟s Justification:
Owners of the subject property will state they have not received any complaints from
neighbors regarding barking or any other aspect relating to Hugs & Kisses.
Neighbors have confirmed and will provide statements they have had no cause to
complain due to barking dogs or any other disturbances to their peace and quiet
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.18 Noise the sounds from “animals, including, but not
limited to barking dogs” are not subject to this section
The structure for boarding is the home of the applicant and thus cannot be
soundproofed.
This section of the ordinance pertains solely to soundproof confinements.
Staff Analysis: As stated in the Section 5.1.11(a) staff analysis, the confinement areas for the
dogs are inside wire fenced areas and inside the existing residential structure. These areas
are not soundproofed and would not meet the 200‟ setback requirement; the applicant is
renting the residence and has indicated that soundproofing would not be possible; it is
anticipated that when the dogs bark that they would exceed the maximum fifty-five (55)
decibels at the property lines. The owners of the subject property and the most adjacent
parcel signed the application for the dog care business.
SP2009-17
PC 12/17/09
Staff Report Page 8
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of
Section 5.1.11(b), as the particular characteristics of the location of the property would
sufficiently isolate the dog care facility from adjacent properties.
3. Waiver from Section 5.1.11 (c) In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed
building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m
Applicant‟s Justification:
Elderly and small dogs may need to relieve themselves during the night.
Any dog requiring this is accompanied outside and when finished they are returned to
the house.
Dogs do not sleep outside during nighttime hours under any circumstances.
Staff Analysis: As the requirement in Section 5.1.11(c) for animal confinement will be met
based on their proposal, staff has determined that this waiver would not be necessary. No
Planning Commission action is required.
4. Waiver from Section 5.1.11 (d) In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other
uses involving intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations,
special attention is required to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends, the
commission and board may require amount other things: Separate building entrance and
exit to avoid animal conflicts. Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the
public by fencing or other means.
Applicant‟s Justification:
This requirement is not needed based on the following factors:
Hugs & Kisses business (TMP 49-6B) is located in a rural area.
No intense type of activity (businesses, shopping centers or urban locations) is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff Analysis: Section 5.1.11(d) addresses kennels that are in proximity to more
intensive uses; therefore the isolation of the dogs at the day care and boarding
facility is not applicable under these circumstances. Staff has determined that this
waiver is not applicable. No Planning Commission action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Concept Application Plan
Attachment B – Aerial and Location Maps (3)
Attachment C – Public Comment Letters
Attachment D – Zoning Determination Letter
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 15, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, December
15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design
Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2009-00017 Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs With Special Needs
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for a dog day camp and overnight boarding for dogs. Waivers have
been requested from Section 5.1.11(a, b c, d) pertaining to setback, fencing, noise, other considerations
when in proximity to intensive uses, and soundproof confinement requirements
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 (17) Commercial Kennel
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 5038 Turkey Sag Rd. (Rt. 640) appx. 1.6 miles east of Stony Point Rd. (Rt. 20)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 049000000006B0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell made a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant has requested approval of a special use permit to be allowed to operate a dog day
camp facility, with overnight dog (hotel) available inside her home when this service is needed
by the pet owners. The concept plan is included as Attachment A and the location map is
included as Attachment B. The applicant has advised that all of the dogs in her care have a
variety of special physical or emotional needs such as arthritis, allergies, diabetes, and
separation anxiety. Pet owners visit the property on their initial visit and only occasionally
afterward. The business web page can be accessed at www.blairsbabies.com. The applicant
has provided the following specifics of the operation:
Day Camp
Days of operation – Tuesday through Thursday; alternate days (Monday and/or Friday)
if inclement weather or other reasons prevents opening on the regular days
Hours of operation – 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Dogs picked up by the applicant at the respective homes of the dog owners and
returned to their homes by the applicant at the end of the day
No employees
Number of dog guests – between 10 and 15 at a time
Dogs are kept outside in fenced areas
Closed five weeks per year – these weeks vary from year to year
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
2
Overnight (Hotel)
Open seven days a week and 24 hours a day
Dogs are kept inside the residence during the night, except for occasional, supervised
walks outside
A maximum of 5 dog guests at a time
The applicant currently owns two dogs that have not been included in the number of dog guests
listed in the operation information listed above, as they are her personal pets.
The entrance to the property is gated.
The applicant has also requested Waivers from Section 5.1.11 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the zoning
ordinance.
Some adjacent land is owned and is under conservation easement. Staff talked with the Nature
Conservancy and they have no issues with this application.
There are a lot of critical slopes in this are a of the County as noted in the presentation.
Letters in support of SP200900017 are included as Attachment C of the staff report. No
objections to the application have been received.
Planning and Zoning History:
In 1999, the applicant applied for a Home Occupation Class A permit to be allowed to have a
dog training business on the property. A Class A permit requires that the occupation be
conducted inside the residence and not in the yard. It was determined that there would be a
change to the outside appearance of the residence as well as visible and audible evidence of
the conduct of the home occupation; therefore, the permit was denied since it did not meet the
definition for Home Occupation Class A. The applicant was also advised that the use would
require approval of a special use permit for a Home Occupation Class B.
In 2009, an anonymous complaint against the business was filed with the Zoning Division,
resulting in this special use permit application to relieve the zoning violation. The complaint had
nothing to do about noise or visibility of animals.
Staff reviewed the concept plan supplied by the applicant. The site is extremely wooded.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP -2009-
00017 Hugs & Kisses Camp and Hotel for Dogs subject to the conditions listed in the staff
report. The last condition is Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (b) shall be
required. The special use permit cannot be approved without the approval of the two waivers.
Waiver Requests
The applicant has requested waivers from the following zoning ordinance requirements.
[Section 5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR HOSPITAL, ANIMAL
HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary and animal hospital shall be subject to the following:]
Waiver from Section 5.1.11(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned
buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer tha n five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external solid fence not
less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the animal confinement and shall be
composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by the zoning administrator ;
Applicant‟s Justification: This requirement is not needed for the following reasons:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
3
The owners of the adjacent property (tax map 49-06) will state as follows:
They have no complaint or objection to „Hugs and Kisses‟ business operations and / or any
aspects of the same.
Their property surrounds the subject property. Their land is undeveloped, mountainous and in
land use.
The applicant rents the property and the residence from someone else who actually owns the property
surrounding it. Owners of property (TMP 49-06B) property on which Hugs & Kisses operates will state:
They object to solid fencing, as it would destroy the natural beauty and rural nature of the
surrounding area.
During many unscheduled visits, they have never witnessed barking dogs; had any neighbors
complain about barking dogs; observed dogs out of control and/or unsupervised.
Staff Analysis: The owners of the subject property are also the owners of the parcel that borders the
subject parcel on the west, east, and north, sides (TMP 49-06). The Nature Conservancy owns the three
adjacent parcels on the south, across Turkey Sag Road. These parcels are part of the Walnut Mountain
preserve and are under conservation easement held by the Nature Conservancy. None of the adjacent
parcels contain residences. The concept plan provides approximate distances for the house to the
property line and staff has measured approximate distances from the fence to the p roperty lines.
Adjacent parcel (west, east, and north TMP 49-06) – approximately 95‟ from residence to the closest
property line and approximately 15‟ from the fence to the closest property line.
Adjacent parcels on the south (TMP 49-8M, 21.6 acres; TMP 49-8N, 16.9 acres; TMP 49-8P, 25.8 acres)
TMP 49-8P is approximately 40‟ from the pond and approximately 25‟ from the fence surrounding the
pond and approximately 230‟ from the residence. The center parcel (TMP 49-8N) on the southern border
is approximately 200‟ from the residence and approximately 100‟ from the closest fence. The
westernmost parcel (TMP 49-8M) is approximately 100‟ from the closest fence and 280‟ from the
residence.
Outside areas where the dogs are allowed do not meet the 500‟ minimum setback distance to agricultural
or residential lot lines and the existing fencing materials used to confine the dogs consists of 6‟ high wire
mesh fencing.
The nearest residence is over 1,500 feet from the subject property and the surrounding area con sists of
mostly undeveloped parcels and forested areas and scattered residential. All of the parcels along the
south side of Turkey Sag Road spanning at least 1,500‟ feet on either side of the subject parcel are under
conservation easement held and owned by the Nature Conservancy. The Nature Conservancy has
advised that there are no plans to develop the properties and that they have no objection to the dog care
facility.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of Section
5.1.11(a), as the particular circumstances of this parcel prevent conformance with the standards; the
characteristics of the location would isolate the dog care facility from surrounding properties and any
existing residences; and solid fencing would not be necessary for sound attenuation and would not be in
character with the Rural Areas.
2. Waiver from 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 fifty -
five (55) decibels;
Applicant‟s Justification:
Owners of the subject property will state they have not rec eived any complaints from neighbors
regarding barking or any other aspect relating to Hugs & Kisses.
Neighbors have confirmed and will provide statements they have had no cause to complain due
to barking dogs or any other disturbances to their peace and quiet
Zoning Ordinance Section 4.18 Noise the sounds from “animals, including, but not limited to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
4
barking dogs” are not subject to this section
The structure for boarding is the home of the applicant and thus cannot be soundproofed.
This section of the ordinance pertains solely to soundproof confinements.
Staff Analysis: As stated in the Section 5.1.11(a) staff analysis, the confinement areas for the dogs are
inside wire fenced areas and inside the existing residential structure. These areas are not soundp roofed
and would not meet the 200‟ setback requirement; the applicant is renting the residence and has
indicated that soundproofing would not be possible; it is anticipated that when the dogs bark that they
would exceed the maximum fifty-five (55) decibels at the property lines. The owners of the subject
property and the most adjacent parcel signed the application for the dog care business.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of Section
5.1.11(b), as the particular characteristics of the location of the property would sufficiently isolate the dog
care facility from adjacent properties.
3. Waiver from Section 5.1.11 (c) In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from
10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m
Applicant‟s Justification:
Elderly and small dogs may need to relieve themselves during the night.
Any dog requiring this is accompanied outside and when finished they are returned to the house.
Dogs do not sleep outside during nighttime hours under any circumstances.
Staff Analysis: As the requirement in Section 5.1.11(c) for animal confinement will be met based on their
proposal, staff has determined that this waiver would not be necessary. No Planning Commission action
is required.
4. Waiver from Section 5.1.11 (d) In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving
intensive activity such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required
to protect the public health and welfare. To these ends, the commission and board may require amount
other things: Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts. Area for outside exercise to
be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or other means.
Applicant‟s Justification:
This requirement is not needed based on the following factors:
Hugs & Kisses business (TMP 49-6B) is located in a rural area.
No intense type of activity (businesses, shopping centers or urban locations) is located in the
surrounding area.
Staff Analysis: Section 5.1.11(d) addresses kennels that are in proximity to more intensive uses;
therefore the isolation of the dogs at the day care and boarding facility is not applicable under
these circumstances. Staff has determined that this waiver is not applicable. No Planning
Commission action is required.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield assumed that staff was recommending approval because this is located in an unusual
area. She has not reviewed any other similar requests that are this far away from surrounding
properties.
Ms. McDowell replied that is true.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the
Commission.
Blair Morgan, owner of the day camp and hotel for dogs, pointed out that there is one thing Ms.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
5
McDowell did not mention. The dogs that come to the camp are only dogs that have special needs.
She did not take dogs that are normal. The dogs that come have all been rescued, handicapped
and have health issues, such as arthritis, blind, deaf, environmental or food allergies, etc. That is
why she keeps the business and day camp very small. These dogs have no other places to go.
They can‟t go to a regular kennel or dog daycare due to health issues.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked what the average number of dogs would be on a daily basis including the
daycare and those spending the night.
Ms. Morgan replied on an average daily basis it would be seven, eight or maybe nine dog s. In
unusual circumstances, such as cancellation due to rain, she divided the dogs and had twelve dogs.
She requires all dogs to know each other. She cannot have an issue with aggressive dogs since
they live in her home. She is selective in what dogs she takes.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Jennie Stratus said that Blair has been a tenant for the last 11 years on the property she owns with
her husband Tim. Blair has been extremely conscientious and responsible as a tenant. They have
never gotten any complaints about the business. She has always been very forthright about her dog
care business. Therefore, they have no complaints.
Kathy Everly, resident of Turkey Sag Road and one of Blair‟s closest neighbors spoke in support of
the request. She understands one issue related to the request has to do with possible impact of
nose from her property on the neighborhood. The dogs boarded or at the day camp a have never
been an issue to her family. In fact, with the day care and hotel being so low key she doubts that
very many people on the road knows this is going on. The only reason she learned about the use
was by having talked to Blair. The noise has never been an issue. She is glad that Blair lives in the
neighborhood and supports the application.
Rachael Satire noted that she was a dog owner and supports Blair‟s application. She asked to
elaborate that her dog has special needs and she would not board her dog anywhere else. Blair
takes care of her special needs dog that has arthritis and other issues. Blair is very devoted to this
business. She pointed out that Blair is very strict about not visiting her property. She does not permit
drop- ins. She does not want people come to the property except for the initial visit. She is mindful
of neighbors and the noise level. She asked that the request be approved.
Melinda Cordell supported the request. She had been a client since May, 2002 since she had a dog
with an overweight issue. They have moved from initially boarding to a two day a week camper.
With the pick-up and drop off service, she has only been to Blair‟s house about ten times during the
past years. Blair is very strict about not visiting her house. The day camp allows for lots of exercise
and socialization. Her dog recently had surgery and the arthritis is beginning to set.
Karen Waunakee, resident of Albemarle County, supported Blair Morgan and her application for
waivers for Hugs and Kisses. Her dog Molly was a nine-year old Golden Retriever who was a
rescue dog from Porte Rico where she was chained up and used as a guard dog. When they got
her at two years old her front teeth had been knocked out and she was 30 pounds underweight.
Because she was chained up Molly is very afraid of thunder storms. Blair has worked with Molly
who goes to day camp two days a week. Blair provides a wonderful service particularly with the
swimming. She asked that the waivers be approved.
Amanda Fertile spoke in support of Ms Morgan‟s Hugs and Kisses business. She uses her services
on a weekly basis and boards at least one week a year at her facility for her special needs dogs.
Ms. Morgan recognizes the special needs of her dogs. She asked that the request be approved.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
6
Dianna Ferguson, resident of Albemarle County, said that her 12 year old Labrador with terrible
allergies has been attending day camp for three years. She agreed with everything that had been
said and asked that the request be approved.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the request was for a special use permit and two waivers. His understanding is
that the special use permit goes with the land. He asked if there was a way to restrict this.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the special use permit does run with the land. He noted that they could talk
with zoning, but suggested that they could condition it as being a commercial kennel for special needs
dogs and could put a duration limit on it.
Mr. Edgerton said that right now the owner and surrounding owners are happy with the situation. If they
sold the property in a couple years the subsequent owner might not be happy with the special use permit
being on this property. He asked if there was a way to limit it under this ownership.
Mr. Kamptner replied that he would discourage that because the permit needs to run with the land. That is
the classic nature of the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission would need to act on the special use permit first . The waivers
are a condition of the special use permit.
Ms. Porterfield said one speaker noted she was a near neighbor and the noise is not an issue. Since this
runs with the land it does not mean that the next person that comes in will be as concerned about the
needs of the neighbors. It could run differently. She asked if there are other things they could do to
narrow the focus.
Mr. Struck asked what would be a typical duration.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they have never had one like this. They could put a time limit on the life of the
permit. That is another type of condition he does not encourage unless they are dealing with a real
unique situation.
Mr. Edgerton questioned why it would be too much trouble for the County to enforce.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it was because it runs with the land and there may be issues with the financial
investment in the permit that may go away. They have done it with some uses where they wanted to see
what the impacts were after a certain period of time and as part of the renewable process they could look
at the impacts and the possible conditions to address that. They could condition it to make it ten years
that they come back to review the impacts.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they don‟t normally recommend it unless they see the uniqueness and the
potential impacts of the use warranting having a review of it again within a period of time. He thought
they did it on the outdoor music festival because it was very unique and large. Otherwise, they have
talked some about cost and process.
Ms. Joseph noted that they have also talked about opening up the rural areas to allow for smaller scale
concerns. She thought that this was of a smaller scale with less than 20 dogs. She thought that the way
this is written and the fact if they added commercial kennels for dogs with special needs that would limit
this use.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that would work.
Ms. McDowell pointed out that in the history it indicates that it has been operating for ten years without a
special use permit, but without any complaints. She had received a telephone message from the closest
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
7
neighbor indicating that the business has been operating in the same manner since 2000. The applicant
is not planning any expansion. Therefore, she assumed th at neighbor was okay with the request.
Mr. Franco asked if the Noise Ordinance and Dog Barking Ordinance still apply to this.
Mr. Kamptner replied that this is a five acre parcel and was right at the threshold in the rural areas where
the Barking Dogs regulations would not apply.
Mr. Franco asked if that was a simpler way to address that concern in the future to make that a condition
of the special use permit that would apply. If there was a change in ownership or the kind of dogs, they
would be protecting the neighborhood by implementing it.
Mr. Kamptner agreed they could incorporate the condition based on current regulations.
Mr. Franco noted they would then not have to worry about the investment aspect of the time line or other
things like that.
Mr. Edgerton agreed that the condition was needed if the use would be going on forever.
Ms. Porterfield noted concern because the special use permit runs with the land and the other similar
requests have not been given waivers. The soundproofing and f encing has been provided on other
similar requests. She suggested cutting the number of dogs down to maximum at any one time.
Mr. Franco said that he was comfortable with the application as presented with the addition of the
application of the Noise Ordinance to this parcel for the barking dogs if the application is okay with it.
Mr. Strucko invited Ms. Morgan to come forward.
Ms. Morgan questioned exactly what they meant.
Mr. Franco noted that his understanding was that as a rural parcel of this size it would basically be
exempt from the Noise Ordinance dealing with dog barking. By adding this as a condition in the future if
something changes with the adjacent properties and the dog barking becomes an issue, then the County
has a mechanism for controlling the noise. That is opposed to adding a time line to the use or just
narrowing the use to special need dogs. It is putting a Noise Ordinance on top of it, which is consistent
with the Noise Ordinance that applies to the rest of the County for smaller parcels.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the barking would have to go on for 30 consecutive minutes or more with
no cessation of sounds for time periods greater than five minutes during the thirty consecutive minutes.
Ms. Morgan noted that there have been no complaints.
Ms. Joseph replied that the special use permit is for the land and not just to her business. If she decided
to move and close her business someone else can come in without going through the process and still
have a kennel. What they have been hearing from the neighbors is that there has been no intrusion on
the land. But, if someone else comes in they might not be as nice and concerned as she was.
Mr. Strucko said that her neighbors could change and they wanted to make sure there were mechanisms
in place to handle potential future issues. They understand that there are no issues now. They are talking
about applying the barking dog aspect of the Noise Ordinance to this parcel as a condition of approval.
