HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-5-12Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MAY 12, 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. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation – Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day.
b. Proclamation - Business Appreciation Week.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. SP-2009-00009. BB&T (Charlottesville) – ATM (Sign #39). PROPOSED: Additional
drive thru lane and ATM kiosk. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO - Commercial Office. SECTION: 23.2.2(5)
Special Use Permit, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale, business and medical offices, mixed
use core communities and/or employment services, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre); and Regional Service - regional-
scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Southeast side of Seminole Trail (Route 29N), approximately 300 feet south
of the entrance to Fashion Square Mall. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/134. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
9. ZTA-2009-0009. Entrance Corridor Overlay District ("ECOD"). Amend Secs. 3.1,
Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable to the entrance corridor overlay district, and 30.6.8,
Appeals; Amend and rename Secs. 30.6.1, Intent, 30.6.2, Application, 30.6.3, Permitted uses, 30.6.4, Area and bulk
regulations; minimum yards and setback requirements; height regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of
natural features, and 30.6.7, Administration; Amend, renumber and rename Secs. 30.6.3.1, By right, 30.6.3.2, By special
use permit, 30.6.6, Nonconformities; exemptions, 30.6.6.1, Untitled, 30.6.6.2, Repair and maintenance of structures,
30.6.6.3, Exemptions; Add Secs. 30.6.6, Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review, and 30.6.9,
Public health or safety considered; and repeal Sec. 30.6.5, Signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code.
This ordinance would amend and reorganize the regulations pertaining to lands within the ECOD by adding and amending
definitions related to the ECOD ((All references are to new Sec. numbers) 3.1 and 4.15.2; amending the regulation of
signs in the ECOD by requiring certain sign styles to have opaque backgrounds and moving the sign review regulations to
Sec. 30.6 (4.15.15); amending the stated purpose and intent of the ECOD (30.6.1); restating the existing boundaries of the
ECOD (30.6.2); amending the permitted uses and applicable standards for development in the ECOD, and combining
those regulations in a single section (30.6.3); clarifying the types of development for which a certificate of appropriateness
(“CA”) is required, establishing a new class of CA – the county-wide CA – to allow expedited review of certain classes of
development, and delineating the scope and authority of the architectural review board (“ARB”) in reviewing an application
for a CA (30.6.4); expanding the types of development exempt from the requirements of Sec. 30.6 (30.6.5); delineating the
procedures for the submittal, review and action on an application for a CA, for both preliminary (30.6.6) and final review
(30.6.7); restating the procedure to appeal a decision of the ARB to the Board of Supervisors (30.6.8); and, amending the
authority of the planning commission to supersede any condition or requirement of a CA for any public health or safety
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100512/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2020 12:11:32 PM]
Tentative
reason, and expanding that authority to the agent and the zoning administrator under prescribed circumstances (30.6.9).
10. CPA-2008-00003. Village of Rivanna Master Plan. Amend the Land Use Plan section of
the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing profile of the Village of Rivanna with the Village of
Rivanna Master Plan, which establishes new policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies for future
development within the master plan area. The master plan would establish the following for the master plan area: a vision
for the area, which would be a distinct small community surrounded by rural Albemarle, and guiding principles; a
description of existing conditions pertaining to natural, scenic and historic assets, demographics, land uses, community
facilities and the transportation network; a framework for future land use, transportation, and parks and green systems;
and a plan for implementing the master plan, including a list of implementation projects. The master plan would provide
that residential uses will be the most prominent use in the plan area with a mix of housing types. The master plan
proposes to retain the density, design and character of existing residential neighborhoods in the plan area as the area
further develops. The existing golf course and recreational facilities within Glenmore and a new Village Center will be the
two major focal points for the plan area. Density would diminish as the distance increases from the Village Center, with the
lowest densities at the edges of the plan area.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Amend Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families Agreement; Adopt Resolution to
Create Community and Policy Management Team (CPMT); and Appoint Members of CPMT.
7.2 Resolution of Intent to Amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sign Regulations.
7.3 Resolution Commemorating the Life of Paul Goodloe McIntire on the Occasion of the 15th Anniversary of His Birth.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100512/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2020 12:11:32 PM]
Senior
Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day
WHEREAS, we are ever mindful that our nation is built on the
wisdom, talents, and hard work of those who were born before us;
WHEREAS, we acknowledge with gratitude their contributions to
those great gifts of peace and prosperity which we now enjoy;
WHEREAS, as a society fortified by independence, our aim is to
nurture those who are younger and follow the example of those
whose years exceed ours; and
WHEREAS, our older citizens have worked long and hard to ensure
that our lives are better, and our community acknowledges and
supports their right to live independently and actively into their
later years.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the
Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proclaim
May 28, 2010
Charlottesville/Albemarle Senior Independence Day
and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the
common good by celebrating this day going forward.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of
May, 2010.
Return to regular agenda
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100512/06a.0_ProclamationSenior.pdf.htm [10/1/2020 12:11:32 PM]
Business
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK
May 16 – 22, 2010
WHEREAS, Governor Robert F. McDonnell has recognized May 16-22, 2010 as
BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK in the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, and
called this observance to the attention of all citizens; and
WHEREAS, Virginia and its localities recognize that jobs and investment follow private
businesses that seize opportunities to enhance economic activity, develop new products, and
invest in equipment that improves productivity; and
WHEREAS, economic vitality is a stated goal of Albemarle County’s Strategic Plan and
an important component of our Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of Albemarle County benefit from jobs and investment that our
business community provides; and
WHEREAS, our business partners make a positive and lasting impact with their civic
involvement, financial support of local charities and non-profit organizations, and sharing of
resources; and
WHEREAS, Albemarle County applauds the success of local businesses that provide
economic opportunity while supporting the County’s goals and values of sustainability,
environmental protection and an attractive, vibrant, and livable community; and
WHEREAS, over the last three years the Virginia Department of Business Assistance’s
Jobs Investment Program has assisted seven Albemarle County businesses that anticipate
creating or retraining 260 jobs and adding over $13,745,000 in capital investment , thereby
providing significant support in the critical area of job creation and economic vitality;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, we, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby recognize
May 16-22, 2010 as BUSINESS APPRECIATION WEEK
in the County of Albemarle, and express our appreciation to our local and state business
partners for their valuable contributions to our community.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of May, 2010.
Return to regular agenda
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100512/06b.0_ProclamationBusiness.pdf.htm [10/1/2020 12:11:32 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families Agreement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amendment of the Charlottesville Albemarle Commission
on Children and Families Agreement to transfer the role of
the County’s and City’s Community and Policy
Management Team (CPMT) from the CCF to the County
and the City; adoption of a Resolution to create a CPMT
and the appointment of the members of the CPMT.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Ms. Lyttle, and Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 12, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1997, the County and the City of Charlottesville (City) entered into an Agreement creating the Commission on
Children and Families (CCF). The CCF Agreement set forth the structure, responsibility, staffing and funding for the
CCF. One of the responsibilities of the CCF under the Agreement was to act as the Community Policy and
Management Team (CPMT) as set forth in Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5200 et seq. The CCF Agreement provided that the
County and the City would pool their respective state Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funding to
operate the CCF.