Also, they are talking about limiting the use to special need dogs.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Franco‟s point that the limitation to the noise was adequate without limiting the
use to special need dogs.
Mr. Franco felt that the added condition on the noise was adequate because it was m easureable. He was
not sure what special needs meant as far as enforcement goes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
8
Mr. Edgerton and Ms. Joseph agreed.
Mr. Strucko asked if the applicant was okay with the suggested condition to add the barking dog aspect of
the Noise Ordinance.
Ms. Morgan agreed to the added condition.
Ms. Joseph supported the request because it was in the rural area, very isolated and would not affect
anyone.
Ms. Porterfield supported the request because of its location.
Mr. Morris supported the request because it was a great idea.
Motion on Special Use Permit:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to approve SP-2009-00017, Hugs and Kisses
Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs with the conditions as recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “SP200900017
Hugs & Kisses Dog Care” prepared by the applicant and submitted on September 21, 2009
(hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
Areas noted “where dogs allowed” within fenced areas
Gate at entrance
Pond
Two structures: residence and barn
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with
the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum number of dogs attending the Hugs & Kisses daytime camp shall be 20 dogs
at any one time (does not include personal pets owned by the applicant).
3. The maximum number of dogs attending the hotel (overnight) shall be 5 dogs (not including
personal pets owned by the applicant) at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM,
except for occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Dog Camp (day care) shall not begin earlier than 9 A.M. and
shall end not later than 5 P.M., each day, Monday through Friday.
6. An on-site sign for the dog care business shall not be permitted.
7. Transport of the dogs to and from the site shall be by the applicant, except in emergency
situations.
8. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than
0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
9. Dogs attending the daytime camp or boarding overnight shall not howl, bark or make other
animal noise that is audible from any other parcel which continues for thirty (30) consecutive
minutes or more with no cessation of the sounds for greater than five (5) minutes during the
thirty (30) consecutive minute period.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Waivers:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded to approve the waivers from section 5.11.1(a) and
(b) for SP-2009-00017, Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs with the conditions as
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
9
recommended by staff, as amended.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the waivers were approved, which did not go to the Board of Supervisors. Also,
SP-2009-00017 Hugs and Kisses Day Camp and Hotel for Dogs would go to the Board of Supervisors on
February 10, 2010 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 8, 2010
Michael Welch
400 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP200900021 Comcast Facility Expansion Amendment
Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A
Dear Mr. Welch:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 8, 2009, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed 480 square foot addition [16’ x 30’] to the existing unmanned Comcast cable network
facility must be developed in general accord with the concept plan prepared by Engineering Solutions
with a revision date of 09/30/2009.
2. The proposed Building size addition approved with this special use permit shall be limited to
16’ x 30’;
3. Building shall have the exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall have landscaping,
screen planting and/or fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety measures shall be required at the
time of the site plan review; and
4. No additional satellite dishes shall be added on the site.
5. All elements of the site plan shall be reviewed by the Current Development Division. Please note that
the conditions of previous special use permits remain in effect.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 10, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Gerald Gatobu
Principal Planner
Current Development Division
cc: Cable Holdco Exchange V LLC Attn: Property Tax Department
P O Box 173838
Denver CO 80217-3838
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2009-00021:
Comcast Facility Expansion
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public
Hearing:
December 8th, 2009
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
January 13th, 2010
Owners: Cable Holdco Exchange V
LLC
Applicant: Michael Welch
Acreage: 0.611 Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Sec.10.2.2.6 Special Use Permit,
which allows for unmanned telephone exchange
centers/facilities in the RA Zoning District
TMP: Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A
Location: About 1000 feet from the
intersection of Earlysville Road [State
Route 743] and Rio Road West [State
Route 631].
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas, (EC) Entrance Corridor
Overlay District, and Airport Impact Area Overlay District
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: N/A DA – X RA – Yes
Proposal: 480 square feet [16'x 30']
facility expansion to install new
electronics for advanced services
Comp. Plan Designation: The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 1
Character of Property: Wooded with
an area cleared for a fenced off
equipment area and tower.
Use of Surrounding Properties: All adjacent properties are
residential (zoned RA). Two dwellings are located within 300
feet. The closest dwelling is 120 feet to the west.
Factors Favorable:
1. New equipment will not be
visible from neighboring
properties and will be within an
existing fenced area.
2. Minimal to no clearing is
necessary for the placement of
new equipment.
Factors Unfavorable: None.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the proposed 480
[16’ x 30’] square foot Comcast Facility Expansion.
2
STAFF PERSON: Gerald Gatobu
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 8th 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: January 13th, 2010
AGENDA TITLE: SP 2009-21 – Comcast Facility Expansion
APPLICANT: Michael Welch
PROPERTY OWNER(S): Cable Holdco Exchange V LLC.
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL:
This is a proposal to expand an existing unmanned 720 square foot (24 x 30) communication facility
(Attachment A). The facility is currently at full capacity. Due to increased consumer needs, the facility
needs to be expanded to accommodate additional equipment. The existing facility was approved by
special use permit by the Board of Supervisors on May 2nd 1990 with a condition that limited the size of
the facility to 720 square feet [24’x 30’] (Attachment C). The applicant is seeking approval of a 480
square foot [16’ x 30’] expansion to the existing building to accommodate additional equipment.
The property, described as Tax Map 45 Parcel 16A, contains approximately 0.611 acres, zoned RA,
Rural Areas (Attachment B). The site is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District about 1000 feet
from the intersection of Earlysville Road [State Route 743] and Rio Road West [State Route 631].
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 1.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
The existing unmanned communication facility was approved by the Board of Supervisors on May 2nd
1990, with the condition that it be limited in size to 720 square feet [24’ x 30’]. The applicant is
requesting that they be allowed to expand the facility beyond the approved size. The increase in size
requires amendment of the previous special use permit conditions.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP-90-19 Multi-Channel Television: May 2nd 1990. The Board of Supervisors unanimously
approved SP-90-19 to amend SP-79-32 in order to allow for a larger building on 0.63 acres.
[Attachment C]
SP-79-32: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on July 18, 1979 approved
a petition for a TV tower site with small aperture receiving terminal. [Attachment D]
There have been violations on the site that have since been abated.
3
DISCUSSION:
This is a proposal to install an additional 480 square feet [16’ x 30’] to an existing unmanned Comcast
cable network facility. The existing 720 foot structure [24’ x 30’] was approved by the board of
supervisors by special use permit with the condition that it be limited to 24’ x 30’ in size. This proposal
seeks to expand the size of the unmanned Comcast network facility.
The current facility is at full capacity and no space exists for future hardware additions. Comcast has
upgraded their fiber network and field design in the past couple of years to offer advanced services in
the Charlottesville service area. Some of the services include High Definition Channels, High Speed
Internet, and Digital Voice and Video on Demand. Due to an increase in capacity and consumer needs,
Comcast wants to add additional electronics to support the growth of these products. The additional
equipment will give Comcast the ability to offer more High Definition Channels, higher High Speed
Internet service levels, and additional bandwidth for Digital Voice and a larger Video on Demand
Library. The existing Comcast Cable Network Facility is unmanned. The site will remain unmanned and
no increase in onsite activity is anticipated if this special use permit is approved. The site also has a fiber
optic back bone ring running through it that provides service to some third party vendors.
Access to the facility will be provided off an existing gravel access road off Earlysville Road [State
Route 743]. The unmanned Comcast Cable Network Facility is located approximately 120 feet away
from the closest existing residential properties, and is fenced for safety and security.
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The Comcast cable network facility already exists. This proposal seeks to expand the facility within
the already fenced in area/boundary, therefore, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal will not impose
any substantial detriment to adjacent property. The proposed expansion to the facility will have
minimal visual impact to adjacent properties and the equipment facility will be screened from
adjacent properties by existing trees.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The site of the proposed facility will require little to no additional land disturbance. An existing
gravel road will provide access to the proposed facility. The 16’ x 30’ facility addition at this location
will not adversely impact the visual character of the area. No change in the level of onsite activity is
anticipated as the facility will remain unmanned.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request as it relates to the “purpose and intent” that is set forth in Section 1.4
of the Zoning Ordinance, and as it relates to the intent specified in the Rural Areas chapter of the
Zoning Ordinance (Section 10.1). The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is
protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved through the special
use permit process are appropriate in the location requested. This request is consistent with section
1.4 and section 10.1 of the zoning ordinance.
4
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
The 16’ x 30’ facility addition will not adversely impact the visual character of the area, and will not
restrict any nearby by-right uses within the Rural Areas district.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
The proposed facility will give Comcast the ability to offer more High Definition Channels, higher
High Speed Internet service levels, and additional bandwidth for Comcast Digital Voice and a larger
Video on Demand Library in the Charlottesville area. This can be seen as contributing to the public
welfare on a regional level. Staff is unable to identify any detrimental impact that may be caused by
approval of this special use permit.
SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW:
Factors favorable:
Staff has identified the following favorable factors:
1. New equipment will not be visible from neighboring properties and will be within an existing fenced
area.
2. Minimal to no clearing is necessary for the placement of new equipment.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has identified the following factors as unfavorable to this request:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the installation of
additional square footage 480 square feet [16’ x 30’] to the existing unmanned Comcast cable network
facility to house additional equipment with the following conditions: These conditions are identical to
those of SP 90-19 except as noted in bold lettering.
1. The proposed 480 square foot addition [16’ x 30’] to the existing unmanned Comcast cable
network facility must be developed in general accord with the concept plan prepared by
Engineering Solutions with a revision date of 09/30/2009.
2. The proposed Building size addition approved with this special use permit shall be limited
to 16’ x 30’;
3. Building shall have the exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall have landscaping,
screen planting and/or fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety measures shall be required at
the time of the site plan review; and
4. No additional satellite dishes shall be added on the site.
5. All elements of the site plan shall be reviewed by the Current Development Division. Please note
that the conditions of previous special use permits remain in effect.
5
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Concept Plan
B. Aerial Map
C. SP-90-19 Multi-Channel Television
D. SP-79-32
E. Photo’s of the site
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2009-00021 COMCAST FACILITY EXPANSION 1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 8, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, December
8, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development, and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2009-00021 Comcast Facility Expansion
PROPOSED: 16'x 30' facility expansion to install new electronics for advanced services
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas, [EC] Entrance Corridor overlay, [AIA] Airport
Impact Area.
SECTION: 10.2.2.6 Special Use Permit, which allows for unmanned telephone exchange
centers/facilities in the RA Zoning District
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas uses in Rural Area 1
LOCATION: Tax Map 45, Parcel 16A: in the Earlysville area about 1000 feet from the intersection of
Earlysville Road [State Route 743] and Rio Road West [State Route 631].
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
RELATED APPLICATION: SP1990-019, SP1979-32
(Gerald Gatobu)
Mr. Gatobu presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an existing Comcast Facility that was approved in 1979. There was an amendment
approved in SP-90-19 and SP-79-72 as shown in the staff report. The square footage approved
in SP-90-19 is being amended today, which was in condition #2 that the building size shall be 24’
X 30’. Comcast has a lot of equipment and needs to expand the size of the building to add
additional equipment. They have asked for a 16’ X 30’ expansion, which is 480 square feet for
new digital output equipment.
He talked to the property owner to the right and he had some concern with the traffic generated
and wanted to make sure it remained an unmanned facility. He talked to Mr. Welch and he
indicated that he would talk to the owner and explain that it is to remain unmanned. The only
time traffic would be generated on the road is when Comcast needs to do emergency repairs.
There will be no one at the facility unless there are emergency repairs.
There is a fence all around the facility mainly for safety purposes. The fence was a condition of
the special use permit, which is along the edge of Roslyn Ridge. One of the conditions is that the
building shall have the appearance of a residential building. The addition will take the
appearance to look like a residential building. Mr. Rooker expressed some concerns with the
facility and has been talking with Comcast. The issue with the one pole has been cleaned up
when the site was updated.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-21 Comcast Facility Expansion to the Board of
Supervisors with the conditions listed in the staff report. The conditions will be almost identical to
the previous SP-90-19 conditions with the amendments to the size of the building itself.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - SP-2009-00021 COMCAST FACILITY EXPANSION 2
Mr. Edgerton asked if Mr. Rooker’s concerns have been satisfied, and Mr. Gatobu replied that Mr. Rooker
has not told him, but he had been working with Com cast.
Mr. Edgerton said that it appears that the access road is not on the property. It appears that most of the
access road is to the south of the actual property line.
Mr. Fritz noted on page C2 it indicates a 20’ right-of-way. So the access road is on the property and
within a right-of-way.
Mr. Edgerton said that the Western By Pass was proposed going through close to this area. He asked if it
would impact this property.
Mr. Gatobu replied that he sent this to Joel DeNunzio and he had no concerns except to suggest that the
sight distance be shown.
Mr. Loach asked regarding noise if the increase in size of the equipment would need a larger generator
or need more time to run.
Mr. Gatobu replied that he did not know and should ask the applicant. He did not know how much
equipment they were putting in. But he said that it comes on occasionally. He expressed what the
neighboring neighbor and property owner said.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mike Welsh, engineer for Comcast, said that the generator was tested once a week during the day time
hours. The generator will not be increased in size.
Nat Darly said that he works in government affairs for Comcast.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Ms. Joseph noted that the staff report was very thorough.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve SP-2009-00021, Comcast Facility
Expansion with staff’s recommended conditions.
1. The proposed 480 square foot addition [16’ x 30’] to the existing unmanned Comcast cable
network facility must be developed in general accord with the concept plan prepared by
Engineering Solutions with a revision date of 09/30/2009.
2. The proposed Building size addition approved with this special use permit shall be limited to 16’ x
30’;
3. Building shall have the exterior appearance of residential buildings and shall have landscaping,
screen planting and/or fencing. Trespass fencing and other safety measures shall be required at
the time of the site plan review; and
4. No additional satellite dishes shall be added on the site.
5. All elements of the site plan shall be reviewed by the Current Development Division. Please note
that the conditions of previous special use permits remain in effect.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that SP-2009-00021 Comcast Facility Expansion would be go before the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval at a date to be determined.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
January 8, 2009
Elizabeth Claman “Lili"
5925 Weston Lane
Crozet, Va 22932
RE: SP200900022 Daylily Preschool (Sign # 21 & 24)
Tax Map, Parcel 0570000000260
Dear Ms. Claman;
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 15, 2009, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit
200900022 Daylily Preschool” prepared by the County of Albemarle, signed by the applicant and
dated December 4, 2009 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
location of buildings and preschool
location of parking area and entrance to be used for the preschool
relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed 10 children, without approval of an amendment to this
special use permit.
3. The hours of operation for the preschool shall not begin earlier than 8 A.M. and shall end not later
than 1 P.M. each day, Monday through Friday.
4. The use shall not operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services, as required by Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The building shall be accessible for the Albemarle County fire official to allow periodic inspections
of the premises, at his/her discretion
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on February 10, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning Division
cc: Mountain Plain Baptist Church; Trustees Of C/O Tyler Stevenson
4297 Old Three Notched Road
Charlottesville Va 22901
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool
PC 12/15/09
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP200900022 Daylily Preschool Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
December 15, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be Determined
Owner: Mountain Plain Baptist Church Applicant: Elizabeth Claman
Acreage: 2.34 acres Special Use Permit: SECTION:
10.2.2.7 Private School
TMP: 05700000002600
Location: 4297 Old Three Notch'd Road, at
intersection of Brown's Gap Road (Rt. 680) and
Seven Hills Lane
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
Magisterial District: White Hall Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Private preschool for a maximum of 10
children located within existing Mountain Plain
Baptist Church, but not affiliated with Church
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas
- preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: Property contains
existing church and separate building for offices
and classrooms; playground in rear; two gravel
entrances and parking areas
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential,
farmland, forested areas, Beaver Creek Reservoir
Factors Favorable:
1. The preschool would not impact the
surrounding community.
2. The preschool would occupy a
portion of an existing building and not
require an additional structure.
3. The preschool would be consistent
with the RA section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to
this application.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit with conditions.
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool
PC 12/15/09
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: December 15, 2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To be Determined
SP 200900022 Daylily Preschool
Petition:
PROPOSED: Private preschool for a maximum of 10 children located within
existing Mountain Plain Baptist Church, but not affiliated with Church
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural,
forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots
SECTION: 10.2.2.7 Day care, child care or nursery facility
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density ( .5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 4297 Old Three Notch'd Road, at intersection of Brown's Gap Road
(Rt. 680) and Seven Hills Lane
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 05700000002600
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
Character of the Area: Agricultural and forested areas with scattered residential;
less than 250’ from the Beaver Creek Reservoir Park.
Specifics of the Proposal: The applicant has requested approval of a special use
permit for a children’s preschool within an existing building containing offices and
classrooms adjacent to the Mountain Plain Baptist Church sanctuary building. A
plan for the property is included as Attachment A. An existing small playground is
located to the rear of the church would be available for the school. The applicant
has requested the following operational specifics:
maximum 10 children, ages 2 ½ to 5 years (originally asked for 9, but
later revised by phone)
two staff
transportation provided by parents
a gravel parking area in front of the church and the subject accessory
building would serve the preschool
hours of operation 8:30 to 12:30, Monday – Friday
snacks provided by school; lunches provided from home
the preschool would take place in an accessory building, adjacent to the
church sanctuary and would have a separate entrance on the side of the
building
the preschool would be privately owned and operated (rent the building
space from the Church).
Planning and Zoning History:
There is no planning or zoning history for this property.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan: Comprehensive Plan designates the
subject properties as Rural Areas emphasizing the preservation and protection of
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool
PC 12/15/09
Staff Report Page 3
use options. The proposed preschool impact would not create negative impacts on
the goals of the Plan and would implement the following Guiding Principles:
Protect and enhance rural quality of life for present and future Rural Areas residents.
Address the needs of existing rural residents without fostering growth and further
suburbanization of the Rural Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
This application is not subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free
Exercise Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of
2000 ("RLUIPA"), since the preschool would be privately owned and operated and
not associated with the church.
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use 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,
The closest residence on an adjacent property (TMP 57-29A) is owned by the
Church. The traffic and other activities resulting from the preschool’s enrollment n
and half-day schedule would have limited impact on the adjacent residents.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The character of the Rural Areas District would not be changed, as the preschool
would be conducted within an existing building and the children would use the
existing playground. No new structures have been proposed. The additional traffic
to drop off and pick up the children would be minimal.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas
zoning: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may
hereafter be established by amendment of the zoning map for the following
purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
The preschool would support the local residents and would not create negative
impacts on the purposes of the RA district.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
By-right uses would not be negatively impacted by the addition of the school in the
existing church.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
5.1.06 DAY CARE CENTER, FAMILY DAY HOME
Each day care center or family day home shall be subject to the following:
a. No such use shall operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of
Social Services. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool
PC 12/15/09
Staff Report Page 4
administrator a copy of the original license. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful
noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter;
A condition of approval to require state licensing has been offered.
b. Periodic inspection of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at
his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed
willful noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter;
The Fire Department has reviewed this application and has advised the applicant that this
use must comply with Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Codes.
c. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude
application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia
Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or
federal agency
The applicant has been advised of these requirements.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
A concern is that the church entrance closest to Brown’s Gap Turnpike does not
meet sight distance requirements. The County Engineer recommended a long-term
plan to control access and circulation with improvements to both entrances and the
two parking areas (Attachment C). The County Engineer has advised that “some
alteration to the frontage to achieve all or part of this concept might be appropriate.”