In 2008, a Resource Management Review Study (RMRS) evaluated the efficiency of County services. One of the
recommendations from the RMRS was for the County and the City to determine whether the CCF should continue to
provide CSA administrative support to both the County and the City. In May 2009, the Board conducted a work
session to review and discuss the recommendations of the RMRS and directed staff to evaluate the recommendation
regarding the CCF. As a result of this directive, a committee was formed to complete a study on this matter in
collaboration with the City. At the conclusion of the study, the committee recommended that the CCF no longer
provide CSA administrative support to the County and the City, and for the CCF to no longer perform the CPMT
duties. It was further recommended that the County and the City form their own respective CPMT’s, separate from the
CCF. The County and the City would retain their state CSA funding rather than pooling it. In January 2010, the
committee submitted its recommendation to the County Executive and the City Manager. Both the County Executive
and the City Manager incorporated this recommendation into their 2011-2012 proposed budgets, which were adopted
in April 2010 by the Board and City Council respectively. To implement this change in the role of the CCF, an
amendment to the Agreement between the County and the City regarding CCF is needed.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This action is aligned with the County’s 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:
Attached to this executive summary is the proposed amended CCF Agreement between the County and the City
(Attachment A). There are three proposed changes:
1. Delete Section 4 (c), which currently requires the County and the City to pool their respective CSA
administrative funds for the CCF. The County and the City will retain CSA funding received from the
State, rather than providing it to the CCF.
2. Amend Section 3 (b), which currently designates all CCF staff as employees of the County, with the
exception of one CCF staff being a City employee, so that all CCF staff are employees of the County.
The referenced City employee position is being transferred to the Community Attention Hom e and will
no longer be funded under the CCF Agreement.
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families Agreement
May 12, 2010
Page 2
3. Delete Section 2 (a), which designates the CCF as the CPMT for the County and the City. With the
CCF no longer acting as the CPMT, separate CPMT’s for the County and the City must be created
pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204.
The County is required to establish a CPMT pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204 with members appointed as set
forth in Virginia Code § 2.2-5205. While it is proposed that the County and the City establish their own respec tive
CPMT’s, the County and the City intend to conduct their respective CPMT meetings jointly to further the efficiency and
consistency of services throughout the Albemarle/Charlottesville Community. A proposed Resolution has been
prepared for the Board’s consideration (Attachment C).
The following individuals are currently members of CPMT through the CCF, and in conformance with state
regulations, it is recommended that they be appointed as the members of the County’s CPMT:
1. Bryan Elliott, County Representative;
2. Robert Johnson, Community Services Board Representative;
3. Martha Carroll, Sixteenth District Court Services Unit Representative;
4. Dr. Lillian Peake, Department of Health Representative;
5. Katherine D. Ralston, Albemarle County Social Services Representative;
6. Kevin Kirst, Albemarle County School Division Representative;
7. Jackie Bryant, Community Youth and Family Services Representative; and
8. Amy Laufer, Parent Representative
It is recommended that the term of appointment for the CYFS Representative and the Parent Representative be for
three (3) years from the first day of July of the year of appointment, and the Parent Representative shall be eligible for
reappointment to one additional term.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The adopted FY11 operating budget for the County incorporates the transition of CSA Administrative functions from
CCF to Albemarle County Department of Social Services (DSS) with a total savings to the County of approximately
$25,600 as estimated in the City/County Staff Committee Report on CSA Administrative Support. These savings are
achieved through re-directing the County share of State CSA Administrative Revenue from CCF to County DSS and
absorbing support functions for CSA coordination with existing emplo yees.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board:
1) Approve the amended Agreement between the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the
Charlottesville City Council on the Commission on Children and Families (Attachment B) and
authorize the Chair to execute it;
2) Adopt the Resolution to Establish a Community Policy and Management Team (Attachment C)
pursuant to Virginia Code § 2.2-5204; and
3) Appoint the recommended members to the CPMT.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Current Agreement showing proposed changes
B – Proposed Amended Agreement
C – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the “County”) and the Charlottesville City Council
(the “City”) agree to join together to form the Commission on Children and Families (the
“Commission”) whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a
community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal of the Commission
is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use of
public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing
so, we agree to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County
agree that:
a) The Commission shall consist of twenty-eight voting members. Eleven of the
voting members shall be citizen representatives (“Citizen Members”): five
appointed by the County, five appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the eleven citizen members, at least one appointee
from each jurisdiction must be a parent, and at least one appointee from each
jurisdiction must be a youth under the age of eighteen years at the time his or her
appointment takes effect. Fourteen of the voting members shall be as follows
(“Agency Members”): the School Division Superintendent from both the City and
the County; one elected School Board member from both the City and the
County; the Director of the Department of Social Services from both the City and
the County; the Chief of Police from both the City and the County; the Director of
Parks and Recreation from both the City and the County; the Director of the
Sixteenth District Court Services Unit; the Director of the Thomas Jefferson
Health District; the Director of Region Ten Community Services Board; a
representative of the University of Virginia; an Albemarle Assistant County
Executive; a City representative that represents senior management/leadership,
as designated by the City Manager; and the President of the United Way –
Thomas Jefferson Area.
b) Terms of Appointment. Each Citizen Member of the Commission shall be
appointed for a term that shall expire three years from the first day of July of the
year of appointment, except the youth Citizen Members shall be appointed for a
term that shall expire one year from the first day of July of the year of
appointment. With the exception of the private service provider representative,
each Citizen Member shall be eligible for reappointment to one additional term of
the same length as the initial appointment. The private service provider shall not
be eligible for reappointment to a second term. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
any Citizen Member, including the private service provider, who is initially
appointed to fill a vacancy, may serve an additional successive term.
Appointment shall be staggered for continuity. Each Agency Member of the
Commission shall serve for as long as they hold their public office or until
replaced by the appointing authority.
c) Manner of Appointments. The City and/or County shall appoint the specific
individuals representing that locality who will serve on the Commission, unless
the member is solely designated by his position or office, and by identifying the
2
date upon which that individual’s appointed term will expire, if applicable. The
representative of the University of Virginia will be jointly appointed by the City
and the County.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the
County agree that the Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management Team
set forth in the Virginia Code Section 2.2-5200 et seq.;
ab) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family
services within the Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
bc) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing
bodies within the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
cd) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of
children and families are being met effectively and efficiently;
de) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development
for children and families;
ef) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth
programs;
fg) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Commission staff;
gh) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the
needs of families, e.g. public hearings workshops focus groups and work teams;
hi) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure
that the County and City are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the
Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staff will be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City
and the County with assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staff will be employees of the County of Albemarle subject to all personnel
policies and entitled to all its benefits; provided, however, that one current CCF
employee will remain a City employee, subject to all City policies and benefits,
until his retirement.
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County intend to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the
Commission;
b) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for
children and family projects from other sources, including public and private
grants, local service groups and the business community;
3
c) Pool all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the
operations of the Commission. Each jurisdiction will continue to provide the
required matching funds for CSA services according to the state formula subject
to annual appropriation;
cd) The County of Albemarle will provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission
for an administrative fee equal to one percent (1%) of the Commission’s
operating budget for a period of five (5) years beginning January 1, 2007. At the
conclusion of the five year period the City and County will negotiate a fiscal agent
fee consistent with the fee charged for other joint City – County agencies.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY:______________________________________
CHAIRMAN
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILE
BY:______________________________________
MAYOR
Approved as to form:
___________________________
County Attorney
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
Last amended May 12, 2010 October 1, 2007.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the “County”) and the Charlottesville City Council
(the “City”) agree to join together to form the Commission on Children and Families (the
“Commission”) whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and evaluate a
community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal of the Commission
is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable for the efficient use of
public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs of the community. In doing
so, we agree to the following:
1) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County
agree that:
a) The Commission shall consist of twenty-eight voting members. Eleven of the
voting members shall be citizen representatives (“Citizen Members”): five
appointed by the County, five appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the eleven citizen members, at least one appointee
from each jurisdiction must be a parent, and at least one appointee from each
jurisdiction must be a youth under the age of eighteen years at the time his or her
appointment takes effect. Fourteen of the voting members shall be as follows
(“Agency Members”): the School Division Superintendent from both the City and
the County; one elected School Board member from both the City and the
County; the Director of the Department of Social Services from both the City and
the County; the Chief of Police from both the City and the County; the Director of
Parks and Recreation from both the City and the County; the Director of the
Sixteenth District Court Services Unit; the Director of the Thomas Jefferson
Health District; the Director of Region Ten Community Services Board; a
representative of the University of Virginia; an Albemarle Assistant County
Executive; a City representative that represents senior management/leadership,
as designated by the City Manager; and the President of the United Way –
Thomas Jefferson Area.
b) Terms of Appointment. Each Citizen Member of the Commission shall be
appointed for a term that shall expire three years from the first day of July of the
year of appointment, except the youth Citizen Members shall be appointed for a
term that shall expire one year from the first day of July of the year of
appointment. With the exception of the private service provider representative,
each Citizen Member shall be eligible for reappointment to one additional term of
the same length as the initial appointment. The private service provider shall not
be eligible for reappointment to a second term. Notwithstanding the foregoing,
any Citizen Member, including the private service provider, who is initially
appointed to fill a vacancy, may serve an additional successive term.