The Virginia department of Transportation (VDOT) would allow a second entrance
closer to the proposed preschool at this time, even though the geometrical features
are not up to standard. According to the (VDOT), the traffic volume for Brown’s
Gap Turnpike (Route 680) in this area is 700 Vehicles per Day (VPD) and on Old
Three Notch’d Road (Route 802) is 300 VPD. Two accidents have occurred in the
past 12 years at the intersection; however there has been no accident data reported at
the entrances to the site. The church is already under a commercial entrance permit
that would cover this use; however, if there is a significant change in use or there is
a safety issue or the preschool creates a safety issue, VDOT may require entrance
improvements at that time. A condition of approval that would require an
amendment of this special use permit (Condition 2) if the enrollment expands
beyond 10 children.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The preschool would not impact the surrounding community.
2. The preschool would occupy a portion of an existing building and not
require an additional structure.
3. The preschool would be consistent with the RA section of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool
PC 12/15/09
Staff Report Page 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
SP200900022 Daylily Preschool, subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use
Permit 200900022 Daylily Preschool” prepared by the County of Albemarle, signed by
the applicant and dated December 4, 2009 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined
by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the
Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
location of buildings and preschool
location of parking area and entrance to be used for the preschool
relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed 10 children, without approval of an
amendment to this special use permit.
3. The hours of operation for the preschool shall not begin earlier than 8 A.M. and shall end
not later than 1 P.M. each day, Monday through Friday.
4. The use shall not operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of
Social Services, as required by Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Albemarle County fire official shall make periodic inspections of the premises, at
his/her discretion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Concept application plan and floor plan
Attachment B – Location aerial
Attachment C – County Engineer Long-term parking / entrance modifications
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 15, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, December
15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design
Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2009-00022 Daylily Preschool
PROPOSED: Private preschool for a maximum of 10 children located within existing Mountain Plain
Baptist Church, but not affiliated with Church
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots
SECTION: 10.2.2.7 Private School
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 4297 Old Three Notch'd Road, at intersection of Brown's Gap Road (Rt. 680) and Seven
Hills Lane
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 57-26
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit for Daylilly Preschool located within the existing Mountain Plain
Baptist Church at Old Three Notch’d Road just south of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. The
proposal is for a childcare, daycare facility with a maximum of ten children of 2 ½ to 5 years of
age with the transportation provided by parents. There is an existing gravel parking area in front
of an existing church. The building next to the sanctuary would serve in the basement level for
the pre-school from 8:30 to 12:30 Monday through Friday. Snacks would be provided. Lunch
would be provided from home. The preschool would take place in the accessory building. It
would be privately owned and operated. The applicant would rent the building space from the
church. Staff reviewed the concept plan and explained the layout.
Staff recommends approval subject to the recommended conditions with a modification to
condition #5. Condition #5 at the County Attorney’s request has been modified somewhat for
clarification.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff from the Commission.
Mr. Loach questioned the entrance since the staff report says that the county engineer has advised some
alteration of frontage to achieve all or part of the concept might be appropriate.
Ms. McDowell replied that if the church ever expands or this preschool gets lar ger that the county
engineer had some suggestions to fix the parking.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
2
Mr. Loach noted that he thought that the parking was adequate.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Elizabeth Claman, applicant, explained her philosophy and why she was interested in starting the
preschool. She believed that preschool aged children should be provided with an engaging learning
environment in which to grow. They need to be actively involved in small group learning centers and
instruction on a daily basis. That is why she wanted to have ten children with herself and a teacher
assistant. The ratio would be five children to one teacher. She believed that children need to be
taught reading, math, science and social studies in a safe nurturing environment. They should be
encouraged to be independent thinkers and generate original ideas. The program is designed to
prepare children socially, physically and cognitively for kindergarten. Children need to have a
foundation before they enter kindergarten especially in reading. So she will be teaching letter
sounds, phonics and that sort of thing. The goal is to enable children to become lifelong learners.
Monthly themes will enhance the learning and play opportunities for the children. Each month the
themes and centers will reflect their developmental goals for them. As a reading specialist she will
individualize the lessons and implement them for the children’s specific needs. She believed that
children need to have this foundation before entering kindergarten.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Jeff Claman, husband of the applicant, spoke in support of the request. He interjected that what she
is providing is an alternative for preschools in the Crozet/Ivy area. With her background she is
amazing with children. He felt that the preschool would be a positive thing for the community.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Loach noted that Crozet is growing and that this would a good addition to the community. He thought
that everything was covered in the staff report. Regarding the traffic comments, he felt that it was safe
enough in that area for the traffic generated for the ten children.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the conditions included the modification to condition #5.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve SP-2009-00022, Daylily Preschool with
the conditions as recommended by staff with the modification to condition #5.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Special Use Permit
200900022 Daylily Preschool” prepared by the County of Albemarle, signed by the applicant and
dated December 4, 2009 (hereafter “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development
shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
location of buildings and preschool
location of parking area and entrance to be used for the preschool
relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements
above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The maximum enrollment shall not exceed 10 children, without approval of an amendment to this
special use permit.
3. The hours of operation for the preschool shall not begin earlier than 8 A.M. and shall end not later
than 1 P.M. each day, Monday through Friday.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES- SP-2009-00022 DAYLILY PRESCHOOL
3
4. The use shall not operate without the required licensure by the Virginia Department of Social
Services, as required by Section 5.1.06 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. The Albemarle County fire official shall make periodic inspections of the premises, at his/her
discretion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that SP-2009-00002 Daylily Preschool would go to the Board of Supervisors on February
10, 2010 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2009 -20 Regulating the construction of multiple
dwellings on a single parcel and STA 2009-01 Division of
land with multiple dwellings.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider the adoption of a Subdivision
Ordinance amendment to allow the division of land where
multiple dwellings currently exist without requiring frontage
or street approval and the adoption of a Zoning Ordinance
amendment to limit the construction of multiple dwellings
on existing lots unless the lot has public street frontage.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 10, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On November 4, 2009, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on vehicular access issues that arose out of an
appeal to the Board of staff’s disapproval of a family subdivision. The parcel proposed for division was already
developed with two houses, as allowed under current zoning regulations, and was served by an access easement that
was shared with several other parcels. The access easement had never been approved as a private street and in
order to be approved as a private street, it had to be included as part of the family subdivision which, in turn, would
require the consent of all of the owners of the parcels over which the access easement crossed. In addition, the
existing entrance of the access easement did not meet VDOT sight distance standards and the applicant did not
control the land necessary to provide adequate sight distance to meet VDOT requirements, and the landowner having
control was unwilling to grant the sight distance easement. The applicant requested that the Board defer action on the
appeal to allow staff to identify possible solutions that would permit approval of the subdivision. Several solutions were
presented to the Board at the November 4, 2009 work session, and the Board directed staff to return to the Board with
resolutions of intent to: (1) amend the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling unit per lot is permitted unless the
lot has public street frontage; and (2) amend the Subdivision Ordinance so that parcels having multiple dwellings as of
a specific date may be divided so that each dwelling unit is on a separate parcel without the need for private street or
VDOT approval. The Board of Supervisors adopted the resolutions of intent to amend the ordinances at its meeting on
December 2, 2009.
On January 12, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments and
recommended adoption of the proposed amendments by a vote of 7:0.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development
DISCUSSION:
Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance
The Zoning Ordinance currently permits the construction of two dwellings on a parcel without any approval other than
a building permit. The building permit is issued if all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and the Building Code are
satisfied. The requirements of the Zoning Ordinance include, but are not limited to: setbacks, density, available
development rights, adequate building site and health department approval. No review occurs to insure that the lot
has public or private street frontage or if the existing entrance is adequate to serve an additional dwelling. This may
result in the second dwelling being established on a parcel even though the parcel may not be the minimum
requirements necessary to be divided in the future because, for example, the entrance may be inadequate for a
subdivision, or private street or public street approval may be required. In those examples, obtaining an adequate
entrance or street approval may require obtaining land or easements or the consent of other landowners, which is not
under the control of the applicant, making approval of the subdivision impossible.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2009 -20 Regulating the construction of multiple dwellings on a single parcel and
STA 2009-01 Division of land with multiple dwellings
February 10, 2010
Page 2
The proposed zoning text amendment would amend County Code § 18-32.2 to require a site plan in order to establish
more than one dwelling unit on a lot that does not have public street frontage. Site plan review is very similar to
subdivision plat review in that both reviews assure that the requirements of the County’s development regulations are
addressed and necessary improvements are installed. The key difference is that a site plan does not result in the
parcel being divided. Site plan review of a parcel proposed to have two or more dwellings but which does not have
public street frontage would assure that, in the absence of public street frontage, the parcel would be served by an
access road approved by the County that complies with the County’s applicable design and construction standards
and that the entrance onto a public street satisfies VDOT’s entrance requirements. This process would assure that, if
two or more dwellings are established on the parcel, the parcel could be later subdivided to put one dwelling on each
lot because the access road would be eligible to be approved as a private street at that time.
The construction of multiple dwellings on a single parcel is not prohibited by this amendment. This amendment would
not affect parcels that have public street frontage. In order to construct multiple dwellings on a parcel not having public
street frontage, the applicant would be required to submit and obtain approval of a site plan (or site plan waiver) and/or
obtain approval of a private street. This process would allow for an adequate review to insure that the property could
reasonably be divided in the future. Alternatively, the applicant could subdivide the property and place one (1) dwelling
on each parcel.
Amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance
Some parcels throughout the County currently have more than one dwelling unit located on them. Some of those
second dwellings may have been built for family members, or simply as rental units. Due to changing circumstances
or desires of the owners, some of them may now want to sell instead of rent these dwellings. In order to do so, the
parcel must be subdivided. However, the subdivision may not be feasible because the lot is served by an access
easement that is neither an approved public nor private street under the Subdivision Ordinance. In order for the
subdivision to be approved, this access easement must be approved as either a private or public street. This requires
consent from all of the landowners whose parcels are crossed by the access easement. This may not be possible for
several reasons, including the lien holder of a parcel not wanting to grant any additional easements despite the fact the
landowner is willing to grant the easement.
The land use impacts of a rental or for sale unit are identical. No change in access or number of units occurs. The
proposed subdivision text amendment would amend County Code §§ 14-316, 14-400, 14-403 and 14-404 to exempt
those existing parcels with two or more dwellings on them as of October 14, 2009 from the lot access and street
frontage requirements when they are subdivided. October 14, 2009 is the date suggested by the Board at its
November work session, which was the date the Board was scheduled to consider the appeal that led to these text
amendments.
These amendments would allow for the division of property that has already been developed without creating any
additional impacts. The amendments would also require that any plan to construct multiple dwellings on a single
parcel take into account the potential impacts generated by the additional dwellings.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not anticipate that these text amendments would result in changes to funding or staff needed for review
of subdivisions.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that, after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached proposed ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Subdivision Ordinance
B – Proposed Zoning Ordinance
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 01/14/10
Attachment A
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-14( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE III, SUBDIVISION
PLAT REQUIREMENTS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED, AND ARTICLE IV, ON-SITE
IMPROVEMENTS AND DESIGN, 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 14,
Subdivision of Land, Article III, Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted, and Article
IV, On-Site Improvements and Design, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-316 Approval of entrance onto public streets
Sec. 14-400 Minimum lot requirements
Sec. 14-403 Lot frontage
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article III. Subdivision Plat Requirements and Documents to be Submitted
Sec. 14-316 Approval of entrance onto public streets.
The subdivider shall submit, prior to or with the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the agent that the
entrance of the principal means of access for each lot onto any existing or proposed public street complies with
Virginia Department of Transportation standards; provided that this requirement shall not apply to any
subdivision of a parcel where two (2) or more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14, 2009 and one
existing dwelling would be located on each lot created.
(Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
Article IV. On-Site Improvements and Design
Sec. 14-400 Minimum lot requirements.
Each lot within a subdivision shall satisfy the minimum lot requirements established in the zoning
ordinance; provided that no street frontage or lot access requirement shall apply to any lot that would be created
from the subdivision of a parcel where two (2) or more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14, 2009 and
one existing dwelling would be located on each lot created.
(§ 18-29 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-34 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-29, 18-34; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-
5-98, § 14-500; Ord. 02-14(1), 2-6-02; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code §§ 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 14-403 Lot frontage.
Each lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an existing or proposed street; provided that this
requirement shall not apply to any lot that would be created from the subdivision of a parcel where two (2) or
more dwellings existed on the parcel on October 14, 2009 and one existing dwelling would be located on each
lot created.
Draft: 01/14/10
Attachment A
2
(§ 18-30 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-36, 9-5-96, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-30, 18-36; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, §
14-504; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(3).
Sec. 14-404 Lot location to allow access from lot onto street or shared driveway.
Each lot within a subdivision shall be located as follows:
A. Single point of access required. Each lot, other than a corner lot within the development areas,
shall have reasonable access to the building site from only one street, shared driveway or alley established at the
same time as the subdivision; provided that, if the subdivision is in the rural areas, each lot created from the
subsequent division of any lot within the subdivision shall enter only onto such street(s) established at the same
time as the original subdivision and shall have no immediate access onto any other public street.
B. Conditions when single point of access not required. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot may
be located so that it has reasonable access to the building site from a public street abutting the subdivision if: (i)
the agent approves a waiver under subsection (C); (ii) the subdivider obtains an entrance permit from the
Virginia Department of Transportation for the access; (iii) the entrance complies with the design standards set
forth in sections 14-410(F) and 14-410(G); and (iv) the subdivider demonstrates to the agent prior to approval of
the final plat that the waiver does not violate any covenants to be recorded for the subdivision.
C. Lots exempt from requirements of subsections (A) and (B). The requirements of subsections (A)
and (B) shall not apply to the subdivision of a parcel where two (2) or more dwellings existed on the parcel on
October 14, 2009 and one existing dwelling would be located on each lot created.
CD. Standards for waiver. The requirements of subsection (A) may be waived by the agent as
provided in section 14-224.1. A request for a waiver may be made prior to or with submittal of a preliminary or
final plat, as follows:
1. Information to be submitted. A request shall include a justification for the waiver and a
conceptual plan. The conceptual plan shall: (i) be drawn at a scale no smaller than one (1) inch equals two
hundred (200) feet showing surveyed boundaries of the property or an alternative scale approved by the agent;
(ii) show the topography of the property at the best interval available from the County including delineation of
proposed building sites; (iii) show the locations of streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, floodplains, and
known wetlands; and (v) show the proposed layout of lots, location of existing features such as buildings,
fences, drainfields, existing driveways or other access ways, or other significant features.
2. Consideration and findings. In reviewing a waiver request, the agent shall consider
whether: (i) installing a single point of access would substantially impact environmental resources such as
streams, stream buffers, critical slopes, and floodplain; (ii) construction of a single point of access would
substantially impact features existing on the property prior to October 14, 2009; (iii) granting the waiver would
contribute to maintaining an agricultural or forestal use of the property; and (iv) granting the waiver would
facilitate development of areas identified in the open space plan as containing significant resources. In
approving a waiver, the agent shall find that requiring the extension would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; and granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, to sound engineering practices, and to the land
adjacent thereto.
DE. Terms defined. For purposes of this section, the term “reasonable access” means a location for a
driveway or, if a driveway location is not provided, a location for a suitable foot path from the parking spaces
Draft: 01/14/10
Attachment A
3
required by the zoning ordinance to the building site; the term “within the subdivision” means within the
exterior boundary lines of the lands being divided.
(§ 18-36 (part), 9-5-96, 8-28-74; § 18-39 (part), 9-5-96, 10-19-77, 5-10-77, 8-28-74; 1988 Code, §§ 18-36, 18-
39; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, §§ 14-500(C), 14-505; Ord. 05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6-20-05; Ord. 09-14(2), 10-
14-09)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(5).
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Draft: 01/14/10
Attachment B
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, 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 IV, Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 32.2 When site plan is required; waiver of drawing of site plan
Chapter 18. Zoning
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:
a. 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:
1. The construction or location of any single-family detached dwelling on a lot on which not more
than two (2) dwellings are located or proposed to be located if the lot has public street frontage,
or the construction or location of one (1) dwelling unit on a lot that does not have public street
frontage.
2. The construction or location of a two-family dwelling on any lot not occupied by any other
dwellings.
3. Any structure that is accessory to a single-family detached or two-family dwelling.
4. Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided in section 5.
5. Any change in or expansion of a use provided that: (i) the change or expansion does not require
additional parking under section 4.12 of this chapter; (ii) no additional ingress/egress or
alteration of existing ingress/egress is required by the Virginia Department of Transportation
based on the intensification of the use; and (iii) no additional ingress/egress or the alteration of
existing ingress/egress is proposed by the developer. (32.2.1, 1980)
b. Waiver of certain details of site plan by the commission. After providing notice as provided by section
32.4.2.5, the commission may waive certain details of a site plan otherwise required by sections 32.5
and 32.6 in a particular case upon a finding that the 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 the waiver. If the agent recommends approval of the waiver with
conditions, 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. 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)
Draft: 01/14/10
Attachment B
2
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.
(12-10-80, §§ 32.2, 32.2.1, 32.2.2; 5-1-87; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09, § 32.2)
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – STA-2009-1 DIVISION OF LAND WITH EXISTING DWELLINGS &
STA-2009-00009 REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE DU ON A SINGLE PARCEL
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 12, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on
Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Chairman;
Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
STA-2009-00001 Division of Land with Existing Dwellings
Division of parcels that have multiple existing dwellings – Amend Secs. 14-316, Approval of entrance onto
public streets, 14-400, Minimum lot requirements, 14-403, Lot frontage, and 14-404, Lot location to allow
access from lot onto street or shared driveway, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle
County Code. This ordinance would amend sections 14-316, 14-400, 14-403 and 14-404 to permit the
division of parcels on which multiple dwellings exist as of a date specified in the ordinance without
satisfying otherwise applicable street frontage requirements. The full text of the ordinance is available for
examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Bill Fritz)
AND
ZTA-2009-00020 Regulating Construction of Multiple Dwellings on a Single Parcel
Site plan required for multiple dwellings on single parcel. Amend Sec. 18-32.2, When site plan is
required; waiver of drawing of site plan, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would amend section 18-32.2 to require a site plan when two or more dwellings are proposed
on a single parcel where that parcel does not have public street frontage. The full text of the ordinance is
available for examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the
Department of Comm unity Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. (Bill Fritz)
Mr. Fritz presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the executive summary for ZTA-2009 -
20 Regulating the construction of multiple dwellings o n a single parcel and STA 2009-01 Division of land
with multiple parcels. (See Executive Summary)
The proposal is to amend the subdivision ordinance to allow division of land where multiple
dwellings currently exist without requiring frontage or street ap proval. Also, it would be to limit the
construction of multiple dwellings on existing lots unless the lot has public street frontage.
There are two items before the Planning Commission being a zoning text amendment and a
subdivision text amendment. He explained how they got to where they are and what the proposed
language is. The current regulations are such that when there is an existing driveway, which is
not a private street and just an old driveway that existed for many years , and when it crosses a
property to go back to serve another property and that property wants to divide staff has now
determined that they actually need the approval of all of the property owners that road crosses
before it can be turned into a private street. For many years the y were not doing that. Staff has
determined that is an incorrect interpretation of the ordinance. They were allowing that driveway
to be converted to a private street across other people’s property without their consent. Staff
determined that was an error. Now all subdivision in that situation have to get the approval of all
of the property owners that road crosses. So one person could say no and it all stops.
Staff has been applying this section of the ordinance for a while. That driveway has an exist ing
entrance onto the State road. VDOT approval is required for that entrance even if there is no
increase in the number of dwelling units because the ordinance says VDOT approval is required.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – STA-2009-1 DIVISION OF LAND WITH EXISTING DWELLINGS &
STA-2009-00009 REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE DU ON A SINGLE PARCEL
2
So if it is a substandard entrance right now and has been for years that entrance would have to
be upgraded and the subdivider may not have the ability to do that.
He explained a real world example, which is the cause of this proposed zoning and subdivision
text amendment. The parcel highlighted in red has two houses on it. Break Heart Road is not a
private street or a public street. It is just an old driveway that has existed for years. It has an
existing entrance onto Slam Gate Road. That red parcel wanted to divide so that each of the
houses was on a parcel, which was proposed as a family division. The father wanted to give to
his daughter. Break Heart Road would have to become a private street, which would require the
approval of Tax Map/Parcels 26-21, 19, 52, and 41B. In addition it would require the entrance at
Slam Gate to be upgraded. That would involve activity on the property, parcel 52, and that
property owner was not willing to grant the easement. The owner was willing to let the work
happen, but not grant the easement. Staff denied the subdivision because it did not have
VDOT. There was no change in the number of dwellings and everything was going to stay the
same. They were simply going to place a property line there. That denial was appealed to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors could not approve the subdivision because it did
not meet the ordinance. VDOT approval was required and they did not have it. The proposal
could not be approved no matter how much the Board wanted to. What the Board could do was
to instruct staff to come up with some options that would allow the division to occur. Staff did that
and went to a work session with the Board of Supervisors on November 4, 2009. Staff outlines a
couple of different scenarios. On December 2 the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend
the ordinance. That is what is before the Planning Commission today.
The first thing proposed is to revise the ordinance so that only one dwelling per lot is permitted
unless the lot has public street frontage or they get a site plan approved. This will not decrease
nor increase the number of dwellings that are permitted in the rural areas. It has no effect on the
number of dwellings permitted in the rural areas. It prevents a situation from occurring like the
one he just described so they could not get into that situation. They would either have to
subdivide the property in order to build the second dwelling or they would have to go through the
site plan review process. During the site plan review process staff would analysis whether that
road could be converted into a private street and whether the entrance was adequate. So it does
not allow that situation to occur. The review would occur first to prevent it from happening.
The second part of the solution was to revise the Subdivision Ordinance recognizing that there
are many lots out there that have multiple dwellings, just as described, on old driveways that don’t
have private street frontage. In essence, what they are saying are that those lots can divide so if
they have multiple dwellings so that they could divide so that each dwelling is on its own lot
without regard to private or public street frontage, without getting private street approval, and
without getting VDOT approval. The logic there is there are two dwelling units on the property
right now and you can divide that so to have two lots with one dwelling each. They are just
recognizing the impact that exists, but allowing what could be rented to be sold.
Staff is recommending adoption of the ordinances before them. The date that the Board of
Supervisors instructed staff to work with was October 14, 2009. The Board held a meeting on
that date and wanted that to be the date by which it was determined that the multiple dwellings
had to exist.
What this is being likened to is that there are a lot of horses that have gotten out of the barn.
They have authorized, issued the permits and certificate of occupancies through no fault of the
applicants and owners to put multiple dwellings on properties or land that could not be divided
that they did not have the control of the division. Those horses are gone. They have gotten out of
the barn and are long gone. W hat they are saying is let’s forget about those and allow those
to run free, but they were going to close the barn door and not allow those to occur any more.
The Subdivision Ordinance would and the Zoning Ordinance amendment allows it not to happen
in the future. That is the best analogy that staff can come up with.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – STA-2009-1 DIVISION OF LAND WITH EXISTING DWELLINGS &
STA-2009-00009 REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE DU ON A SINGLE PARCEL
3
There are two changes proposed. One change in the Zoning Ordinance was recommended by
Ms. Porterfield to change the word “and” to “or”. The second change will be described by Mr.
Kamptner.
Mr. Kamptner noted a typo in Section 14-400 in the third line the word “width” should be “where”. That
makes the language consistent with the other sections.
Mr. Fritz noted that this is a fairly complex description of what is going on. In essence, the Board of
Supervisors directed staff to correct what they saw was a problem with the ordinance. The land use
impacts of a rental or for sale unit are identical. No change in access or number of units occurs.
Therefore, staff is recommending that the ordinance be permitted to allow the division of property having
two (2) or more dwellings as of October 14, 2009 without requiring frontage, and/or VDOT approval.
These amendments will allow for the division of property that has already been developed without
creating any additional impacts. The amendments will also require that the construction of mu ltiple
dwellings on a single parcel takes into account the potential impacts generated by the additional
dwellings. The proposal is written to recognize development that exists, but not facilitate new
development.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Ms. Monteith noted that in a sense things that came before this 2009 date were grandfathered in
essentially, but was not the terms staff wants to use.
Mr. Fritz replied that she had the correct idea. If someone had two or more dwellings before October 14,
2009 they could divide the property without having to pay any attention to street frontage, to getting
private street approval or VDOT approval. The logic is that the road and entrance is already being used
with existing traffic going up and down the road. The road does not care if that person driving on the road
is a renter or owner. It is still a vehicle going up and down that road.
Ms. Monteith said in the particular case on Break Heart Road she did not understand because staff
started by saying that it was not a public or private road. She wondered if what they were discussing was
going to help them .
Mr. Fritz replied that it does because it actually solves their problem. Break Heart Road is not a private
street. If Break Heart Road had been a private street, they would not be here because the owner would
have been able to divide. Once a private street is approved no further approval by the Planning
Commission is required for division on a private street. However, because Break Heart Road is not a
private street the division of parcel 42 would require those lots to get frontage. The only way to get
frontage is on a private or public street. They would have to authorize Break Heart Road as a private
street under the ordinance as written today with all of the various property owners agreeing to have it
convert to a private street. Right now Break Heart Road is just a private agreement or driveway. There is
no word for it.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it would probably be a prescriptive easement.
Mr. Fritz said that the ordinance does not recognize it. Parcel 42 is nonconforming and has no frontage.
Therefore it cannot be subdivided according to the current ordinance. They are writing the ordinance so it
can be subdivided, but only into two lots.
Ms. Monteith noted that first they would pass the ordinance as discussed tonight. Secondly, they would
have to make that officially a private street.
Mr. Fritz replied no, that the whole purpose of this ordinance amendment is that they don’t have to make
it a private street. The ordinance right now requires that they have to get private street approval.
Mr. Kamptner said that this ordinance creates a very narrow exception for this one particular
circumstance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – STA-2009-1 DIVISION OF LAND WITH EXISTING DWELLINGS &
STA-2009-00009 REGULATIONS CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE DU ON A SINGLE PARCEL
4
Mr. Fritz pointed out that the ordinance is written backwards as to when a site plan is required.
Mr. Kamptner noted that section predates all of us. Staff will correct that and a number of other changes.
Mr. Fritz explained regarding just single-family detached dwellings that the ordinance right now says one
can have two single-family detached dwellings on a property just by getting a building permit provided
having adequate acreage, etc. For three or more it would require a site plan. The section they are
dealing with is the site plan section. The proposal in the ordinance would say if they have public street
frontage the rules are changing so to put two dwellings on it. The reason is that they don’t feel there is
any need to put additional regulations on it.
Mr. Zobrist noted that there was a possibility of eliminating some development rights will work, too, when
they split these off. He pointed out that he had been looking at other similar properties with a lot of
development rights. Potentially they could put more houses on them and rent them.
Mr. Fritz said that it may reduce their ability to use them. They could get the first two houses, but after the
third house it requires a site plan. It is lowering the threshold from two to one.
Mr. Zobrist noted that there are a lot more of those situations with multiple dwellings than they know of
and a lot of people would likely divide those. He thought it was a great idea because a lot of those
development rights will disappear.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
brought back before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the Commission needed to take two separate actions.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Wyant if he had anything to add.
Mr. W yant, owner of parcel 42, said that he would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Fritz thanked Mr. Wyant, who owned that property, for his assistance in the County’s initiative. Mr.
Wyant went before the Board of Supervisors with an appeal. He appreciated Mr. Wyant working with staf f
and putting up with the time lines.
Motion for STA-2009-00001:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to forward a recommendation of approval for
adoption of STA-2009-00001, Division of Land with Existing Dwellings, as presented and edited.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion for ZTA-2009-00020:
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to forward a recommendation of approval of
ZTA-2009-00020 Regulating Construction of Multiple Dwellings on a Single Parcel as presented by staff
and edited.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that ZTA-2009-00020 and STA-2009-00001 would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval to a date to be determined.
Return to exec summary
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park Staff: Rebecca Ragsdale/Elaine Echols
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
February 9, 2010; rescheduled from February 2,
2010; January 12, 2010;Original Public Hearing
held August 18, 2009; deferred from May 19,
2009 & July 21, 2009
[Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report
are reflected in bold italics]
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
February 10, 2010
Owners: University of Virginia Foundation Ap plicant: University of Virginia Foundation,
represented by Valerie W. Long, Williams Mullen
Acreage: 30 acres to be rezoned to PDIP added
to the 525 acre research park
Special Use Permit:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial
Uses SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
TMP: 32 Parcels 18, 18a
Location: North side of Airport Road (Route
649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 Nort h
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); PDIP research/industrial park
with up to 3 million square feet of building area
permitted
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: Yes
DA (Development Area): Hollymead Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Request to rezone approximately
30.56 acres from RA to PDIP to be added to the
UVA Research Park and allow an additional
700,000 square feet in the park; request to amend
proffers associated with approved Research Park
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Industrial Service
Character of Property: undeveloped, 1920s
house, fires station, research park
Use of Surrounding Properties: undeveloped,
residential, research park
Factor Favorable:
1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial
Service designation of the Land Use Plan.
2. The proposal meets goals and objectives of
the Economic Development Policy plan.
3. The application plan provides for additional
interconnections into the Research Park.
4. The applicant has provided for requested
commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts.
Factor Unfavorable:
Staff has found no unfavorable factors.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 10, 2010
ZMA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
Petition: (Revised to reflect correct list of Tax Map/Parcels)
PROJECT: ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park (North Fork)
PROPOSAL: Request to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultur al,
forestal, and fishery uses, and residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no
residential uses), for 700,000 square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from
PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995-04
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited prod uction and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map Parcels 32-18, 32-6A, 32-18A, 32-18B, 32-19C, 32-19D, 32-19E, 32-19F, 32-
19F1, 32-19G, 32-19H, 32-19H1, 32-19H2, 32-19J, and 32-19J1
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Characteristics of the Site & Surrounding Area
The property proposed for rezoning consists of two parts, one is the 30.56 acres to be added to the
park zoned RA and the second is the remainder zoned PDIP. The County’s Hollymead Fire
Rescue Station (Building F) is located adjacent to Innovation Drive and the existing PDIP zoned
portion of the Research Park. The Rural Area zoned properties proposed for rezoning contain an
existing house that dates to 1925. The site is relatively flat, with a stream and some wetlands
located along the northern and western boundaries. Surrounding the site to the west is an
undeveloped property zoned Light Industrial and to the east is
the established Airport Acres residential subdivision zoned R1.
The United States Post Office is locate across Airport Road to
the south and is zoned LI, with properties to the east and west
of the Post Office zoned RA. (See Attachments A & B)
Specifics of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to expand
and enlarge the Research Park by approximately 30 acres to
add an additional 700,000 more square feet to the park, which
if approved would allow up to 3,700,000 building square feet
total. The currently proposed application plan shows
development on both a portion of the existing PD-IP zoned land
as well as the additional 30 acres. The bold black line on the
inset to the right shows the zoning line, with property on left
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval with the attached application plan and proffers.
RA PDIP
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 3
zoned RA and on right PDIP. (Referred to as Area D on Application Plan-Attachment D)
The appearance illustrated on the Overall Concept Plan is one of an “office park”, similar to the
Research Park owned by the Foundation on Fontaine Avenue. Buildings, which will likely be multi-
story are proposed and shown as Buildings A-M on the Concept Plan and are referred to as the
Gateway District on Attachment D-Exhibit B. Buildings A and B are oriented towards Airport Road,
Buildings C-F are organized around preserved wetlands and referred to as the Wetland District
(Attachment D-Exhibit C), and Buildings I-M and a parking garage are shown as the Research &
Development District organized around a central green/amenity area. (Attachment D-Exhibit D)
While the Concept Plan implies multi-story buildings and building footprints, the applicant would like
only to be bound by the General Plan which would provide flexibility in final building location, scale,
and massing. So it is possible under the General Plan for larger buildings, possibly one story, to
locate within the areas shown on the General Plan for buildings, with the exception of Buildings A
and B which must be two buildings and a minimum of two stories. (See insets below)
Background: The University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation applied for and was granted a
rezoning for the North Fork Research Park on 525 adjacent acres in 1996. (ZMA 1994-05) In
addition to the PD-IP approved uses, three special use permits were granted for laboratories,
supporting commercial uses, and hotels/motels/inns. A copy of the proffers is included within
Attachment C. In 1998, the Board approved an amendment (ZMA 98-27) to the district to allow
setbacks to be ten feet from the internal streets within the development. ZMA 2005-002 for the
amendments related to the fire station rezoning was approved February 2006. The fire station and a
total of eight buildings have been constructed to-date in the UVA Research Park, with building sizes
ranging from 25,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet in size for a total completed development
square footage of 491,000 square feet total.
Work session January 31, 2006: A work session was held in January 2006 for the Commission to
review the overall design and layout of the proposed park design submitted with ZMA 2005-003.The
Commission was asked to provide guidance to both the staff and applicant on changes, if any,
needed to bring the proposal into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood
Model. Staff questions and Commission discussion are summarized below and how the applicant
has addressed these matters since the work session are noted below and throughout the staff
analysis in this report. The work session staff report and Commission minutes are provided as
Attachment C.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 4
Should the statement below from the Land Use Plan result in a prohibition of expansion of the
UVA Research Park?
Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in suitable
areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the area now
referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total buildable area
shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area shall be pursuant to
an overall planned development under appropriate planned development zoning.
The Commission did not find that this statement precludes additional adjacent areas from being
rezoned consistent with the Industrial Service land use designation.
Is the design appropriate or should it be modified to be more in conformity with the
Neighborhood Model?
The Commission discussed whether the additional area to be rezoned should be more consistent with
the existing Research Park or Neighborhood Model Principles. Some commissioners recommended
that parking should be further relegated or structured parking provided. Overall, the Commission did
not have major issues or direction for changes on layout and design elements of the proposal.
Update: The revised proposal provides for a parking garage and changes have been made to the
layout to further relegate parking; parking will be relegated as show on the General Plan.
Is pedestrian access appropriate? Should a concrete sidewalk be provided on one or both
sides of Lewis and Clark rather than an asphalt path on one side?
The Commission recommended a sidewalk be provided on one side of Lewis & Clark Drive. An
asphalt path on the other side was viewed as appropriate. Update: Proposed street sections for Area
D provide for a sidewalk on the west side of Lewis & Clark (Innovation) Drive.
Should streets (either public or private) rather than commercial drives with parking lots be
used to, help establish a better design and traffic circulation within the site?
The Commission did not directly answer this question but recommended that interconnections to
adjoining properties be provided as public streets. Update: Interconnections have been provided and
are intended to be public roads.
Should an interconnection (or interconnections) be made to the property to the west?
The Commission recommended that an interconnection be provided. Update: An interconnection to
the property to the west has been provided.
Should the open space adjacent to Airport Road approved on the 1996 plan be retained or
should buildings front Airport Road?
The Commission had no issues with the proposal for buildings withi n previously approved open
space, provided that the buffer to the east was maintained. Update: The proposed plan maintains the
buffer to the east and buildings fronting Airport Road. The General Plan maintains a building
envelope adjacent to Airport Road with parking relegated behind it.
Should centers be created within the park? Should a center be established along Airport
Road?
The Commission concluded that the focal points provided in the applicants concept provided for
adequate “mini-centers” within this new proposed section of the Research Park. The Commission
also discussed the town center proposed within the approved park and encouraged mixing of
supporting commercial uses in the “mini-centers” to further strengthen them as focal points. Update:
The focal points have been maintained in the applicant’s revised proposal.
Has the applicant appropriately provided for buildings and spaces of human scale?
There was some concern expressed by some commissioners and it was suggested that one way to
mitigate the scale and massing issue was with landscaping. Update: Rather than make commitments
to scale and massing, the applicant wishes to rely on the Design Code established for the Research
Park, which already governs the rest of the Research Park. Given the unique mission of the Research
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 5
Park and public/private partnerships with research functions of the University, flexibility of building
size and scale is needed. A commitment has been made adjacent to the Entrance Corridor to
address scale and massing, where two buildings will be provided a minimum of two stories in height.
Should greater detail and commitments be provided for commercial uses or are the general
special use permit requests sufficient?
The Commission encouraged the applicant to provide for mixed use but did not consider the issue a
major concern to be addressed. The Commission suggested mixed commercial uses would be
appropriate around the focal points of the development such as first floor retail. Some
Commissioner’s also suggested the addition of residential units on the upper floors of buildings.
Update: A special use permit to allow supporting commercial uses is part of this rezoning and if
approved the special uses available in other areas of the Research Park will also be permitted in the
new section.
Following the January 2006 work session, the rezoning was deferred for some time and the
applicant submitted revised plans, an updated Traffic Impact Analysis, and environmental features
information in 2008.