Appointment shall be staggered for continuity. Each Agency Member of the
Commission shall serve for as long as they hold their public office or until
replaced by the appointing authority.
c) Manner of Appointments. The City and/or County shall appoint the specific
individuals representing that locality who will serve on the Commission, unless
the member is solely designated by his position or office, and by identifying the
2
date upon which that individual’s appointed term will expire, if applicable. The
representative of the University of Virginia will be jointly appointed by the City
and the County.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the
County agree that the Commission shall:
a) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family
services within the Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
b) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County governing
bodies within the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by each jurisdiction;
c) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the needs of
children and families are being met effectively and efficiently;
d) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program development
for children and families;
e) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth
programs;
f) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Commission staff;
g) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the
needs of families, e.g. public hearings workshops focus groups and work teams;
h) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to insure
that the County and City are in agreement with the policy and direction set by the
Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree that:
a) Staff will be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the City
and the County with assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staff will be employees of the County of Albemarle subject to all personnel
policies and entitled to all its benefits.
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County intend to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of the
Commission;
b) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for
children and family projects from other sources, including public and private
grants, local service groups and the business community;
c) The County of Albemarle will provide fiscal and legal services to the Commission
for an administrative fee equal to one percent (1%) of the Commission’s
operating budget for a period of five (5) years beginning January 1, 2007. At the
conclusion of the five year period the City and County will negotiate a fiscal agent
fee consistent with the fee charged for other joint City – County agencies.
3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY:______________________________________
CHAIRMAN
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILE
BY:______________________________________
MAYOR
Approved as to form:
___________________________
County Attorney
Approved as to form:
___________________________
City Attorney
Last amended May 12, 2010
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH
A COMMUNITY POLICY AND MANAGEMENT TEAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5204 et seq., the County desires to create
a Community Policy and Management Team (CPMT); and
WHEREAS, the CPMT shall have the powers and duties as set forth in Virginia Code
§§ 2.2-5206 and 2.2-5207; and
WHEREAS, the CPMT shall be comprised of the following members appointed by the
County:
1. An elected official or appointed official or his designee from the County;
2. A representative from the Community Services Board;
3. A representative from the Sixteenth District Juvenile Court Services Unit;
4. A representative from the Thomas Jefferson Health District;
5. The Director of Albemarle County Department of Social Services or her designee;
6. The Superintendent of the Albemarle County Schools or her designee;
7. A representative from the Community Youth and Family Services (CYFS); and
8. A parent representative from the Albemarle community; and
WHEREAS, the term of appointment for members holding public positions shall be for so
long as they serve in that public position or until replaced by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the term of appointment for the CYFS representative and the parent
representative shall be for three (3) years, such term commencing from the date of appointment,
or until replaced by the Board. The CYFS representative shall not be eligible for reappointment
and the parent representative may be appointed to one additional three (3) year term or until
replaced by the Board; and
WHEREAS, the County CPMT will conduct joint meetings with the City of Charlottesville
CPMT to ensure continuing efficiency and consistency within the Albemarle/Charlottesville
Community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby creates and establishes a CPMT pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5204 et
seq. with all the powers and duties as set forth in Virginia Code §§ 2.2-5206 and 2.2-5207
consisting of the members identified above for the prescribed terms of service.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, Sign
Regulations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Sign Regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Higgins, and Wright; and Ms. McCulley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 12, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On January 6, 2010, the Board adopted the “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan” that outlined a series of objectives for
the coming year which included, among other things, amending the County’s sign ordinances. That objective, number 6
in the Plan, states “The sign ordinances need to be re-examined to ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of
area businesses. Staff should work with local retailers to develop new ordinances that will help promote good business
practices as well as maintaining quality aesthetic values.” The attached Resolution of Intent is being presented in
response to that action item.
STRAGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens – Economic Vitality
Goal Four: Effectively Manage Growth & Development
DISCUSSION:
The County’s sign review and approval process has been criticized by some local businesses as difficult to understand
and navigate. For certain types of development signs the standards may restrict appropriate advertisement of some
businesses, such as a business in a business center or industrial/business park. Also, certain regulations may make it
difficult to have business identification while waiting for sign approval or fabrication. T here have been other suggested
changes, such as: allowing temporary signs for a longer period wh ile awaiting their permanent sign; not regulating interior
signs at all; streamlining process to allow for more administrative/timely design approvals; redefining “on -site” for planned
developments with multiple parcels; and increasing the allowable height for signs. Staff proposes to have roundtables to
solicit suggestions and comments from business owners as the ordinance amendment is developed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff time and costs associated with the review and approval of sign applications may be reduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board adoption the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution of Intent
B – Proposed schedule for the Sign Ordinance Zoning Text Amendments
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulations pertaining to the
location, size, height, number and, along entrance corridors, the design, of signs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors’ “2010 Albemarle County Action Plan,” dated January
6, 2010, included as one of its objectives the re-examination of the County’s sign regulations “to
ensure they do not overly restrict economic vitality of area businesses” with the goal of developing
new regulations that “will help promote good business practices as well as maintaining quality
aesthetic values;” and
WHEREAS, the issues identified for study and action include the sign review and approval
process, regulations pertaining to temporary signs, sign height, and signs within business centers,
industrial parks and business parks, and definitions; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the County’s sign regulations to address the issues
identified above and other related issues pertaining to the regulation of signs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Albemarle County Code § 18-4.15, Signs, and any other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
attachment
Subject:
SIGN ZTA SCHEDULE
Target Date Action
Status
Dec./7/09 - - ARB discussion of Planned Dev signs w/Stewart
Complete
Jan./4/10 - - Stewart presented Anchor Signs ideas to ARB
Complete
Feb-Apr ’10 - - Meet with BOS members on sign ord. issues
Complete (w/3)
Mar./23/10 - - Have group meeting on Sign ZTA
Complete
Apr./2/10 - - Secure meeting space for roundtable(s)
Complete
Apr./16/10 - - Assemble mailing list (sign makers, business groups, etc.)
Complete
Apr./20/10 - - Develop Background materials for Roundtable-
-(issues, process, guides for discussion, etc.)
Partially Complete
Apr./29/10 - - Send out Roundtable #1 invitations w/info
May/7/10 - - Prepare PPT for Roundtable, PC
May/12/10 - - Resolution of intent to BOS
May/13/10 - - Roundtable #1 to solicit comments and ideas about sign regs.