The rezoning request (ZMA 2005-003) was originally scheduled for a Planning Commission public
hearing on May 19, 2009. Due to outstanding issues, the applicant requested a deferral to submit
revisions to address the following outstanding items identified by staff in the May 19 report:
The applicant had not provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts by building the Lewis & Clark Drive connection to Airport Road sooner than
980,000 square feet.
Clarifications concerning improvements to Route 29 had not been provided, including
updated language on ROW acquisition, LOS standards, and clarification that correction
of vertical curvature of the roadway is required.
Flexibility in final building design that might result in larger single-story buildings in Area
D adjacent to the Entrance Corridor.
The applicant submitted revised proffers and Application Plan Exhibit A: Overall Concept Plan to
address these outstanding items. There were no changes related to the special use permits
requested. Based on the resubmittal date and need to allow adequate review time, the public
hearing was deferred a second time by the Commission to August 18, 2009.
August 18, 2009 Public Hearing- The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this
rezoning and concurrent special use permits. The Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning, special use permits, and setback modification, with the following
changes to be made to the proffers for the rezoning:
Modify Proffers 5.4.1 and 5.4.C(3) to specify that the LOS C average for the
intersections with Route 29 is the standard and that individual movements may
be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at those intersections with Route
29.
Proffer 5.3 Phases of Development-Modify Maximum Total Build-out for
General Office in Phase II and Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved
uses.
After the August 18, 2009 public hearing, it was discovered that certain parcels were not
included in the application or advertised and legally another public hearing would be
required for the rezoning and special use permits. There have been no changes to the
application other than to make the proffer changes requested by the Commission on August
18, 2009 and a few other non-substantive corrections requested by the County Attorney’s
office and ownership documentation.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 6
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The properties are located in the Community of Hollymead and designated Industrial Service in the
Land Use Plan, which includes the following recommendations:
Uses allowed within this designation include warehousing, light industry, research, heavy
industrial uses, as well as uses allowed under Office Service.
Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use.
Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial Servic e designation if such uses are
compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service
uses.
Care should be taken to insure that the impacts of the
Industrial Service uses, including traffic, noise, odors, and
vibrations will not affect residential uses.
Where residential uses are provided, both vehicular and
pedestrian interconnections are expected to nearby industrial
areas.
Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size (+
5 acres), arterial road accessibility, water and/or sewer
availability, compatibility with adjacent uses.
Rail access may be necessary. Areas for less-intensive
industrial uses may act as transitional areas between
commercial and industrial areas.
The proposed rezoning is consistent with these
recommendations for Industrial Service properties. The mix
of uses proposed includes Flex/Industrial, Light Industrial,
laboratories and office as the primary uses proposed within
the park. Supporting commercial and hotel/conference uses
are proposed as secondary uses within the park. No residential uses are proposed or permitted in
the PDIP zoning district. A buffer is proposed and will be maintained along the eastern property line
to mitigate impacts to Airport Acres. No pedestrian interconnections are provided between the
Research Park and Airport Acres, since Airport Acres was an established subdivision prior to
development of the Research Park. Residential lots adjoin the Research Park and there are no
common areas of open space that might enable such connections adjacent to the Research Park.
Recommendations from Land Use Plan for the Community of Hollymead that apply to this
rezoning:
Develop all industrial/office areas in a highly sensitive manner that clusters development in
suitable areas and protects environmental features through the provision of open space. For the
area now referred to as the North Fork Research Park, limit development to 525 acres. Total
buildable area shall not exceed 3,000,000 square feet. Development of the entire industrial area
shall be pursuant to an overall planned development under appropriate planned development
zoning.
Placement of this statement in the Plan predated the rezoning of the Research Park. The
language was included to stipulate the expected development of the land that at that time that
would be subject to original Research Park rezoning. It was not intended to preclude additional
area from being rezoned to an industrial designation, since the Land Use Plan designates more
land than were subject to the Research Park rezoning as Industrial Service. The current
request for expansion of the Research Park is in this additional area of the Comprehensive Plan
designated Industrial Service. The proposed plan provides for preservation of important
environmental features along the northwestern property boundary. This was discussed at the
Commission’s January 2006 and the conclusion was that this rezoning is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
S
I
T
E
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 7
Principles of the Neighborhood Model
Staff has analyzed the revised overall design and layout of the park for conformity with the
principles of the Neighborhood Model and provides the following assessment.
Pedestrian
Orientation
A Pedestrian Circulation Plan (Attachment D-Exhibit F) and Streetscape &
Sidewalk Sections (Attachment D-Exhibit G) have been provided by the
applicant. The Pedestrian Circulation Plan shows a hierarchy of primary
and secondary pedestrian connections. All pedestrian connections will be
concrete sidewalks with the exception of the nature trail around the
preserved wetlands and along Lewis and Clark Drive. The design of Lewis
and Clark Drive was established with the prior rezoning. It is an urban
section with 4 lanes separated by a median with trees. It has been
approved for a six-foot asphalt path on the west side of the street. As
discussed in the Commission’s work session, the Commission and staff
support having pedestrian access along only one side of Innovation/Lewis
and Clark Drive for Area D because the east side of Lewis and Clark Drive
abuts a 50 foot buffered area to which pedestrian access is not essential.
(Refer to Section B: Lewis & Clark Drive) There are existing sidewalks
along Airport Road at the front of the property and “Gateway District”.
Staff believes this principle has been met.
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Streetscape and sidewalk sections have been provided on Exhibit G.
Planting strips are proposed on all road sections between the sidewalk and
roadway. At the time site plans are submitted, more area than shown may
need to be provided to accommodate planting strips. Parallel parking can
also be provided in some sections of the internal road serving the park.
Staff believes this principle has been met.
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
The proposed plan provides for an interconnection to the west to the
Industrial zoned property owned by Goldleaf Trust, this is shown on Exhibit
A as a Connection to Adjacent Property. Goldleaf Trust has a platted
interconnection approved December 2006 that would interconnect the
Research Park property to the north and impact environmental resources
at the location proposed with the Goldleaf Trust plat. There are no site
development plans under review or approved for development of that
property. At the time the property does come in with development plans,
the County will request that the interconnection now be provided for in the
location shown on the Research Park plans.
In the portion of the park already zoned, proffers have been amended to
provide for an interparcel connection to Northside Drive from the cul-de-sac
street adjacent to Areas B-11 and B-10, depicted on Attachment D-Exhibit
K.
Lewis & Clark Drive is intended to provide an interconnection/parallel road
to from Route 29 to Airport Road. Staff and VDOT recommended that the
connection be provided sooner. The applicant has agreed to limit building
square footage in the new area of the park (Area D) to 180,000 square feet
unless the Lewis & Clark interconnection is made.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 8
This principle has been met.
Parks and Open
Space
Natural Features and Wetland Overlay are shown on Exhibit H. The
original rezoning for the Research Park provided open space at the
entrance to this development as well as along several stream and sloped
areas. Open space was also proposed for the buffer areas on the east
side of Lewis and Clark Drive from its intersection with Airport Road. There
was no Commission concern at the work session with the open space
along Airport Road converted to building area as the buildings are shown
to establish a face to Airport Road.
The buffer areas to the east are to be retained in the new proposal. The
new proposal removes the open space at the entrance to the development
and replaces it with buildings. Open space continues to be shown
surrounding a wetland area and another open space area is provided at
the rear of the development near a stream and stormwater facility.
The proposal provides for two amenity areas including the preserved
wetlands area adjacent to the Hollymead Fire Station and the Village
Green proposed
Staff believes this principle is met.
Neighborhood
Centers
The previously approved Research Park identifies a town center in the
middle of the development. The buildings proposed in the new section
relate somewhat to the town center, although the walking distance for the
closest buildings is approximately a half-mile away. The applicant has said
that “the inclusion of support commercial uses will assist in the
establishment of “centers” or gathering spots to support the Park and
adjoining neighborhoods and uses.” The proposal for Area D of the
Research park is organized around open space focal points internally, with
the preserved wetlands area in the “Wetlands District” and the open space
green area in the “Research & Development District”.
Staff believes this principle has been met, based on the Commission’s
evaluation at their work session.
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
The applicant is proposing the design code for the existing Research Park
to the new area to be added. However, the applicant wishes to preserve
opportunities for building height, scale, and massing that would suit a
variety of uses, as shown on the General Plan. So buildings similar to
those in the Fontaine Research Park may not be built. The applicant has
made a commitment to break up the buildings along Airport Road and
provide a minimum of two story buildings on the Entrance Corridor. No
elevations or perspective drawings have been requested or provided with
this rezoning request because of the commitment to design in accordance
with the Research Park’s design code.
Front setbacks on the Overall Concept Plan appear to be at 12 feet, side
setbacks are proposed at 15 feet on the application plan, and building
heights are limited to 4 stories. Light Industrial buildings are permitted as
one or two story buildings within the building envelopes shown on the
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 9
General Plan and the applicant has provided a note on the application plan
that buildings adjacent to Airport Road will be a minimum of two stories.
The applicant is requesting a modification to the setbacks of Section 26.6
to allow reduced building setbacks along public roads, including Airport
Road and Lewis and Clark Drive, from 50 feet to 10 feet. Places where
setbacks are most important in the proposed project are along Airport
Road and Lewis and Clark Drive. The rest of the setbacks would relate to
internal driveways and parking lots.
Parking lots have also been broken up into this layout and are organized,
along with the buildings, around the proposed focal points within the
development so there is more of a human scale created.
There was no clear direction or concern from the Commission at their work
session regarding this principle. The Overall Concept Plan reflects a more
human scale than the General Plan. Staff recognizes the unique needs of
some of the industrial uses that may locate in the Research Park and
believes meeting this principle along Airport Road is sufficient.
Relegated Parking Generally, parking is relegated from Airport Road and from Lewis &
Clark/Innovation Drive. The application plan was revised since the
Commission’s work session to relegate additional parking lots and to
provide for some parking in a parking garage. Parking lots that are
adjacent to Innovation Drive (Lewis & Clark Drive) are screened or located
behind the front setback of buildings.
Mixture of Uses
The proposed rezoning is for PDIP zoning within an area designated
Industrial Service in the Land Use Plan. Commercial uses are
recommended as secondary and these areas are intended to primarily
provide for industrial service uses. The applicant has provided allowance
for commercial uses as is currently allowed in the existing park. The
applicant is requesting supporting commercial uses not to exceed 5% of
total floor area and commercial uses not to exceed more than 10% of floor
area at any time during phased development.
Since the total square footage in the park will increase if this rezoning is
approved, the total supporting commercial will also be increased within the
entire Research Park. The condition of approval with the previously
approved SP for supporting commercial permits up to 5% of total floor area
within the Park and up to 10% of total floor area at any time during phased
development. At the 2006 work session, the Commission did not ask the
applicant to commit to any particular location for mixed use. Staff finds that
this principle is met.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 10
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
No housing is proposed. Housing is not permitted by-right or by special
use in the PD-IP district.
Redevelopment This principle is largely not applicable because of the large portion of
undeveloped land; however, a small portion of the 30 acre tract proposed
for addition to the park contains a house. Although the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources has not surveyed the subject parcels for
the presence of historic architectural and/or archaeological resources,
County Real Estate records indicate the presence of a c. 1925 single family
dwelling. The applicant has been requested to document the buildings on
TMP 32-18 prior to demolition, which is provided for in the proffers.
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best
possible to existing terrain. Where extensive grading is needed, though, to
achieve other principles of the Neighborhood Model, large expanses of 2:1
regraded slopes are to be avoided. Large retaining walls should likewise
be avoided. Because the site is rolling and 25% slopes are not shown to
be impacted, in general, the proposed development respects the terrain.
Based on the information provided on Exhibit I Grading & Utility Plan ,
there is a retaining wall shown around the perimeter of the parking near
Building K. W hile retaining walls may be appropriate, they should be
terraced with shorter walls rather than be tall and expansive. The applicant
has provided a note on the application plan sheet that no individual
retaining wall shall exceed 6 feet in height and if additional height is
necessary, it must be terraced with each wall not to exceed 6 feet, unless a
modification is granted by the Director of Planning.
This principle has been met.
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
This principle is not applicable as the property does not adjoin the Rural
Areas.
Economic Development Policy
The County’s Economic Development Policy is a part of the Comprehensive Plan and was recently
updated in March 2009, referred to herein as “the Plan.” The Plan recognizes the importance of
economic growth and vitality to sustain and enhance the human economic, cultural, and natural
characteristics of the community, by creating a diversified economy, jobs, and workforce
development opportunities.
The Plan recognizes the University of Virginia and its associated entities as a main economic driver
of economic vitality that can provide important resources for business and industry. The Plan
recommends the County work with the University and associated entities to take advantage of
opportunities to benefit from this resource in innovative ways. Supporting further development of the
University’s research park is clearly consistent with and supportive of the goals of the Economic
Development Policy.
The University’s Research Park’s mission is to encourage relationships with the private sector and
the transfer of technology and expertise from research to the business environment. The Park is
designed to support companies in a variety of businesses, from research and development, to light
manufacturing and knowledge-based commerce. The proposal also meets the Economic
Development Policy strategy of “Increasing diversity in business and industry which will
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 11
accommodate a variety of skill/educational levels, and provide for a diversified tax base, in
particular to reduce the tax burden borne by residential property owners.” The Research Park’s
current list of tenants is reaching 20 and is attached for information (Attachment F); there are
approximately 1, 300 employees now associated with existing operations within the Research Park.
Draft Places 29 Master Plan
While conformity with the current Land Use Plan recommendations is the standard to which the
applicant should be held in this rezoning, the pertinent recommendations of the draft Places 29
Master Plan are summarized here for information and provided as Attachment J. The Plan
anticipates that the Research Park will continue to develop as a major employment center. The
draft Places 29 Plan offers opportunity for the Research Park to include more integrated mix of
residential and commercial uses and land use designations are intended to be consistent with the
Research Parks approved Application Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates Area D as Urban
Mixed Use, Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial, and the Hollymead Fire Station site as Institutional.
About one third of Area D is designated as “Uptown”. The draft master plan recognizes that the
“Uptown” is a long-term goal of the plan that would take many years to redevelop as envisioned,
evolving over time as described below.
The draft master plan currently recommends a maximum building footprint size of no greater than
25,000 for the Urban Mixed Use area in Uptown and for Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial uses up to
a 40,000 square foot maximum building footprint size. The UVA Foundation is requesting to add 30
acres to in Area D to the existing Research park PDIP program and apply the design code that is
currently in place for the rest of the park. The Foundation requests the same level of flexibility in
Area D, as the rest of the park, allowing for buildings that support employment opportunities and
research function of the University. The design code allows LI buildings as one-two stories and
there are no restrictions on building footprint size. The applicant is willing to make a commitment to
have two buildings fronting Airport Road which will be a minimum of two stories rather than one
single-story building. This is provided as a note on the application plan.
The transportion component of the rezoning
application is consistent with the Places 29
Transportation Network (inset to right) with
one exception. The proposed road layout
and proffers provide for the Lewis & Clark
interconnection and for a future
interconnection to Northside Drive. The road
shown in green is optional but not essential
to the roadway network. It is not provided by
the applicant as because if built would go
through environmentally sensitive areas
shown for preservation on the rezoning
plan.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 12
Most of the proposed rezoning is consistent with the recommendations of Places 29. The portion of
area D designated Urban Mixed Use (Uptown) is not totally in keeping because the suggested mix
of land uses are not provided in the Uptown Area and, as previously indicated, the Foundation
would like to maintain flexibility and allow for the potential for industrial uses to locate on Airport
Road. Because of the uncertainty as to whether this area would ultimately be designated for
Uptown, staff did not request that the applicant commit to mixed use at this location. The future
Small Area plan for this area may revisit where the best location for an Uptown. Nothing precludes
future long term opportunities for a greater mix of uses, as this area could evolve overtime towards
the Uptown idea.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district
The applicant is requesting PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park zoning. The intent of the
PDIP district as described in the Zoning Ordinance states that the district is intended to: Permit a
variety of industrial uses, together with certain uses ancillary thereto, which are compatible with and
do not detract either from each other or from surrounding districts. It is intended that PD-IP districts
may be established in areas in conformity with the comprehensive plan and having all of the
following characteristics: Areas served by water and sewer facilities, or if such facilities are
reasonably available Areas served by major highway, rail or air service, or secondary road
improved to standards approved by the county; and Areas having clearly demonstrated suitability
for intended uses with regard to physical characteristics and relationship to surrounding
development. In the establishment of any PD-IP district, the board of supervisors shall designate
the category of uses which shall be permitted in each parcel, or part thereof, which is the subject of
the application for such amendment.
The proposed PDIP application is consistent with the PDIP District as it is providing for a variety of
uses including general office, flex/industrial, light industrial, laboratories including research and
development, and some supporting commercial and hotel uses. The site is served by public water
and sewer and primary road access with Route 29 and Airport Road.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Environmental- Attachment D-Exhibit H of the Application Plan depicts natural features and wetland
overlay, with preservation and conservation areas of the site shown. Staff and County Engineer
have evaluated the proposed resources and impacts to them with this proposed development,
including a wetlands delineation study. There are linear wetlands at the western boundary and
middle of the parcel associated with a perennial stream, and 50’ stream buffer requirements apply.
The proposed plan disturbs approximately 0.16 acre of palustrine (forested) wetlands to allow
construction of Building J and parking lot improvements. (Attachment D -Exhibit H) All wetland
impacts must be authorized by federal and state regulatory agencies, and ideally the proposed
development would preserve these natural features. Assuming that federal and state agency
approval were obtained, the Natural Resources Planner and County Engineer have found that
impacting this area of wetlands could be reasonable if the wetland system to the southwest, along
the southern property boundary were preserved the applicant has provided for a 100’ stream buffer
and preservation of these wetlands with their current application plan.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 13
Cultural/Historic Resources- As mentioned previously, the applicant will survey the existing building
on the property and provide documentation prior to demolition. At this time the building does not
appear have significant historic value.
Entrance Corridor- Airport Road is an Entrance Corridor and subject to ARB review. The Design
Planner has commented that it appears that the site layout as illustrated in the concept plan could
meet Entrance Corridor guidelines. Detailed building information and review by the ARB for
conformity with Entrance Corridor guidelines will be done at the time of site plan application.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Streets – Currently, there are two entrances to the existing Research Park. The main entrance
(Lewis & Clark Drive) is located on Route 29 and the back entrance to the park from Dickerson
Road. Innovation Drive has been constructed from Airport Road to serve the Hollymead Fire
Station and the proposed developed of the area under consideration for rezoning to incorporate into
the Research Park. The applicant submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) with the initial request
for this rezoning in February 2005. It was revised in March 31, 2008 and again in July 2008 to
address County and VDOT comments. Information from this TIA is provided as Attachment E. The
TIA analyzed impacts of the adding 700,000 square feet to the Research Park, beyond the
3,000,000 square feet already approved. The analysis assumed all proffered roadway
improvements that were identified in the proffers approved with ZMA 1994-005 would be in place.