-4:00 pm Room 235
May/17/10 - - ARB Meeting
Jun./15/10 - - PC Work Session
-have chart of comparisons and decision points
Aug./6/10 - - Draft ZTA w/ revisions from PC & ARB
Aug./6/10 - - Send out Roundtable #2 invitations
Aug./19/10 - - Roundtable #2 to present proposed ZTA
-4:00 pm Room 235
Sep./20/10 - - Staff report for PC
Oct./5/10 - - PC Public Hearing
Oct./18/10 - - Executive Summary for BOS
Nov./3/10 - - BOS Public Hearing
Return to exec summary
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100512/07.2b_ZTASignOrdinanceAttachB.htm [10/1/2020 12:11:35 PM]
RESOLUTION
Commemorating the life of Paul Goodloe McIntire on the Occasion
of the 150th Anniversary of his Birth
WHEREAS, Paul Goodloe McIntire, son of George M. McIntire and Catherine Clark McIntire, was born in
Charlottesville, Virginia, on May 28, 1860, and graciously enriched the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County community with many generous gifts until his death on July 1, 1952; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire attended the University of Virginia for the 1878-79 session and in 1880 moved to
Chicago to work as a coffee salesman, beginning his successful career in finance; and
WHEREAS, in 1891 Mr. McIntire married Edith Clark and in 1896 purchased a seat on the Chicago Stock
Exchange working as a commission broker for customers, trading in his own interest, and
attaining a reputation as a specialist in rail stocks; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire welcomed the birth of his only child, Charlotte Virginia McIntire , in 1901; and he
moved to New York, purchasing a seat on the New York Stock Exchange; and
WHEREAS, in 1918 Mr. McIntire left active business to retire to Charlottesville , and in 1919 endowed the
University of Virginia with a School of Fine Arts, consisting of a School of Art and Architecture
and a School of Music; and in 1921, the same year that he married Anna Dearing Rhodes, he
donated funds for the establishment of a School of Commerce and Finance at the University; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire desired to share his fortune and his passion for international culture, reading, and
learning with the citizens and children of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, he did so with a
gift of rare books to Alderman Library at the University of Virginia that included works from the
14th through 17th centuries; a donation of 473 art objects to the Museum of Fine Arts at the
University; the gift of a public library building and collection to Charlottesville; and numerous
contributions of books, scholarships, and maps to Charlottesville and Albemarle County schools;
and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire is fondly remembered as one of our community’s greatest benefactors, who shaped
the Charlottesville cityscape with five public parks (Lee, Jackson, Belmont, Washington, and
McIntire); statues of Robert E. Lee in Lee Park; Stonewall Jackson in Jackson Park; Meriwether
Lewis, William Clark, and Sacajawea at the intersection of McIntire Road and Ridge Street; and
George Rogers Clark at the intersection of West Main Street and Jefferson Park Avenue; and the
amphitheater at the University of Virginia, as a site for concerts and lectures; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire contributed heavily to Albemarle County’s 4-H Clubs and public schools, providing
aid for the building of new County schools in Crozet and Scottsville; provided educational
materials (maps, lithographs, and records) for all County schools from the high schools to one-
room elementary schools; and established scholarships for an outstanding graduating boy and girl
from each high school each year; and
WHEREAS, Mr. McIntire received the Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award for his service to mankind in 1928,
was awarded the honor of Chevalier of the French Legion of Honor in 1929 for his generous gifts to
the education of World War I orphans, served on the University of Virginia Board of Visitors from
1922 to 1934, returned to New York following the death of his wife in 1933, married Hilda Berkel
Hall in 1934, and was honored by the City of Charlottesville in the first Paul Goodloe McIntire
Day on May 20, 1942;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that it commend Paul
Goodloe McIntire on the 150th Anniversary of his birth for his unfailing generosity to the
community of his birth, the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors prepare a copy of
this resolution for presentation to the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society as an expression
of respect for Paul Goodloe McIntire’s memory and contributions, in honor of the 150th
anniversary of his birth.
Signed and sealed this 12th day of May, 2010.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
April 15, 2010
Ronald A. Manslow
122 LaFayette Ave
Laurel MD 20707
RE: SP 2009-00009 BB&T-Charlottesville (ATM) (Sign #39)
Tax Map 61, Parcel 134
Dear Mr. Manslow:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 2010, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition by a vote 5:0, with conditions to the Board of Supervisors
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan drawing titled
Proposed Site Layout revisions for new ATM Bldg, dated 08.18.09, and initialed
SEF.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 12, 2010.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
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,
Summer Frederick
Senior Planner
Current Development Division
SF/CH
Cc: Tracy Doub - BB&T
2825 Reynold Rd
Sinstom Salem NC 20707
Albemarle Bank & Trust Co c/o BB&T Property Tax Dept
P O Box 1290
Winston-Salem NC 27102-1290
- 1 -
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project: SP 2009-009 BB&T Charlottesville (ATM) Staff: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner;
Amy Pflaum, Engineer
Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 6,
2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: TBD
Owner: CAVALIER COUNTRY BANK C/O BB&T
PROPERTY TAX COMPLIANCE
Applicant: Ron Manslow – Security Vault
Works, Inc.
Acreage: 1.818 acre Special Use Permit: Section 18-23.2.2(5)
Commercial uses otherwise permitted
having drive-thru windows.
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 134
Location: On the east side of Seminole Trail (Rte.
29) approximately one (1) mile south of its
intersection with Rio Road, immediately south of
Fashion Square entrance.
Existing Zoning and By-right use:
CO-Commercial Office; EC-Entrance Corridor
Overlay, AIA-Airport Impact Area
Magisterial District: Rio Conditions: No
DA (Development Area): Urban Area 2 Requested # of Commercial Units: N/A
Proposal: Request for special use permit for a
drive up ATM kiosk.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Community Service (primary), and Regional
Service (secondary).
Character of Property: The property is currently
developed with a commercial office building.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The
surrounding properties consist of
commercial and retail uses. Immediately
adjacent is Fashion Square Mall.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposed development
complies with Zoning Ordinance
Section 31.2.4.1.
2. This application is an amendment of
the existing drive-thru, which has
functioned without adverse impacts
since its construction 20 years ago.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Comments from the ARB are
not available at the time of
this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit SP2009-09.
- 2 -
STAFF PERSON: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Amy Pflaum, Engineer
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 6, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
PROJECT: SP2009-009 BB&T Charlottesville (ATM)
Petition:
PROJECT: SP200900009/BB&T
PROPOSED: ATM kiosk.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO-Commercial Office; EC-Entrance Corridor; AIA Airport Impact
Area
SECTION: 23.2.2(5) Special Use Permit, which allows for drive-thru windows serving, or associated with
permitted uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale,
business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre); and Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or
employment centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Urban Area 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Southeast side of Seminole Trail (Route 29N), approximately 300 feet south of the entrance
to Fashion Square Mall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/134
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area:
The property is currently developed with a commercial office building which houses various
businesses, including a BB&T bank branch. The bank currently has four (4) drive-thru lanes.
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is requesting a special use per mit to allow for the relocation of an ATM kiosk.
The proposed ATM kiosk is larger than the one currently in use on the site, and therefore
requires additional space for construction. This requirement has prompted the relocation of
the ATM kiosk from an existing drive-thru lane to the outside, currently unused drive-thru
lane.
Planning and Zoning History:
SDP0000-004 Albemarle Bank and Trust – Site plan to allow for construction of office building,
including drive-thru lanes. Approved with conditions January 19, 1977.
SDP2003-42 BB&T – Minor amendment to allow for alterations to the on-site retaining wall.
Approved June 5, 2003.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject properties as Community Service and Regional
Service in Urban Area 2 emphasizing that this corridor is designated for developing varied
business, retail and service related uses. The proposed use is not changing as a matter of this
- 3 -
application. Special use permits for drive-thru windows in this district are not uncommon in
Regional Service Areas.
STAFF COMMENT:
It is understood a site plan amendment will be submitted for review should the special use
permit application be approved. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors do not
need to act on the site development plan because it is subject to administrative review.
General site development sketches are provided with this special use permit review in order to
review circulation and other impacts that may be gen erated by the drive-thru window
(Attachment C).
The issues which typically arise in the review of drive-thru windows are:
1. traffic impacts on and off site;
2. visibility of the site from an entrance corridor; and,
3. impact from the headlights of stacked vehicles.
These issues are addressed in the assessment below.
Section 18 - 31.2.4.1 of the Code of Albemarle requires that Special Use Permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The relocation of the ATM kiosk will not cause a substantial detriment to adjacent property.