This included the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport Road, with the TIA anticipating
that a significant portion of the traffic generated by the Research Park site would use this connector
road and thereby reduce impact to Route 29.
The provision of phasing for road improvements provided on Exhibit M of the Application Plan
(Attachment D) and in the updated proffers (Attachment E) as indicated in the table on page 4 of
the proffers. The original proffers also specified that two-lanes of Lewis & Clark from Route 29 to
Route 649 through the Park shall be provided within six months of the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy for a building constructed beyond 980,000 square feet. (Proffer 5.4 (b)1) At
the time ZMA 1994-005 was approved, the Comprehensive Plan did not include text or show on the
Land Use Map a parallel road system along Route 29. The Comprehensive Plan has been updated
since that rezoning to provide for the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive from Route 29 to Airport
Road. Rezonings have been approved to the east of the Research Park (North Pointe) and south
that align with Lewis & Clark Drive, to provide for an interconnecting parallel and perpendicular road
system. NGIC has also been developed and expanded since the rezoning for the Research Park
was approved and has created more of an opportunity to provide for local traffic needs between
NGIC/North Pointe/UVA Research Park/Hollymead on an interconnected road system alternative to
Route 29. VDOT has also approved an Access Management Strategy in conjunction with the US 29
North Corridor Transportation Study that shows the connection of Lewis & Clark Drive to Airport
Road. Achieving the interconnection of Lewis & Clark Drive through the Research Park is now a
higher priority than it was at the time of the 1995 rezoning. Staff and VDOT recommended the
interconnection should be provided for sooner in the phasing of road improvements and that at a
minimum, the road should be provided as a 2-Lane Section prior to construction of more than
180,000 square feet in building area. This is approximately the amount of building area that could
be achieved on the already PDIP zoned portion of Area D included with this rezoning. The applicant
has agreed to this recommendation and provided for this in the updated proffers.
Proffer requirements with regard to Route 29 improvements have also been clarified. The 1994
proffers did not specify that corrections to the vertical curvature of Route 29 are necessary to make
the required road improvements. Proffers recently approved with rezonings along Route 29 have
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 14
specified that the correction of the vertical curvature is part of those improvements. The applicant
has updated to specify in the proffers the vertical curvature will be addressed.
Also, VDOT has recommended that the Level of Service (LOS) language in the proffers be updated.
In VDOT’s evaluation, it was recommended that the LOS be changed from “D” to “C.” (Attachment
H) VDOT’s Chapter 527 regulations enacted since the 1994 proffers, govern traffic studies and do
not use the minimum level of service criteria but change in delay. This means that when a study is
reviewed, the increase in delay is looked at for each movement and has to be held unchanged if
possible. Delay does correlate to LOS, and it was previously the policy that in rural areas LOS of
“C” or better is acceptable and in urban area a “D” or better is acceptable. The area around the
research park is still considered rural by VDOT and therefore VDOT has said LOS C should be
used for intersections with Route 29. The County Engineer concurs.
To bring the proffers in line with more current standards, the Commission recommended at
the August 18 public hearing the applicant modify the proffers to specify that LOS C average
for the two intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements
may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at the intersections of Route 29/Airport Road
and Route 29/Lewis & Clark Drive. This is acceptable to VDOT and the County Engineer.
The applicant has provided for all requested proffer additions and clarifications to mitigate
transportation impacts, including the additional LOS update recommended by the
Commission at the August 18, 2009 public hearing.
Schools – There are no residential uses proposed with this project and no impacts to schools
anticipated.
Fire, Rescue, Police- The proposed rezoning will
incorporate the Hollymead Fire Station (Station 12),
application plan and proffers approved with ZMA 2005-002.
The 16,257 square foot fire station has been constructed
(shown on the inset below), and is occupied/ in operation,
providing fire protection and primary emergency medical
response services to Hollymead and surrounding Area. The
property is leased from the UVA Foundation. It is depicted
as Building F on the application plans and depicted on the
inset to the right.
Albemarle County Fifth Street Office Building contains the County’s Police Department, although
police patrol all areas of the County. Current policy for police services recommends a response time
of five minute or less 85 % of the time in the Development Areas and this is achieved through their
sector/beat system. Police satellite offices are recommended within a service sector to help achieve
these desired response times to all police emergency calls and the nearest satellite office to the
Research Park is located at Fashion Square Mall.
Utilities-The Research park is served by the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and
sewer. The proposed project will require the completion of the North Fork Regional Pump Station to
provide sewer capacity, which has an expected completion date of August 2010. Water is available
from an existing 12” RWSA water line running along Airport Road and from a 12” ACSA water line
running along Innovation Drive. (Attachment I)
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 15
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties
The area requested for rezoning is located between the existing UVA Research Park and property
zoned Light Industrial to the west so there are no anticipated impacts to surrounding properties with
development of this site. The Application Plan maintains the minimum 50’ open space buffer
between Airport Acres and the east side of Innovation/Lewis & Clark Drive and in some places the
actual buffer that exists is more than 50’.
The proposed interparcel access to the west does not match the platted connection approved with
SUB 2006 – 273 and would result in the need to request that the owner provide for the
interconnection as shown on UVA Research Park application plan. This provides an interconnection
in a location that avoids environmental features. The owner should be notified of these changes, so
that they can plan accordingly when submitting any site plans to the County.
PROFFERS-
This rezoning involves amending proffers approved with ZMA 1995-04 and incorporating the
30 acres proposed for rezoning into a single application plan set. The revised set of proffers
provided as Attachment E also incorporates the proffers associated with ZMA 2005-02 (fire
station amendment). There have also been a number of other technical updates and edits
that have been made to the proffers that are not listed here, including formatting, and
ownership documentation. Substantive proffer changes that have been provided include:
Gross Floor Area to be Developed-
Updated the total build out proffer to reflect the increase in permitted up to
3,700,000 square feet of building area.
Transportation-
Phases of Development-Modified Build-out for General Office in Phase II and
Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved uses
Provision added to allow for a future interconnection to Northside Drive.
Provision to allow dedication of right-of-way for future Dickerson Road
widening and improvements
Clarified required improvements to Route 29 include correcting vertical
curvature
Updated right-of-way acquisition language
Specified the LOS for traffic studies also applies to turning movements at
intersections. Proffers modified to specify that LOS C average for the two
intersections with Route 29 is the standard but that the individual movements
may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections of Route
29/Airport Road and Route 29/Lewis & Clark Drive
Provision added that development in Area D is limited to 180,000 until Lewis &
Clark interconnection is provided
Recreational Areas and Open Space-
Allow an additional playing field in the recreation proffers, as requested by
Parks & Recreation Department.
Historic Resources-
Provide reconnaisance level documentation of historic structure on property.
ALL PROFFER CHANGES REQUESTED HAVE BEEN MADE AND THERE ARE NO
OUTSTANDING PROFER ISSUES.
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 16
SUMMARY
Factors Favorable:
1. Rezoning is consistent with the Industrial Service designation of the Land Use Plan.
2. The proposal meets goals and objectives of the Economic Development Policy plan.
3. The application plan provides for additional interconnections into the Research Park.
4. The applicant has provided for requested commitments to mitigate transportation
impacts.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has found no factors unfavorable for this rezoning.
Recommendation:
ZMA 2005-003
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2005-003 rezoning and attached proffers.
Modification to Setbacks
Staff recommends approval of the setback modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback
reduction. of to allow for buildings, including those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from
50 feet to 10 feet along public roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map/Aerial
B. Zoning Map
C. Planning Commission work session staff report & minutes, January 31, 2006
D. Application Plan Exhibits:
A. Overall Concept Plan
A-1. General Plan
B. Gateway District Plan
C. Wetland District Plan
D. Research & Development Plan
E. Vehicular Circulation Plan
F. Pedestrian Circulation Plan
G. Streetscape & Sidewalk Sections
H. Natural Features and Wetland Overlay
I. Grading & Utility Plan
J. Zoning Application Overlay Plan
K. Overall Zoning Application Overlay Plan (K-1 through K-6)
L. Internal Road Network Plan
M. Off-site and Internal Road Phasing Plan
N. Open Space System Phasing Plan
E. Proffers dated December 14, 2009
F. UVA Research Park current tenant list
G. Transportation Impact Analysis Summary Table of Site Trip Generation
H. VDOT comments provided by Joel Denunzio, P.E., via e-mail dated March 4, 2009 and
Charles C. Proctor, III via e-mail dated July 21, 2009
I. ACSA comments provided by Gary Whelan, dated October 9, 2008
J. Summary of Places 29 Information-UVA Research Park
View PC minutes: January 12, 2010; August 18, 2009; July 21, 2009; May 19, 2009
Return to regular agenda
ZMA 2005-003 UVA Research Park and concurrent SPs
PC 1/12/10 (Readvertised from 8/18/09; Updates since the August, 18, 2009 staff report are reflected in bold italics)
BOS 2/10/2010
Staff Report Page 17
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 12, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on
Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice Chair; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach,
Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner;
Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Items Requesting Deferral/Work session:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park-North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery us es;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approxim ately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax
Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research
Park). PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park
AND
2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with ZMA 05 -
03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in
association with the UVA Research Park.
AND
2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA
Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses
within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area.
AND
2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research
Park (formerly North Fork Research Park). PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities
within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
(Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Loach noted that this item was noted as an item requesting deferral/work session.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that these items were heard several months ago, but there was a problem at the time
because there were parcels included in the applicant’s request that did not actually have the signatures
for them to be included. Staff’s hope was to bring the requests back to the Commission for a new public
hearing. Unfortunately, the parcel information still was not correct in the legal ad. Staff would like to use
this opportunity tonight as a refresher on the project like a work session so that the Commission can
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
2
answer any questions. They can defer this as the Chair’s agenda suggests for an action Februar y 2,
2010 as a public hearing that will be properly advertised. But, tonight the Commission can ask any
questions. It is appropriate tonight for the applicant and public to speak. This will not hold up the hearing
at the Board of Supervisors on February 2. The Commission may be able to take care of things tonight
so to make it very quick on February 2.
Rebecca Ragsdale presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Power-
Point Presentation)
This request was before the Planning Commission in January, 2006 for a work session. Then a public
hearing was held in August, 2009 when the Planning Commission recommend ed approval. There have
been some advertising issues. The requests are for a rezoning and several concurrent special use
permits for the UVA Research Park to add about 30 acres to the existing Research Park. They are
proposing to add some property they own that is zoned Rural Areas to the Planned Industrial Park
Development to bring their grand total of square footage pr esented up to 3,700,000 with 3,000,000
permitted at this time. The additional area requested to be added to the Research Park is noted as Area
D in the staff report. They are proposing similar uses. Staff would expect to see typical development that
is already in the Research Park. The parcels to be added contain an existing home and some
undeveloped land located along the Airport Road Corridor and around the existing Hollymead Fire
Station. The property is currently zoned Rural Areas and is adjacent t o the existing Research Park, which
is zoned Planned Development Industrial Park. Area D is also adjacent to the west along Airport Road to
parcels zoned Light Industrial. It is designated for Industrial Service in the Comprehensive Plan so that
the rezoning requested is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan.
Staff reviewed the current Research Park and explained the portion to be added. The Research Park is
not connected all the way through for the portion of what will be the future road co nnecting Airport Road
and US 29. The portion of it on the Airport Road side is no w called Innovation Drive. The applicant is
seeking approval for similar uses already in the Research Park with three separate districts around the
existing fire station. Staff reviewed the concept plan for how it meets the Neighborhood Model . Staff
found that it does meet most of those Neighborhood Model principles regarding the building orientation,
pedestrian circulation and the other 12 principles.
This rezoning involves the rest of the Research Park because they are consolidating the previously
approved application plans and updating the whole set of proffers so there will be one application plan
and one guiding set of proffers for what was rezoned in the ‘90’s, what was rezoned when the fire station
came in during recent years and then in this request for Area D to be added.
There are some updates and additional proffers that have been added with regard to references and
technical aspects of things so that this new area is guided by the proffers. It increases the maximum
allowable square footage to 3.7 million. There are additional transportation improvements, which she will
review later. They have provided for an additional playing field and modified the landscaping and
buffering requirements on the plan or the proffers so that interconnections and road improvement projects
can be accomplished. They have added a proffer to document the historic structure , which is older than
50 years and on the existing property.
The new proffers on the transportation improvements provide for interconnections; clarify the
requirements for the US 29 improvements that were approved with the original rezoning; clarify to what
extent is needed with the corrections to the 29 Corridor with the improvements; updated the right-of-way
acquisition language; and updated the proffers to indicate a higher level with the Level of Service
standard for traffic studies where that is applicable in the proffers. One of the limitations in the proffers is
that the new area, Area D, is limited to 180,000 square feet without that Lewis and Clark connector road
all the way through from 29 to Airport Road. Those are the highlights of the new proffer changes.
The Commission reviewed this in August and has been in review with staff. The applicant has met all of
the outstanding issues that have been raised. Staff does not have any unfavorable factors or changes at
this time that staff finds are needed to the application. Staff found the request consistent w ith the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-15, 62, 63, and 64
3
Comprehensive Plan land use designation; that it meets some of the Economic Development Policy
goals; provides for those additional interconnections and transportation improvements.
Staff wanted to provide the Commission the opportunity to ask any questions and the new members to
have the benefit of the overview, but the ultimate action would be to defer it to the February 2 meeting to
allow for correct advertising. Then it is scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on February
10. Staff recommends approval with the attached proffers. There are a couple other actions that will
need to be taken at the public hearing to approve a modification to allow a setback reduction and then the
approval recommended with the conditions for the special use permits for the parking structure,
laboratories, supporting commercial uses and the hotel/motel/inn uses.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this is typical for the documentation for a project. This seems extensive.
Ms. Ragsdale replied yes.
There being no further questions, Mr. Loach opened the public comment and invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Ms. Valerie Long, representative for the applicant the University of Virginia Foundation, noted that Fred
Missel with the Foundation is here as well this evening. They don’t have a presentation other than to let
the Commission know that they are here and happy to answer questions. She felt that Ms. Ragsdale had
explained everything very well. She indicated that the project was last at the Commission in August. The
Commission at that time granted a unanimous recommendation for approval. There have not been any
issues in the interim. They have worked with staff to correct some of the issues that were outsta nding.
They have completed revisions to the proffers, which have been signed off on by the County Attorney.
They have even obtained all of the signatures of all the owners and submitted those. They are looking
forward to moving forward on this proposal.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being no public comment, the matter was before the Planning
Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for deferral of ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008-00015,
SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 to February 2, 2010.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach said that these requests would be heard by the Planning Commission on February 2, 2010.
Ms. Porterfield asked to set a procedure for the year on deferrals that the Commission holds on to the
packet information.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed and asked the Commissioners to save their packet information for the next meeting
on February 2.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 18, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on
Tuesday, August 18, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium,
Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris,
Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith,
AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning;
Elizabeth Moratta, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, County Engineer; Ron Higgins, Chief
of Zoning; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Deferred Items:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: The
request is to rezone approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows
agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park, which allows industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 70 0,000 square feet of office
and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend proffers
and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a
mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of
Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A
requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1,
19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in
PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and
service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
2
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical
PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park
- industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED:
Allow supporting commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total
of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP -
Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service
uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial uses (reference
9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel,
hotel or conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000
square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned
Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca
Ragsdale)
DEFERRED FROM THE JULY 21, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
Ms. Ragsdale presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an item that was deferred from May to July and then to the August
meeting to allow time for the applicant to address some of the issues that were
identified in the staff report. This is a rezoning request that has some concu rrent
special use permits to add about 30 acres to the existing UVA Research Park
and also to amend to what is referred to as “Area D” in the staff report and on
their application plan to amend the existing Planned Development Industrial Park
area to allow buildings. The Research Park is proposing to add and rezone the
Rural Area properties that are in between the existing LI and the already zoned
PD-IP to the west of the fire station. Some of the proffers were amended related
to „Area D” for this rezoning.
It is the area where the County fire station is existing along Airport Road and
what is now Innovation Drive used to access the fire station site. This is a
request for an additional 7,000 square feet in that area to be added to the 3
million square feet that is already permitted in the Research Park. They are at
about 500,000 square feet in terms of the existing building within the Research
Park. Area D is undeveloped except for the fire station. Part of Area D was
shown for open space on the previous plan.
The Research Park rezoning is primarily consistent with the Places29 rezoning
Area D. The majority of the Research Park is designated Office/R&D Flex and
Light Industrial, which are all one category in Places29. A portion of it is within in
Uptown Area. Area D is recommended in the white dashed line shown on the
map for a small area plan. The transportation network is shown as the applicant
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
3
has provided for in terms of some additional interconnections that were not part
of the 1995 original Research Park rezoning.
The original research park was approved in 1996. There is a lot more detail on
Area D because it has to meet the current date Planned Development District
requirements. The whole application plan is included in the packet with the n ew
documents for Area D and the other old ZMA documents.
With regard to the orientation of the buildings there are some additional features
that break up the parking areas and the buildings, which was of concern at the
last work session with the Commission in terms of breaking up the mass of the
buildings. She reviewed the concept of the arrangement of the buildings along
Airport Road and Lewis and Clark. It also provides for preservation of
environmental features, which is a key issue that has been brought up since the
2006 work session. Some of the parking is now provided for in a parking garage.
What is going to regulate and provide the UVA Research Park flexibility is the
general plan, which shows where the building envelopes are, parking areas and
then central features of the plan so that the park has flexibility in terms of
responding to the tenants. Right now the tenants are not known for the future
users. That provides them the flexibility.
Area D is consistent with the application plan. Area D is allowed general office,
LI uses; flex uses, R & D, and supporting commercial and hotel uses. Pretty
much all of the uses they are allowed in the park are allowed in Area D. There is
no restriction on where those uses go in terms of the gateway distric t, wetland
district or R & D District. The applicant has provided a commitment for buildings
A and B located at the corner of Airport Road and Innovation Drive to be a
minimum of two stories in height in two buildings. They would have flexibility in
the rest of the park to respond to building footprints within those envelopes or
provide one-story buildings for LI users if that is desired.
With the additional 700,000 square feet the applicant also submitted the
Transportation Impact Analysis along with th is rezoning. The County Engineer is
present to speak to any of questions related to the analysis or other
environmental, storm water management type questions.
The existing proffers are summarized in the staff report in terms of what they
address. The application plan set the maximum build-out allowed within the
park, provisions for storm water and environmental features, transportation
improvements, recreation areas, open space and green way, landscaping and
buffering, the fire station (already built) and then that the applicant would provide
a progress report over three years outlining development activity in the park. The
revised set of proffers incorporates the proffers from both the 1994 rezoning for
the Research Park and the more recent fire station rezoning. It is now one set of
proffers and application plan for all of the Research Park. That is a feature of the
new proffers.