The location and design of the kiosk and travelways are consistent with typical commercial
design. The headlights of stacked vehicles at the kiosk are shielded from Route 29 by
established landscaping.
Will the character of the district be changed by this use?
An ATM kiosk already existing on-site. Approval of this special use permit, and relocation of
the kiosk will not change the character of the district. Architectural Review Board (ARB)
impacts are discussed below.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance?
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as contained in Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6, the intent of the CO-Commercial Office district as contained in Section 23.1, and the
intent of the EC-Entrance Corridor Overlay district as contained in section 30.6. This request is
generally consistent with these ordinances.
However, staff is unable to make positive findings with respect to visibility from the Entrance
Corridor because the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has not reviewed this application at
the time of this report. An application for ARB review and approval will be made concurrently
with the site plan amendment application.
This development meets the intent and purpose of the CO-Commercial Office zoning district
by providing a business and professional office setting and supporting accessory uses. (Section
18-2.1).
- 4 -
The described development complies with the Comprehensive Plan.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Financial institutions are by-right uses in CO-Commercial Office District. Drive-thru windows
and ATM kiosks are common with this use, and throughout the district. The existing drive-thru
lanes have existed in harmony with the permitted, by-right uses for over 20 years. Because an
ATM kiosk already existing on-site, staff does not expect additional traffic impact either on, or
off-site as a result of this application.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5.0 contains no additional regulations regarding drive-thru windows.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
Because an ATM is currently in use on-site, public health, safety and general welfare will not
be adversely effected by the approval of this special use permit application.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed development complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 31.2.4.1: Special
Use Permits as indicated in the assessment above.
2. This application is an amendment of the existing drive-thru, which has functioned
without adverse impacts since its construction 20 years ago.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Comments from the ARB are not available at the time of this report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recomme nds approval of Special Use
Permit SP2009-009 BB&T Charlottesville (ATM).
Recommended conditions of approval:
1. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan drawing titled
Proposed Site Layout revisions for new ATM Bldg, dated 08.18.09, and initialed SEF.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Aerial Photograph
Attachment C – Applicant’s submission
Return to PC actions letter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-9 BB&T Drive Thru
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 6, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday,
April 6, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Chairman; Don Franco
and Calvin Morris. Absent were Linda Porterfield, Russell (Mac) Lafferty and Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior
Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia.
Other officials present were Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; J.T. Newberry, Code
Enforcement Officer; Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current
Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Wayne Cilimberg,
Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach, Chairman, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearings:
SP-2009-00009 BB&T Drive Thru
PROJECT: SP-2009-00009/BB&T
PROPOSED: Additional drive thru lane and ATM kiosk.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: CO - Commercial Office
SECTION: 23.2.2(5) Special Use Permit, which allows for drive-in windows serving or associated with
permitted uses.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Community Service - community-scale retail wholesale,
business and medical offices, mixed use core communities and/or employment services, and res idential
(6.01-34 units/acre); and Regional Service - regional-scale retail, wholesale, business and/or employment
centers, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 2.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Southeast side of Seminole Trail (Route 29N), approximately 300 feet south of the entrance to
Fashion Square Mall.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61/134
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Summer Frederick)
Ms. Frederick presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report for special use permit,
SP-2009-0009 BB&T ATM.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed development complies with Zoning Ordinance Section 31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits
as indicated in the staff report’s assessment.
2. This application is an amendment of the existing drive-thru, which has functioned without adverse
impacts since its construction 20 years ago.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this application:
1. Comments from the ARB are not available at the time of this report.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit SP -
2009-009 BB&T Charlottesville (ATM) with the following condition:
1. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan drawing titled Proposed Site
Layout revisions for new ATM Bldg, dated 08.18.09, and initialed SEF.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
invited to come forward.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 6, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2009-9 BB&T Drive Thru
2
Ms. Frederick noted that the applicant was not present.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter brought
before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of SP-2009-00009, BB&T Drive Thru
subject to the condition recommended in the staff report.
1. Development of the site will be in general accord with the site plan drawing titled Proposed Site
Layout revisions for new ATM Bldg, dated 08.18.09, and initialed SEF.
The motion was passed by a vote of 5:0. (Porterfield and Lafferty absent)
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2009-0009 BB&T Drive Thru would go before the Board of Supervisors on a date
to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to amend the Zoning Ordinance to change
Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD)
and related sections to streamline procedural
requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in
Entrance Corridor review, and to address
recommendations of the Development Review Task
Force.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Cilimberg,
Ms. Maliszewski
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 12, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 2006, the Board directed the Development Review Task Force (“DRTF”) to review and assess legislative land use
processes to identify improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and public participation. One of the DRTF’s
recommendations to the Board in 2007 was to clarify the extent of ARB review expected by the Board. As a result, the
Board, the Planning Commission (“PC”) and the ARB held two joint meetings in 2008 and 2009 to discuss these
issues, and staff presented recommendations for streamlining the ARB review process. The Board adopted a
Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance on March 4, 2009 and drafts of a zoning text amendment (“ZTA”)
were reviewed by the PC in work sessions on May 9 and November 9, 2009. On December 15, 2009 the PC held a
public hearing on the proposed ZTA and voted 7:0 to recommend its adoption, with the incorporation of minor changes
identified during the meeting.
The Board held a work session on the ZTA on March 3, 2010. The Board expressed general agreement with the
proposal, but requested that the categories of the proposed county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness be included
within the ZTA. On April 5, 2010, staff presented to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) a revised proposed ZTA that
included a list of categories, which the ARB supported with two modifications. (See Attachment A.)
The current draft ZTA (dated 4/26/10) includes three changes from the April 5th draft. The primary change is the
addition of the categories of county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness in section 30.6.4. The second change adds
agricultural product signs as an exempt class of signs in section 30.6.5. The last change is the addition of a cross-
reference in section 30.6.9 to section 31.4(d) regarding Zoning Administrator authority and certificates of occupancy.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance the Quality of Life for All Citizens
DISCUSSION:
The following categories of county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness are proposed:
1. Structures located 750’ or more from an Entrance Corridor (EC), where the structure is no more than 5 stories
tall.
2. Structures proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an EC, as viewed from the EC, where
the rear structure is no more than twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures that have a single occupant.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6. New or replacement rooftop or ground-mounted equipment.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements
May 12, 2010
Page 2
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued where the
design of the addition is consistent with the architectural design approved with the Certificate of
Appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting and changes to existing structure or site lighting.
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits in which the proposed change occupies 50% or less of the altered elevation.
11. Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits associated with new buildings or building additions.
Generally, these categories address classes of structures or improvements for which ARB conditions of approval have
become standardized or could easily be simplified and standardized. The list includes the types of development that
were identified in the 2008 and 2009 joint meetings of the ARB, the PC and the Board that may be appropriate for
county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness. It also includes categories for fencing, lighting, and equipment. The ARB
has already established, or is in the process of establishing, simplified design criteria for these items.
At its April 5, 2010 meeting, the ARB recommended that #7 above (#10 in Attachment A) be revised to limit the size of the
additions to less than 50% of the existing building. Staff believes this limit isn’t necessary because the category is already
limited by the requirement that the addition be consistent with the original design concept and because staff can forward
any unusual proposal to the ARB for review. The ARB’s second recommendation regarding the establishment of a
maximum height for structures under #2 above (#3 in Attachment A), has been incorporated into this list.
See Attachment B for the 4/26/10 draft text amendment. Attachment C is a table that compares the text of the current
ordinance with the proposed text section by section. Bold text (other than titles and subtitles) identifies changes or
additions since the March 3 Board work session. The flow chart outlining the submittal and review process for EC
applications provided for the March work session has not changed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The proposed amendment will allow more efficient review of applications for development proposals made under
section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Adoption of this amendment would reduce staff time and costs associated with
preparing staff reports and making presentations at ARB meetings, as well as reduce the time necessary for ARB
meetings.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the proposed ZTA (Attachment B).
ATTACHMENTS
A – ARB April 5, 2010 action on proposed categories of county-wide Certificates of Appropriateness
B – 4/26/10 Proposed Zoning Text Amendment
C – Zoning Text Amendment Comparison Table
View PC minutes of December 15, 2009
View ARB minutes of April 5, 2010
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
ARB ACTION MEMO – EXCERPT (italics added)
Date: 04-5-2010
Time: 1:00 PM
Meeting Room: Room #241
Members:
Charles T. Lebo: Present (arrived at 1:05 PM)
Fred Missel, Chairman: Present
Paul M. Wright: Present (arrived at 1:05 PM)
Bill Daggett, Vice Chair: Present
Bruce Wardell: Present (arrived at 1:08 PM)
Staff:
Margaret Maliszewski: Present; Brent Nelson: Present; Eryn Brennan: Present
OTHER BUSINESS
EC ZTA and County-wide Certificates of Appropriateness: Categories and benchmarks
Proposal: To revise the categories and benchmarks proposed for county-wide Certificates of
Appropriateness
Motion: Mr. Daggett moved for approval of the revised benchmarks as proposed by staff, including the
attachments, with the following proposed additions:
For #3, add a definite maximum “feet above the building in front”, or use a ratio to prevent an
over-towering building behind;
For #10, maybe a percentage change could trigger it, for example, 50%
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:51 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on May 19, 2010 in Room 241, Second
Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of
the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and iIntent
Sec. 30.6.2 Application Boundaries of the district
Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards
Sec. 30.6.4 Area and bulk regulations; minimum yards and setback requirements; height regulations;
landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features Certificates of appropriateness
Sec. 30.6.7 Administration Submittal, review and action on application; final review
By Amending, Renumbering and Renaming (old section number first, followed by name, followed by new
section number):
Sec. 30.6.3.1 By right Sec. 30.6.3 (part)
Sec. 30.6.3.2 By special use permit Sec. 30.6.3 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6 Nonconformities; exemptions
Development exempt from requirement
to obtain certificate of appropriateness Sec. 30.6.5
Sec. 30.6.6.1 Untitled Sec. 30.6.5 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6.2 Repair and maintenance of structures Sec. 30.6.5 (part)
Sec. 30.6.6.3 Exemptions
By Adding:
Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review
Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered
By Repealing:
Sec. 30.6.5 Signs
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1 Definitions
. . .
Certificate of appropriateness: A decision made by the architectural review board or, on appeal, by the board of
supervisors, certifying that a proposed structure and/or site improvements located within the entrance corridor
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
overlay district, as may be modified by terms and conditions of the certificate, are consistent with the applicable
design guidelines.
Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board establishing
specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures, sites,
improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement or
architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria.
. . .
Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming structure” means a lawful structure existing on the
effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the district, including any overlay district, in which the
structure is located, that does not comply with the minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or other
structure requirements of that zoning district. (Amended 6-14-00)
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
(36.1) Opaque background: The term “opaque background” means the portion of the face of a sign that lies
behind the message portion of the sign, made of a material through which light cannot pass when the sign is
internally illuminated at night.
. . .
Sec. 4.15.15 Regulations applicable in the entrance corridor overlay district
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section 4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the erection of a sign that would be visible from an
entrance corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible through a window on a structure, the
owner or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a certificate of appropriateness
for that sign unless the sign is exempt under section 30.6.5.
b. Authority and procedure for acting upon application for certificate of appropriateness. The authority
and procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set
forth in sections 30.6.4, 30.6.7 and 30.6.8 30.6. of this chapter, and as follows:
1. The agent is authorized to review and act upon an application for a certificate of appropriateness
for a sign if the sign will not require a variance and the sign: (i) will either not be internally
illuminated or will be internally illuminated with an opaque background; (ii) will replace an
existing sign that will be substantially the same as the existing sign; or (iii) will be in a multi-
business complex or shopping center, the architectural review board has completed its
comprehensive sign review therefor, and the sign will meet all of the requirements established
by the architectural review board during its review. The agent may require that a sign otherwise
eligible for review by the agent be reviewed by the architectural review board
2. The architectural review board shall review and act upon an application for a certificate of
appropriateness for each sign that is not eligible for review by the agent as provided in
subsection (B)(1), or that is referred to the architectural review board by the agent.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
3. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness shall be accompanied by a site plan that
shows the location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan.
c. Scope of review and authority to impose conditions. Each application for a certificate of
appropriateness for a sign shall be reviewed for consistency with the purposes and requirements of this
section 4.15 and the architectural review board’s design guidelines, and conditions may be imposed
upon the certificate of appropriateness to assure such consistency, including but not limited to
conditions minimizing window signs.
d. Comprehensive sign review. For each proposed new multi-business complex or shopping center, the
architectural review board shall conduct a comprehensive sign review prior to issuing a certificate of
appropriateness. The review shall include, but not be limited to, a review and determination of the
appropriate style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other
provisions of the architectural review board’s design guidelines.
c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an opaque
background.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.8; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference – Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280, 15.2-2286.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.6 Entrance corridor overlay district - EC (Added 10-3-90)
Sec. 30.6.1 Purpose and iIntent
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan goal of protecting the
county’s natural, scenic and historic, architectural and cultural resources including preservation of natural and
scenic resources as the same may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality of development compatible with these
resources through architectural control of development; to stabilize and improve property values; to protect and
enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and other visitors; to sustain and enhance the economic benefits
accruing to the county from tourism; to support and stimulate complimentary development appropriate to the
prominence afforded properties deemed to be of historic, architectural or cultural significance, all of the
foregoing being deemed to advance and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the
county and visitors thereto.
The purpose of this section 30.6 is to implement the enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by
identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be significant routes of tourist access to the county and
to designated historic landmarks, structures or districts within the county or in contiguous localities, and to
require that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels
contiguous to those streets and highways as provided herein, be architecturally compatible with those historic
landmarks or structures.
The comprehensive plan provides that scenic resources contribute to the community’s desirability as a place to
live, enhance and protect property values, and contribute to the overall quality of life for the county’s residents.
The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that scenic resources are important to visitors as well as the
county’s residents, and that visitors to the Blue Ridge Mountains and the county’s rural historic structures gather
a lasting impression of the county as they travel the county’s scenic roadways. The significant routes of tourist
access within the entrance corridor overlay district provide access to the county and to many of the county’s
historic landmarks, structures and districts including, but not limited to Monticello, the home of Thomas
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
Jefferson, which is on the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations and a National Historic
Landmark, Ash Lawn-Highland, the home of James Monroe, the University of Virginia, whose Rotunda is on
the World Heritage List and a National Historic Landmark, and whose academical village is on the World
Heritage List, a National Historic Landmark and a National Register Historic District, and the county’s eight
historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places, including the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic
District and the Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District.
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the
county’s scenic resources because they are essential to the county’s character, economic vitality and quality of
life. An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity of the county’s roadways by using design
guidelines. The entrance corridor overlay district will ensure that development is compatible with the county’s
natural, scenic, historic and architectural resources by providing for review of new construction along the
identified significant routes of tourist access by an architectural review board under design guidelines
promulgated by that board and ratified by the board of supervisors.