The Design Standards was another proffer from the originals that has been
completed and will apply to Area D, which is the Design Code that has been
used in the rest of the Research Park. The maximum build -out requested has
been updated to reflect the additional 700,000 square feet requested.
Transportation improvements will be discussed later. The applicant has provided
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
4
for an additional playing field that Parks and Rec is interested in. There is a new
proffer on the Rural Areas zone site that is proposed to be added to the
Research Park. There is a structure that dates 50 years or older. The applicant
has provided a proffer to do a Reconnaissance Survey of that property.
The transportation proffers are provided with the main point being that Phase I, II
and III transportation improvements would be phased by square footage within
the Research Park. In Phase I and III improvements the applicant has the option
instead of doing the numbered improvements in those phases to provide a traffic
study which demonstrates that the Level of Service as it is written in the proffers
now is the Level of Service “D” at key intersections . That is one of the changes
staff recommended to be updated since the last time the Commission reviewed
the proffers to reflect the Level of Service “C” at those key intersections, but to
allow for individual turning movements with some of those to be at the Level of
Service “D” as long as the intersection averages to a Level of Service “C”.
The major improvements would be at the intersection of Lewis and Clark Drive
with the provision of Lewis and Clark Drive all the way through from 29 to Airport
Road and then a third southbound lane on 29. It would primarily be turn lane and
intersection improvements at Lewis and Clark Drive and Innovation Drive, which
eventually will be the Lewis and Clark Connector through to Airport Road.
When the rezoning was reviewed the Traffic Impact Analysis showed that the
overall trip generation was actually less using updated Land Use Codes in the
TIA. The applicant has provided for some of the improvements that were
requested and came out of VDOT comments and recommendations in the
Places29 Plan for future projects anticipated such as the interconnection to
Northside Drive, the provision for right-of-way dedication for any further
Dickerson Road improvements, and clarifications to the Route 29 proffers to
include that will entail the correction of the vertical curvature on 29. There is
updated right-of-way language for any improvements that the applicant is not
able to obtain the right-of-way. There are the Level of Service provisions in the
proffers as mentioned that have been updated to reflect that it is a Level of
Service “D” for the intersection and each turning movement. Again, staff is
recommending that to be changed to the Level of Service “C” as an average. The
Level of Service “D” allowed for each turning movement.
The Lewis and Clark Connection has been addressed and provided for in terms
of limiting the square footage on Area D to 180,000 square feet unless this
connection was made. It is part of the Phase II improvements. So the applicant
is not able to build beyond 980,000 square feet, 180,000 of which would be
limited in Area D until that interconnection is made.
With regards to the summary and the factors favorable – Staff found that it is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the Industrial Service
designation and also the Economic Development Plan. It was providing for those
additional interconnections in transportation proffers requested by staff. Staff is
recommending approval with the addition of two proffer changes, one of which
goes back to the phasing.
Also in the phasing plan are provisions with each phase that limit the square
footage of general office uses, which in proffer 1 staff feels should stay because
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
5
it is related to how much office can access certain roadways. But th at idea was
carried forward in Phase II and Phase III in the proffers in terms of allowing a
maximum square footage of office, which is pretty close to the total maximum
square footage in each phase.
There was a concern that was brought to staff‟s attention from Commissioners
yesterday that prompted us to revisit this. That is a maximum square footage for
just general office, but is not inclusive of the other LI or other R and D uses that
they would expect and want to have in the Industrial Service areas . It was also
relevant to the recent issue that some of the LI zoned land does not end up
actually being true LI uses but goes to office uses. Going back and looking at
that proffer it was something carried forward from the 1996 proffers.
Staff did not see a reason to preserve the maximum build -out for general office in
the proffers. So that is a new recommendation coming forward if the Planning
Commission recommends approval that the proffers also be modified to eliminate
that maximum square footage in Phase II and Phase III of the development as
they relate to the transportation proffers. There is also the recommendation that
the two proffers related to Phases I and III improvements that reference traffic
studies be updated to reflect Level of Service “C” now rather than “D” and then
“D” for each individual turning unit.
There is a request that setbacks be modified, which is permitted in the Planned
Development District to reduce the setbacks along Airport Road and Lewis and
Clark Drive, which is consistent with the setback reduction that was approved
after the ‟95 rezoning to allow buildings closer to the road.
The special use permits being requested are those that are permitted in the
Research Park currently. Then there is one additional for a parking structure.
Staff recommends approval of all of the requests with conditions except for the
parking structure there were no additional conditions with that.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Mr. Edgerton asked if in the adjusted recommendation staff is recommending to not
mandate a maximum build-out. In earlier discussions there were a lot of concerns
about building out too much of Area D without the interconnection that would allow two
accesses.
Ms. Ragsdale replied no, staff wants to do away with the maximum build-out that is
specific to office. So the total square footage would stay the same. It is only the
general office limitations staff would recommend to be removed.
Ms. Joseph suggested that it may be that general office is redefined, which might help.
If Light Industrial uses, flex, research and development and that stuff is added to the
definition of general office she felt it would help.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that staff considered that and thought that would be a simpler
approach because that would pretty much cover all of the other uses allowed in the park
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
6
except supporting commercial and hotel. There is u ltimate flexibility in the other uses
now. It is just that there is a maximum on general office.
Ms. Joseph suggested that they just have to come up with a name for it.
Ms. Echols noted that it could go either way. The applicant is amendable to it and it
was something they could work out. If it is better to add to the general office the other
uses that is fine or dropping it. It works about the same either way. If the Commission
has a preference, she asked that be expressed to the applicant.
Mr. Edgerton said that Attachment D was the overall concept plan, which shows what
the applicant is envisioning. Then the general plan is on the back, which shows what
they want the rezoning to be tied to. He was having a little trouble and asked what
percentage would be able to be built before they had to make that connection.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that this building represents 700,000 square feet excluding the fire
station. It would be all of what is shown. They would be able to building 180,000
square feet before being required to connect.
Ms. Echols noted that represents the same amount that they had in their original
rezoning for this particular area. That is how staff arrived at the 180,000 square feet.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that it was generally a couple of buildings in this area.
Ms. Joseph said that it was about one -quarter of the buildings they were allowed to do
or 26 percent.
Mr. Edgerton questioned the traffic assessment with what traffic impacts and if there
was any linkage to the square footage before the connection was made.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that it was tied back to what they had building rights to as to how
that link was made. Glenn Brooks is present to answer question on the traffic analysis.
Mr. Edgerton noted that when things get clogged up on Airport Road it would be good to
know when that connection would occur before they reach the build -out that they are
allowed. He asked if staff has looked at it that way.
Glenn Brooks, County Engineer, replied that staff had looked at that question a lot, but
the answer to the question is no. It is not driven by the traffic.
Mr. Edgerton said from a safety perspective if it gets clogged up and there is only one
way in and out that becomes the issue.
Mr. Loach asked if they are proffering that the average for the two intersections be at a
Level “C”. If it falls to Level “D” does that institute somethin g that would make the
connection required at that time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
7
Mr. Brooks replied not as the proffers are written now.
Mr. Loach asked what would happen it if fell to the Level of Service “D”.
Mr. Brooks asked which intersections they were talking about.
Mr. Loach noted that staff recommends that the proffers be modified that specify that
the Level of Service “C” average for the intersections with 29 is the standard, but the
individual could be a “D”. Then they go to say an average of Level of Service “C” for
the intersection at 29 and Airport Road and 29 and Lewis, which he would assume was
both, to maintain an average “C”. He asked if the traffic falls to a Level of Service “D”
what happens.
Mr. Brooks replied that particular proffer speaks to traffic studies which can be put forth
by UREF in place or in lieu of doing the full improvements on 29. So it would fall back
to doing the improvements that are in the proffer in that case if they could not prove that
the intersections were performing at Level of Service “C”. They would not have that
option to get out of other road improvements.
Mr. Loach said that it would necessitate them to make that connection or do something
within the proffers to get back to a “C” whether it was making the connection or put in
road improvements.
Mr. Brooks said that they were not guaranteed to get back to a Level of Service “C”. If
the traffic on 29 gets so bad that they cannot achieve a Level of Service “C” there is
really no help for that.
Mr. Strucko asked what the proffer would do.
Ms. Ragsdale noted what does trigger the road improvements as outlined in the proffers
is the building square footage within the park. When they reach 980,000 square feet in
Phase I they are suppose to do the road improvements specified in the proffers. There
are two places in the proffers where instead of doing the improvements there are a
couple of “or” scenario” such as in the third phase that instead of providing the third
southbound lane on 29 if the 6 through lanes have already been constructed, then they
don‟t have to satisfy that proffer. Or, if they can demonstrate through these traffic
studies that Level of Service “C” or “D” is being maintained, then they don‟t have to do
the improvements. But those are the only two places they would bring forth a traffic
study. There won‟t be traffic studies that trigger any of these improvements. It is the
building square footage. It is just the option that they have to get to not doing the
improvements that the traffic studies become relevant.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that he did not understand that.
Mr. Loach asked whose responsibility is it to monitor the level of service. How often will
it be done in order to gauge the impact of this development.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
8
Mr. Brooks replied that it was VDOT‟s responsibility. These will be public roads. How
often it is done he was not sure. He thought that VDOT has a program to assess its
existing signals. But they take the opportunity with rezonings to have the applicant do it
especially with a triggering mechanism like this where they are deciding if the
improvement is needed or not.
Ms. Ragsdale noted that this particular proffer with regard to the traffic study was
carried forward from the 1996 proffers. They have been sort of retrofitting it. VDOT‟s
regulations have changed and they are no longer using the Level of Service. That is
what some of the emails of today from Chuck Proctor were about. With the 527
regulations they are looking at changing delay. That is some additional information to
consider. They recommended the change to “C” because that is the expected Level of
Service from the federal regulations with any VDOT project for 29. Right now the
intersections on 29 are not “C”. They received information from Mr. Proctor that 29 and
Airport Road is at “F” now. So there is not the constant monitoring that they were
asking about.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that it was not the entire intersection. He was saying that some
of the movements are at “F”. It is a big difference.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that a way to look at this is that by the proffers that have been
carried forward from the first rezoning they were obligated to undertake certain road
improvements at a maximum amount of square footage. Up to that point every road in
the area could be at “F” and they aren‟t required to do anything. It is at that point that
they get 980,000 and 1,568,000 and 3,700,000 that they would then be required to do
certain road improvements. But their out was to submit a traffic study that said that their
level of service was not deteriorating. Well if it is already at “F” or “D” it won‟t matter,
they will have to do it. The trigger from which these proffers are being carried forward
is hitting a certain square footage level. The conditions that exist b elow that won‟t have
any bearing on what they can build. That has been the way these proffers were initially
established. The one difference now is that they would proffer the square footage in
this new area to be no more than 1 80,000 before they build Lewis and Clark Drive
through. Once they get beyond 180,000 in the new area it does not matter what the
conditions are anywhere else they have to build Lewis and Clark through.
Mr. Loach noted essentially they are asking that a rezoning be approved on a road that
already is at times in places failing. Essentially there is nothing in this plan or in the
proffers that would essentially alleviate that or even kick in a study to find out more
about how they were failing until there was 180,000 square feet.
Mr. Cilimberg said basically that is correct based on the existing proffers.
Mr. Brooks noted that was not entirely correct since the traffic study did try to make a
connection and propose improvements to address impacts. That is where they get the
road improvements. So the impacts that they are directly connected to they have
proposed road improvements to alleviate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
9
Mr. Loach asked in light of the situation as it stands to wait until there is 180,000 square
feet of additional building and traffic before they look again to see if the road should be
improved.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that it was if the road, Lewis and Clark Drive, should be
connected.
Mr. Loach said that whatever has to be done to improve the level of service for the
people who drive on that road now.
Mr. Brooks replied yes, that was looked at and 180,000 square feet is conservative to
keep within acceptable levels of service. One of the assumptions he might be making is
if they make the connection of Lewis and Clark Drive, things will improve. It is not
necessarily true for all movements. They will have through traffic that will probably
make things worse on Airport road as opposed to the high volume road, Route 29 ,
where things may improve.
Ms. Echols noted that one thing to remember is that with that connection they are
getting the parallel road system. Mr. Brooks is correct that there may be impacts to
Airport Road.
Mr. Brooks pointed out that the connection itself has more value than just improving
traffic. It made more sense to tie it to building square footage since it a lot simpler.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the
Commission.
Fred Missel, Director of Design and Development with the UVA Foundation, made the
following comments.
Fortunately they have been able to accommodate some of staff‟s comments as
found in the responses on page 15. He would like to answer the questions
raised and address the issue of the level of service at “C” just to make the
Commission aware that is recent information from VDOT. They have spent some
time during the past several days studying the implications of that. They were
confused somewhat by VDOT‟s recommendation. VDOT is actually
recommending that the level service of “C” be replacing the level of service “D”.
As you may know the level of service “C” is more of a rural area designation. On
VDOT‟s current maps they actually designated this area as an urban collector
designation. The designation to go to “C” would move them back towards a rura l
designation. The designation of “D” was actually set back in 1996, which was
almost 14 years ago when it was much more rural. VDOT has acknowledged
that they will move towards a different standard with which to test our TIA‟s in the
future. After reviewing the likely outcome of movement to a level of service of “C”
they are amendable to changing that in their proffers, but do remain a little
confused as to why that is being changed to more of a rural designation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
10
That said he would be happy to address questions relating to the phasing. He
thought staff did a good job of helping to clarify that, but he would like to add a
little clarification. First, as mentioned the totals within each of the phases I, II and
III does not change. Those are the same as existed in the original 1995/1996
proffers. Interestingly when they reviewed the original traffic study and reran
numbers the outcome of their study was remarkably the same as the first study.
That showed that the background traffic that was assumed in the first study was
close to what has actually happened.
As mentioned by Mr. Cilimberg the phasing triggers the road improvements. So
as they would move forward with a desire to increase their development into
phase II, as an example, they would be t he ones that would initiate the traffic
study that would test those intersections. He wanted to make that clear since
there was a question as to who would initiate that. There are m any contributing
factors to the potential levels of service at an intersection. They were very
careful to align further requests to the County. The future Lewis and Clark Drive,
which now exists as Innovation Drive that brings them to the fire station, they
actually realigned that to accommodate the future interconnection through
Hollymead Town Center.
Regarding the question regarding R & D and Commercial Office and the balance
on how that will play out, he pointed out that it was not intended with this
rezoning to change the total mix of Commercial Office, Flex and Light In dustrial.
What they were told by VDOT through the process of completing a TIA is that
based on the mix of uses that is currently out there, which is representative of
where it may go, they gave them a designation for which to study the traffic.
They used that designation to arrive at their counts and volumes.
Ms. Joseph noted that she was sensitive to the document that calls out general office
mainly because this Commission has been talking about the fact that they have a lot of
Light Industrial space that goes to just office uses instead of the industrial uses. She
was concerned when she read that in the general document since she wanted other
things in there so it would not be just an office park.
Mr. Missel said the bottom line is to represent the University adequately and their
mission. They want to maintain as much flexibility within that allowable category as they
can.
Ms. Joseph pointed out she was not suggesting that they put down certain percentage
in each of these for those particula r uses. She suggested that there may be a way to
look at how the proffers are presented or even the document itself. She recognized the
act that they have a Land Use Matrix that says that these different uses can occur in
different areas. She was just super sensitive to that general office comment. If there is
some way to fix it that would be great.
Mr. Missel noted that one way was to call it other approved uses or something like that
so that the a total is done at each phase
.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
11
Ms. Joseph said that the implication is that they are going to use it for other things. She
asked if they have spoke to their neighbors about connecting, etc.
Mr. Missel replied that they have not. The County has discussed interconnecting
streets with the adjoining property owner. There is currently a discrepancy in where
those two line up. What they had discovered through their study was the connection to
the adjacent parcel as currently shown is actually connecting where there is a wetland.
In their study they decided that it would be more environmentally sensitive to move that
connection down. What they understood from staff was that would be adjusted to align.
Ms. Joseph asked if it would be done if and when a site plan c omes in on the other
property.
Ms. Ragsdale agreed.
Mr. Missel said that they are here seeking approval in order to move the request
forward.
Mr. Edgerton asked for clarification on how that interconnection is going to be made.
The property to the west belongs to Mr. Wood. He asked if Mr. Wood is aware of the
proposed location of the connection.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that what has been platted t o the west is an interconnection as
Mr. Missel said that goes into the environmental features. It is platted here, but staff is
now suggesting that the more appropriate location for that interconnection in further
down. So when this property comes in for a subdivision or site plan staff would have to
work with Mr. Wood to provide for that interconnection. But right now the one that he
has approved that is called Gold Leaf Trust, which the Commission reviewed some time
back, goes into these environmental features that are now shown for protection in the
Research Park.
Mr. Edgerton said that they have no assurances that he will go along with this
suggestion.
Ms. Ragsdale referred the question to Mr. Fritz.
Mr. Fritz noted that was part of a waiver request. The location is pretty specific. Staff
could work with him to try to do it, but staff‟s ability to require him to relocate is going to
be pretty limited. That connection may never be able to be done.
Mr. Edgerton noted that connection may never be done especially if they approve this
rezoning based on preserving these wetlands.
Ms. Joseph noted that in the staff report staff has provided a list of all of the businesses
in the Park. It looks like there are 19 to 20 businesses. Staff gave the build out number
of 491,000 square feet.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
12
Mr. Missel replied that number sounds within the ballpark.
Ms. Joseph noted that she wanted to get an idea where they were in the process of
building out the Park.
Mr. Missel noted that there was currently one outstanding site plan that they have not
build upon. It is one parcel in Town Center IV. In addition, the 491,000 captures the
total that they have in place today. It is a mix of Light Industrial, Office and Research
and Development.
Mr. Loach questioned if the two buildings mentioned on the plan already exist.
Ms. Ragsdale pointed out that there was a note on the plan that specifies that there will
be two buildings, a minimum of two-stories, when they come in for the site plan for
those.
Mr. Loach asked when they expect these two buildings to start.
Mr. Missel replied that they don‟t know at this point. They have applied for two site
plans within the past two years and Town Center III has been built.
Mr. Strucko invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public
hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph said that staff and the applicant have worked together and put something
together that makes a lot of sense at this point in time. She would love to push forward
and be very forceful and build a connecting road, but at this point it is warranted to wait
until they get more development to occur.
Mr. Morris agreed and complimented staff on an extremely good staff report.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the minutes should indicate that the businesses that will
locate in this park have to have some attachment to the University of Virginia . This
does not necessarily solve the problem that they have had with other entities that want
to come into Albemarle County that are not connected to the University of Virginia and
are looking for Light Industrial property.