Sec. 30.6.2 APPLICATION Boundaries of the district
The entrance corridor overlay district is created to conserve elements of the county's scenic beauty and to
preserve and protect corridors: (i) along arterial streets or highways designated as such pursuant to Title 33.1 of
the Virginia Code found by the board of supervisors to be significant routes of tourist access to the county; (ii)
to historic landmarks as established by the Virginia Landmarks Commission together with any other buildings
or structures within the county having an important historic, architectural or cultural interest and any historic
areas within the county as defined by Virginia Code § 15.2-2201; or (iii) to designated historic landmarks,
buildings, structures or districts in any contiguous locality.
a. An entrance corridor overlay district may be established over any basic zoning district and/or any
other overlay district, and upon the highways and their rights-of-way identified in subsection (c)
(the “EC streets”), regardless of whether such EC streets are otherwise within a zoning district.
b. Entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon the parcels of land contiguous to the
EC streets delineated in subsection (c), from the edge of the right-of-way to the greater of either: (i)
the full depth of the parcel, as the parcel existed on the original adoption date of section 30.6; or (ii)
a depth of five hundred (500) feet.
c. Subject to subsection (b), entrance corridor overlay districts are hereby established upon and along
the following highways:
The entrance corridor overlay district is established upon and comprised of those parcels contiguous to
significant routes of tourist access, regardless of the underlying zoning district or the existence of other
applicable overlay districts, as provided in section 30.6.2(b) as follows:
a. Significant routes of tourist access. The following arterial streets and highway are found to be
significant routes of tourist access and are hereinafter referred to in section 30.6 as “EC streets”:
1. U.S. Route 250 East (Richmond Road).
2. U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail).
3. U.S. Route 29 South (Monacan Trail).
4. Virginia Route 20 South (Monticello Avenue and Scottsville Road).
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
5. Virginia Route 631 South (5th Street and Old Lynchburg Road) from Charlottesville City limits
to Route 708 (Red Hill Road) and Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road West) from U.S. Route 29
North (Seminole Trail) to Route 743 (Earlysville Road). (Amended 11-14-90; Amended 4-12-
00)
6. U.S. Route 250 West (Ivy Road and Rockfish Gap Turnpike).
7. Virginia Route 6 (Irish Road).
8. Virginia Route 151 (Critzers Shop Road).
9. Interstate Route 64.
10. Virginia Route 20 North (Stony Point Road).
11. Virginia Route 22 (Louisa Road).
12. Virginia Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway).
13. Virginia Route 231 (Gordonsville Road).
14. Virginia Route 240 (Three Notch’d Road).
15. U.S. Route 29 Business (Fontaine Avenue)
16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass.
17. Virginia Route 654 (Barracks Road). (Added 11-14-90)
18. Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street). (Added 11-14-90)
19. Virginia Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia
Route 606 (Dickerson Road). (Added 4-12-00)
20. Virginia Route 743 (Hydraulic Road and Earlysville Road) from U.S. Route 29 North
(Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 676 (Woodlands Road). (Added 4-12-00)
21. Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) easterly to the
Norfolk Southern Railway tracks. (Added 11-2-05)
b. Parcels contiguous to EC streets. Parcels contiguous to EC streets are:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. Each parcel that had a boundary
that was shared at any point with the right-of-way of an EC street on one of the following
applicable reference dates: (i) on October 3, 1990 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an
EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(1) through (16); (ii) on November 14, 1990 for those
parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(17) and (18); (iii) on
April 12, 2000 for those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in section
30.6.2(a)(19) and (20); and (iv) on November 2, 2005 for those parcels sharing a boundary with
an EC street identified in section 30.6.2(a)(21) (hereinafter, the “applicable reference date”).
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. Each parcel within five hundred (500) feet of
the right-of-way of an EC street that did not share at any point a boundary with the right-of-way
of an EC street on the applicable reference date.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
c. Extent of overlay district. The overlay district extends across the entire width of each parcel contiguous
to an EC street. The overlay district extends to the depth of each parcel as follows:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on reference date. If the parcel shared a boundary
with an EC street on the applicable reference date as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(1), the
overlay district extends to the full depth of the parcel.
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street. If the parcel is within five hundred (500) feet
of an EC street and did not share a boundary with an EC street on the applicable reference date
as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(2), the overlay district extends to a depth of five hundred (500)
feet from the right-of-way of the EC street.
d. Effect of subsequent change to parcel boundaries. The subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or any
other change to the boundaries of a parcel after the applicable reference date shall not reduce the area
subject to this section 30.6 without a zoning map amendment that changes the boundaries to the
entrance corridor overlay district.
(12-10-80, § 30.6.2; 11-14-90; 9-9-92; Ord. 00-18(4), 4-12-00; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(9), 11-2-05)
Sec. 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards
Within the EC overlay district:
a. Uses. The following uses may be permitted within the EC overlay district in accordance with the
applicable requirements of this section 30.6 and the underlying zoning district:
30.6.3.1 By right
1. By right. The following uses shall be permitted by right in any EC overlay district: Uses
permitted by right in the underlying zoning district shall be permitted by right in the EC overlay
district, except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.
a. Uses permitted by right shall include all uses permitted by right in the underlying districts
except as herein otherwise provided.
Sec. 30.6.3.2 By special use permit
Each of the following uses are authorized within the entrance corridor overlay district only by special use permit
2. By special use permit. The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the EC
overlay district:
a. All uUses authorized by special use permit in the underlying zoning districts;.
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a permitted uses, other
than a residential, agricultural or forestal use, any portion of which would be visible
from an the EC street to which it is contiguous or from any other EC street which is
located within five hundred (500) feet; provided that review shall be limited to the
intent of this section determining whether the outdoor storage, display and/or sales is
consistent with the applicable design guidelines. Residential, agriculturaland forestal
uses shall be exempt from this provision.(Amended 9-9-92)
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
c. The construction or location of any structure, including any subdivision sign or sign
identifying a planned development as provided in section 4.15.16(I) of this chapter,
upon the superjacent and subjacent airspace of an EC street that is not required for the
purpose of travel or other public use by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other
political jurisdiction owning such street.
b. Area and bulk and other regulations. The area and bulk, minimum yard and setback requirements, and
maximum building height requirements of the underlying zoning district shall apply to all uses and
structures in the EC overlay district.
c. Bonus factors. A condition of a certificate of appropriateness that requires improvements or design
features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted under the applicable district regulations shall
not affect the eligibility for the bonus.
d. Grading or land disturbing activity. No grading or other land disturbing activity (including trenching or
tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip
line of any trees or wooded areas designated on the site plan to be preserved, nor intrude upon any other
existing features designated in the certificate of appropriateness for preservation.
e. Method for preserving designated features. An applicant for a development subject to the provisions of
section 30.6 shall sign a conservation checklist provided by the director of planning or his or her
designee (the “director of planning”) specifying the method for preserving the designated features, and
the method shall conform to the specifications contained in Standard and Specification 3.38 at pages III-
393 through III-413 of the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook; provided that the
architectural review board, or the director of planning, may require alternative methods of tree
protection if greater protection is deemed necessary.
f. Designating and protecting preserved features. Areas on a site containing features to be preserved shall
be identified on approved site plans and building plans and shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the
site prior to commencing grading or other land disturbing activity, including trenching or tunneling. No
grading, other land disturbing activity, or movement of heavy equipment shall occur within the
delineated areas. The visible delineation of the boundaries of the areas to be preserved shall be
maintained until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the county. All features designated for
preservation shall be protected during development.
(12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 9-9-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
Sec. 30.6.4 Area and bulk regulations; minimum yard and setback requirements; height regulations;
landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features Certificates of appropriateness
Area and bulk regulations, including options for bonus factors (except where the provisions of this section
require provision of improvements or design features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted) and rural
preservation development, minimum yard, and setback requirements, and height regulations shall be as provided
by the underlying district, except that the following provisions and limitations shall apply to any development or
portion thereof which shall be visible from a designated EC street.
30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is required for the following:
a. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued for any purpose
unless and until a certificate of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or
section 30.6.8 for improvements subject to such building permit.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
b. Except as otherwise provided in section 30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any development subject to
approval under section 32.0, site development plan, no final site development plan shall be
approved by the commission or be signed pursuant to section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate
of appropriateness has been issued in accord with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all buildings
and improvements shown thereon.