Ms. Joseph disagreed with saying that the only thing that can go in there is University
property.
Ms. Porterfield asked the applicant if the tenant had to have some connection with the
University of Virginia to be able to locate there.
Tim Rose, CEO of the UVA Foundation, replied that the mission of the Research Park is
to serve the University of Virginia. As part of their current process any tenant in the
Park is to have a relationship with the University. Having said that, he pointed out that
there are support facilities in the Research Park that may not look like they relate to the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
13
University. They are a 501C3 corporation and this project is not a profit making entity.
It is to serve the University‟s needs.
Mr. Loach noted that he had some misgivings that have to do with the transportation.
One of the reasons he asked when they expect the building to begin was if it was
something that he thought in this economy that was going to bring in jobs then it s
economy would have lead him more to support it. But when he hears that they already
have levels of failure on that road already and he could not see this proposal making
anything better that given that they have no transportation money gives him some
misgivings. With that said, he did see in the proffers that they are going from a level of
service “D” to “C” which offsets his objections. He was uncomfortable with said that it
probably won‟t happen, but they could sell the property.
Ms. Joseph noted that the property could be sold in the future.
Mr. Rose replied that they have not proffered, for example, t hat every business in there
has to have a relationship with the University. But, for their IRS status they have to
adhere to their stated mission of why the Research Park is there.
Mr. Strucko invited other comments.
Mr. Loach noted that he had some m isgivings that have to do with the transportation.
One of the reasons he asked when they expect the building to begin was if it was
something that he thought in this economy that was going to bring in jobs, then it would
have lead him more to support it. But when he hears that they already have levels of
failure on that road already and he could not see this proposal making anything better
that given they have no transportation money it gives him some misgivings. With that
said, he did see in the proffers that they are going from a level of service “D” to “C”,
which offsets his objections. He was uncomfortable about the whole thing in light of the
present transportation situation in the County.
Mr. Strucko noted that his understanding was that the 180,000 square foot trigger stays
within the current road capacities. Whatever metrics they use to calculate it is the
additional square footage beyond that in the study‟s best estimate would warrant what
would create a burden that would take the traffic impact beyond its current level. He
asked staff is that was correct.
Ms. Ragsdale replied that the trigger is still 980,000, but the amount that can be built in
Area D is limited to 180,000. But, the 180,000 in Area D will not by itself trigger the
interconnection.
Ms. Echols noted that there was one point of clarification and that is she did not believe
the applicant is willing to proffer the Level of Service “C”. She asked if that is correct.
Mr. Missel replied that they are willing to comply with the Level of Service “C” as it is
written in the staff report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
14
Mr. Strucko echoed what Ms. Joseph said that it was a fairly complex proposal that was
well organized in the report. He thanked staff for the good report. At this point it seems
that there is a general agreement with this proposal.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the motion for approval of the rezoning was subject to the
attached proffers with the additional changes made to proffer 5.
Motion on ZMA-2005-003:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park - North Fork with the attached proffers with
additional changes.
Proffers 5.4.A and 5.4.C(3) modified to specify that LOS C average for the
intersections with Route 29 in those proffers is the standard and that the individual
movements may be LOS D, as long as the average is LOS C at that intersections
with Route 29.
Proffer 5.3 Phases of Development-Modify or delete Maximum total build-out for
General Office in Phase II and Phase III to be inclusive of all other approved uses
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
SP-2008-0015-Parking Structure- APPROVAL with no conditions
• Staff recommends approval of SP2008-0015-Parking Structure with no
conditions of approval.
Motion on SP-2008-00015:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003 with
conditions.
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section
4.14.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter
buffer areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless
modified by the Director of Planning.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 18, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
15
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003
subject to the condition recommended by staff.
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor
area, commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at
any time during phased development.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on SP-200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park - North Fork concurrent with ZMA-2005-003
subject to the recommended conditions.
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or
inn shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provid ed by individual
occupants) shall not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the
hotel/motel/inn, but total gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall
not exceed 190,000 square feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion on Modification to Setbacks:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the setback
modification to Section 26.6 to allow a setback reduction to allow for buildings, including
those exceeding 35 feet in height, to be reduced from 50 feet to 10 feet along public
roads, including Airport Road and Lewis and Clark Drive.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that the ZMA and four special use permits for UVA Research Park
would go to the Board of Supervisors at a date to be determined with a recommendation
for approval. The modification to the setbacks was approved by the Planning
Commission.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 21, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008- 15, 62, 63 and 64 UVA RESEARCH PARK
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 21, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, July 21,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield, Marcia Joseph and Bill Edgerton, Acting Chair.
Absent were Calvin Morris, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP,
non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Philip Custer, Engineer; Summer
Frederick, Senior Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Eryn
Brennan, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cilimberg called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Election of Temporary Chair:
Mr. Cilimberg noted that tonight the Commission needs to elect a temporary Chair for this meeting. He
asked for nominations.
Ms. Joseph nominated Bill Edgerton for temporary Chair.
Mr. Franco seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 3:1. (Edgerton voted nay)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Edgerton was Chair for this meeting.
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: Request to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP t o PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limit ed production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from th e
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax
Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development
Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 21, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2005-003, SP-2008- 15, 62, 63 and 64 UVA RESEARCH PARK
2
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical PROPOSED: Allow
laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:
PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED: Allow supporting
commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor
area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial
and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting
commercial uses (reference 9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or
conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and
ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns
(reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Edgerton noted that the applicant has requested deferral to August 18. He opened the public hearing
and asked for comment from the applicant or the public. There being none, the public hearing was closed
and the matter before the Commission.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Franco seconded to accept the applicant’s request for deferral of
ZMA-0005-003, SP-2008-00015, SP-2008-00062, SP-2008-00063 and SP-2008-00064 to August 18,
2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Edgerton noted that list applications were deferred to August 18, 2009.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to staff report
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 19, 2009
Items Requesting Deferral:
ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North Fork (Sign # 18). PROPOSAL: The request is to rezone
approximately 30.56 acres from RA Rural Area which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) to PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park,
which allows industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses and no residential uses), for 700,000
square feet of office and research use and 534 ± Acres to be rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to amend
proffers and application plan associated with ZMA 1995 -04. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service- warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: on the north side of Airport Road (Route 649) approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North in the Community of Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a, and a portion of 6A requested to be rezoned from RA Rural Areas; Tax Map
Parcels 32-18B, 19F, 19F1, 19G, 19H, 19H1, 19H2, 19J, 22B1 and 22B2 rezoned from PDIP to PDIP to
amend proffers. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
AND
SP-2008-00015 UVA Research Park (Parking) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned
Development Industrial Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development
Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Parking Structures.
AND
SP-2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical PROPOSED: Allow
laboratory uses in association with the UVA Research Park. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service
uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical.
AND
SP-2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses PROPOSED: Allow supporting
commercial uses within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor
area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park -
industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2(14)
Supporting commercial uses (reference 9.0).
AND
SP-2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or
conference facilities within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial
and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use). SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns
(reference 9.4.2). (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Mr. Strucko asked if the applicant was requesting deferral.
Mr. Benish applicant is requesting deferral to June 23. Ms. Echols provided an email to the Commission
to provide some advance background. June 23 would be out of sequence of our new deferral process. So
staff had advised of some other alternative times for that, but the applicant has requested June 23. The
applicant wants to speak to the reason for the deferral.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
2
Fred Missel, representative for the UVA Foundation, noted that the reason for the deferral is relatively
simple. They got some clarification from staff last Wednesday regarding several of the factors that are
listed as unfavorable in the staff report and they simply have not had a chance to understand the
implications or the issues that might arise from agreeing to those. Therefore, they just need a little more
time to study that and better understand it. Their preference would be to move to the June 23 date at
which point they would hopefully be able to address those issues more specifically.
Ms. Joseph noted that there was an indication in Ms. Echol’s email that the applicant was going to submit
additional information and staff was concerned that they would not have enough time to review the new
information before it comes back to the Commission.
Mr. Missel noted that he could address that. He spoke with Ms. Echols a couple hours ago and he thought
that it was not clear to her what level of information they would be coming back with. When he
explained to her the fact that they would be coming back specifically addressing essentially those three
items that are listed as unfavorable in various sequent form he thought that she was in agreement. They
understand that there is a potential that when they come back on June 23rd that the Commission may want
staff to review it and they may have to come back at a later date. Honestly, they thought that it was
relatively simple the issues that needed to be addressed. So they hope that when they come back on the
23rd there can be a recommendation for approval on the Commission’s part to the Board of Supervisors at
which point they can finalize any tweaking that they need to do with the language. That is their desire.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that there was concern about the timing of the deferral.
Mr. Benish said that based the 23rd date the Commission would not have a revised staff report or
recommendation from staff. Based on the review process staff would not have the ability to do that. So
the Commission would basically be receiving that information from the applicant at that time. He did not
think the applicant was planning to change any proffers that would be subject to review. Staff’s
recommendation would stand for that June 23rd meeting. The issue is whether the Commission wants any
staff feedback on the clarifications being made by the applicant or new information that is being proposed
and how it addresses the issues raised by the staff.
Mr. Strucko said that there are two other dates proposed, one later in July and the other in early August.
Mr. Missel pointed out it was June 21 and August 24.
Mr. Benish said that the August 24 date is a date that would allow for an additional round under our
review process for staff to provide feedback back to the applicant. But if the applicant submitted
information on June 1 staff would have time to evaluate it and provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission and receive its comments from all of the other reviewing staff that they have to consider and
provide that to the Commission by the late July date. Those are two dates that are available.
Mr. Strucko asked Mr. Missel if he had concerns about pushing this further along in the calendar.
Mr. Missel replied that their preference would be to not delay it two more months just on what they think
will be a relatively simple conversation. So their desire would be to not have that delay. It ends up being
about a month and half if they go from June 23 to August 4.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they were only dealing with negatives in the staff report is it possible for staff to
do just a very short white paper on their reaction to what Mr. Missel brings in.
Mr. Benish said that one of the things staff was trying to get away from in changing the deferral process
was not to do responses on the fly to basically give the other reviewing agencies two weeks to review
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
3
requests, for Planning staff to evaluate and assess those and put forth a recommendation to the
Commission on how to act on the proposal before them. To do that in an effective time for all of the
parties involved staff has tried to avoid the last minute type of white paper response type of thing. Staff
tries to keep things within a process that is predictable for all of the reviewing agencies. He believed the
other issue is that there still may be concern whether the applicant has sufficiently addressed the issues
raised in terms of the proffer changes. But he di d not believe the applicant is proposing any proffer
changes. He believed that the applicant was looking for an affirmative action with conditions to the
Board that proffers would be modified to address those issues. He believed that has not been the Planning
Commission’s preferred approach here recently. The Commission has wanted to see those proposed
proffers and not take an action indicating that future proffers would be provided between the
Commission’s review and the Board’s review.
Mr. Missel agreed that was a good summary. They would prefer to be able to leave the June 23rd meeting
with direction that they could then translate into proffers and an affirmative action on the Commission’s
part to the Board of Supervisors. If that is uncomfortable for anyone and if there is the potential for the
June 23rd meeting to result in no action, then they would prefer to go through the process with the staff
and come to the Commission with those issues resolved.
Ms. Joseph suggested that if the applicant did not have all of the information on June 23rd the
Commission could treat it as a work session.
Mr. Morris noted that it would be his preference to have the applicant come before the Commission and
have enough information to take action on with all of the knowledge that staff and the applicant normally
provides without actually going through and doing the staff work while they sit here. That is frustrating
to everyone. So he would love to have the hearing on June 23rd if everything is ready and the
Commission has all of the information. But if not, then he wanted to wait until all of the information was
ready.
Ms. Porterfield supported Ms. Joseph’s comments.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Morris that the Commission needs to have all of the information before
setting the public hearing or if not set up a work session.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing
was closed and the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Benish noted that the earliest option that Ms. Echols laid out as a possibility was July 21.
Mr. Herrick noted that a deferral to a date certain prevents the need to readvertise assuming that the
proffers don’t change materially.
Mr. Benish noted that the request may have to be readvertised anyway.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if they are deferring the request to the right date because Ms. Echols’ email
said that if they wanted comments before the hearing then the hearing date would be August 4. If they
wanted to go straight to a public hearing without receiving additional comments then it could be
tentatively scheduled on July 21.
Mr. Benish agreed that there were two options. The longest one that allows for a second round of
comments back to the applicant would be August 4. He presumed in trying to balance expediency but
keep it on an acceptable schedule would be July 21. He checked with Ms. Echols and the earlier date was
doable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
4
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to approve the applicant’s request for deferral
of SP-2008-62, SP-2008-63, SP-2008-64, SP-2008-15 and ZMA-2005-003 UVA Research Park -North
Fork to July 21, 2009.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that this item is being deferred and will be brought back to the Planning Commission on
July 21, 2009.
Mr. Benish asked the Commission to keep the attachments to the staff report for further review. Staff will
provide new staff reports.
Return to staff report
STAFF PERSON: Rebecca Ragsdale
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: February 10, 2010
ZMA 05-03 UVA RESEARCH PARK SPECIAL USE PERMITS:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
PETITIONS
PROJECT: SP2008-0015 (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research
Park) PROPOSED: Parking Structure in PDIP Planned Development Industrial Park
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(16) Parking Structures
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry,
research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION:
North side of Airport Road (Route 649) , west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the
intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00062 UVA Research Park-Laboratories, medical, Pharmaceutical (Concurrent with ZMA
05-03 UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow laboratory uses in
association with the UVA Research Park ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned
Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION:
27.2.2(16) Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial
Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and reside ntial
(6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of
Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX
MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00063 UVA Research Park-Supporting Commercial Uses (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03
UVA Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow supporting commercial uses
within the UVA Research Park, not to exceed a total of 110,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary
commercial and service uses (no residential use) SECTION: 27.2.2(14) Supporting commercial use s (reference
9.0) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: North side of Airport Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile
from the intersection of Airport Road and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
PROJECT: 2008-00064 UVA Research Park-Hotels, Motels, Inns (Concurrent with ZMA 05-03 UVA
Research Park (formerly North Fork Research Park) PROPOSED: Allow motel, hotel or conference facilities
within the UVA Research Park not to exceed 190,000 square feet of floor area. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: PDIP - Planned Development Industrial Park - industrial and ancillary commercial and service uses (no
residential use) SECTION: 29.2.2(2) Hotels, motels, inns (reference 9.4.2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND
USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lod ging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: North side of Airport
Road (Route 649), west of Innovation Drive approximately one third of a mile from the intersection of Airport Road
and Route 29 North. TAX MAP/PARCELS: Tax Map 32 Parcels 18, 18a MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: RIO
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
Concurrent special use permit application have been submitted to allow for a parking garage, uses
approved within the existing park for supporting commercial, laboratories, and hotel/conference facility.
The applicant has flexibility as to where the uses would be allowed in the park and land uses are
governed by the Land Use Matrix of the Application Plan. Supporting commercial uses, hotel uses, and
laboratories were approved along with ZMA 1994-05 and are requested now for Area D.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to
each of the four special use permits requested:
such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
There are no detrimental impacts to adjoining properties anticipated with these uses. Provisions of the
ordinance will address parking structure design and it is located internal to the research park. Buffers
are provided on the application plan for any residential areas adjoining the Park and an additional buffer
requirement was imposed on labs with the special use permits for the park approved in 1995 and are
also recommended here, with the ability for a reduction if requested to avoid excessive buffer
requirements. A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance
are met to address light, noise, radioactivity, and vibration.
and that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The request is to allow these land uses within a planned research/industrial park. Considering the uses
and plan of development, staff believes that the parking structure will have minimal impacts and would
not change the character of the district and would provide for more of an urban character in Areas D,
rather than suburban character in the rest of the Research Park. The supporting commercial,
laboratories, and hotel uses are secondary to the primary uses in the park and would be consistent with
the character of the district. Staff believes that the parking garage will improve the character of the
district and provides an alternative to a “sea” parking that could result from a surface parking lot.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staff has reviewed all four requests for special use permits for compliance with the purpose and intent
of the Zoning Ordinance and has not identified that any conflicts would result from approval of these
special use permits.
with uses permitted by-right in the district,
A variety of LI industrial uses and office use are allowed by-right in the Category I uses of the PDIP
district. Secondary supporting uses within a PDIP are encouraged. The requested special use permits
are supportive and complimentary to the land uses permitted in the Research Park.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance
The additional regulations are identified below. Staff sees no issues which would prevent the
regulations from being met.
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES A site plan shall be required for each parking
lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is waived as provided in the ordinance. Section
32.7.2A of the Zoning Ordinance also provides for the following requirements for parking structures:
a. The developer shall submit architectural elevations with both the preliminary and final site plans. The
elevations shall be part of the approved final site plan.
b. The developer shall submit drawings, photographs or other visual materials showing the proposed
parking structure and surrounding structures (if any exist) and land uses.
c. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, ground, or building shall be screened from
public view to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Development with
materials harmonious with the building or they shall be located so as not to be visible from public view.
d. Air handlers shall be located so that emissions are directed away from any adjoining residential
development.
e. The structure shall be designed so that the light from all vehicle headlights and all lighting fixtures will
not routinely shine directly outside the structure.
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
A certified engineers report is required to ensure performance standards of the ordinance are met to
address light, noise, and vibration to ensure compliance with Section 4.14. will be required with lab
uses within the park.
There are no additional regulations in the ordinance for supporting commercial (SP200800063) or
Hotels, Motels, Inns (SP200800064) uses.
And with the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community
The public health safety and general welfare of the community is protected through the special user
permit process, which assures that proposed uses are in the appropriate location and any impacts can
be mitigated.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
SP2008-0015-Parking Structure
Staff recommends approval of SP2008-0015-Parking Structure with no conditions of approval.
SP200800062-Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Laboratories shall be subject to Section 4.14 Performance Standards of the
ordinance and a Certified Engineers Report is required pursuant to Section 4.14.8 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Laboratory buildings shall not be less than 30 (thirty) feet from the perimeter buffer
areas to adjoining properties not located within the development, unless modified by
the Director of Planning.
SP200800063-Supporting Commercial Uses
Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions:
1. In addition to proffered limitation not to exceed five (5%) percent of total floor area,
commercial uses shall not exceed ten (10%) percent of total floor area at any time
during phased development.
SP200800064-Hotels, Motels, Inns
Staff recommends approval of this special use permits with with the following conditions:
1. Not more than one hotel, motel, or inn shall be permitted. Such hotel, motel, or inn shall
not exceed two hundred fifty (250) lodging rooms.
2. Conference facilities (other than those as may be provided by individual occupants) shall
not be required to locate internal to nor on the same site as the hotel/motel/inn, but total
gross floor area of lodging and conference facilities shall not exceed 190,000 square
feet.
Return to regular agenda