The certificate of appropriateness shall be binding upon the proposed development as to conditions
of issuance. The certificate shall certify that the proposed development as may be modified by the
conditions of issuance is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the board of supervisors
for the specific EC street. Signature by the zoning administrator upon the final site development
plan or building permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed to constitute such certification.
In making such determination as to consistency with design guidelines, the architectural review
board may specify any architectural feature as to appearance, such as, but not limited to, motif and
style, color, texture and materials together with configuration, orientation and other limitations as to
mass, shape, height and location of buildings and structures, location and configuration of parking
areas and landscaping and buffering requirements to the extent such practices are authorized under
the adopted design guidelines without regard to regulations of the underlying zoning district or
regulations of section 32.0 of this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94)
30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9, landscaping and screening requirements, shall apply within any EC
overlay district except that:
a. In addition to the provisions of section 30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may require specific
landscaping measures in issuance of a certificate of appropriateness, as the same may be related to
insuring that the proposed development is consistent with the design guidelines adopted by the
board of supervisors for the specific EC street.
Existing trees, wooded areas and natural features shall be preserved except as necessary for location
of improvements as described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that the architectural review board may
authorize additional activity upon finding that such activity will equally or better serve the purposes
of this ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to maximize the use of existing
features in screening such improvements from EC streets to the extent such practices are authorized
under the adopted design guidelines.
b. The certificate of appropriateness shall indicate the existing features to be preserved pursuant to the
preceding paragraph; the limits of grading or other earth disturbance (including trenching or
tunneling); the location and type of protective fencing; and grade changes requiring tree wells or
tree walls.
c. No grading or other earth disturbing activity (including trenching or tunneling), except as necessary
for the construction of tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any trees or
wooded areas nor intrude upon any other existing features designated in the certificate of
appropriateness for preservation.
d. Areas designated on approved plans for preservation of existing features shall be clearly and visibly
delineated on the site prior to commencement of any grading or other earth-disturbing activity
(including trenching or tunneling) and no such disturbing activity or grading or movement of heavy
equipment shall occur within such area. The visible delineation of all such existing features shall be
maintained until the completion of development of the site. In addition, an applicant for
development subject to the provisions of section 30.6, shall sign a conservation checklist approved
by the designated agent of the architectural review board to further ensure that the specified existing
features will be protected during development. Except as otherwise expressly approved by the
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
agent in a particular case, such checklist shall conform to specifications contained in the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, pp III-284 through III-297.
The architectural review board is authorized to issue certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
a. Development requiring a certificate of appropriateness. The following developments require a
certificate of appropriateness:
1. Building permits required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit
is required, even though it is not a development for which a site plan is required, unless the
structure and/or site improvement is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building permit shall be
approved until the certificate of appropriateness is obtained.
2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site improvement for which a building permit is
required in a development for which a site plan is required, unless the improvement is exempt
under section 30.6.5. No site plan shall be approved until the certificate of appropriateness is
obtained.
b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific developments associated with one or more building permits
or a single site plan.
2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center, where the architectural review board first conducts a
comprehensive sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness. County-wide certificates of appropriateness may
be issued for classes of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements, subject to the
applicable design criteria and procedures, as follows:
a. Categories of structures, sites, improvements, or architectural elements eligible for
county-wide certificates of appropriateness. The following categories of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements shall be eligible for county-wide
certificates of appropriateness:
1. Structures located seven hundred fifty (750) feet or more from an EC street that
are not more than five (5) stories tall.
2. Structures that are proposed to be located behind another structure that fronts an
EC street as viewed from the EC street, where the rear structure is no more than
twice the height of the front structure.
3. Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures having a single occupant.
5. Safety fencing and screening fencing.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
6. New or replacement rooftop-mounted or ground-mounted equipment.
7. Additions to structures or improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the design of the addition to the structure or
improvement is consistent with the architectural design approved with the
certificate of appropriateness.
8. New structure or site lighting or changes to existing structure or site lighting.
9. Minor amendments to site plans and architectural plans.
10. Building permits for which the proposed change occupies fifty (50) percent or
less of the altered elevation of an existing structure.
11. Permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise
exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
b. Design criteria. The board may establish appropriate architectural or design features
under the design guidelines that a structure, site, improvement or architectural element
must be found to be consistent with in order to be eligible to be subject to a county-
wide certificate of appropriateness. The architectural or design features may include,
but are not limited to: (i) building and structure height; (ii) building and structure size;
(iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof forms; (v) appropriate building materials and/or
colors; (vi) minimum planting requirements; (vii) minimum screening requirements;
(viii) building, structure and/or site improvement locations; and (ix) the structural and
design details of signs.
c. Determination of compliance by director of planning. Once a county-wide certificate
of appropriateness is issued, the director of planning is authorized to determine whether
a particular structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific
design criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness. The director or a
member of the architectural review board may request at an upcoming meeting that the
architectural review board, instead of the director, determine whether a particular
structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria
of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness.
d. Action and appeal. Any person requesting a determination whether a proposed
structure, site, improvement or architectural element satisfies the specific design criteria
of a county-wide certificate of appropriateness shall submit a request to the director of
planning providing the information required by the director. The procedure for
submittal and action under section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall apply.
1. By the director. If the director determines that the proposed structure, site,
improvement or architectural element does not satisfy the specific design
criteria of the county-wide certificate of appropriateness, the director shall send
notice to the person requesting the determination of his decision. The person
requesting the determination may either: (1) appeal the director’s decision to
the architectural review board by filing an appeal with the director within ten
(10) days after the date of the director’s notice of decision; or (2) file an
application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
2. By the board. If the board determines in its own review or on an appeal of the
director’s decision that the proposed structure, site, improvement or
architectural element does not satisfy the specific design criteria of the county-
wide certificate of appropriateness, the board shall send notice to the person
requesting the determination of its decision. The person requesting the
determination may either: (1) appeal the board’s decision to the board of
supervisors under the procedure in section 30.6.8(b), (c) and (d); or (2) file an
application and proceed under sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7.
c. Authority to assure consistency with applicable design guidelines. In determining whether a structure or
associated improvements are consistent with the applicable design guidelines, the architectural review
board may specify the following, which are in addition to the requirements of the underlying zoning
district or of section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any maximum standard to be
exceeded, or any minimum standard to not be met:
1. Architectural features. The appearance of any architectural feature including, but not limited to,
its form and style, color, texture and materials.
2. Size and arrangement of structures. The configuration, orientation and other limitations as
to the mass, shape, area, bulk, height and location of structures. In considering the arrangement
and location of structures, the architectural review board may require that the existing
vegetation and natural features be used to screen structures and associated improvements from
one or more EC streets to which the parcel is contiguous as provided in section 30.6.2(b).
3. Location and configuration of parking areas and landscaping. The location and configuration
of parking areas and landscaping and buffering requirements.
4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping measures
determined to be appropriate to assure that the structures and associated improvements are
consistent with the applicable design guidelines.
5. Preservation of existing vegetation and natural features. The preservation of existing trees,
wooded areas and natural features.
6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the applicable requirements of section 4.15, the appropriate
style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of all proposed signs, and any other
applicable design guidelines. Each application for a certificate of appropriateness for one or
more signs shall be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan that shows the location of all
signs proposed to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the site plan or sketch plan.
7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all fencing, including safety fencing.
d. Authority to impose conditions to assure development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized to impose reasonable conditions in conjunction
with any approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the development is consistent with the
applicable design guidelines. The architectural review board also is authorized to approve plans
showing, or identifying in a certificate of appropriateness, existing trees, wooded areas and natural areas
to be preserved, the limits of grading or other land disturbing activity including trenching and tunneling,
in order to, among other things, protect existing features, and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree
walls.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine compliance with certificate of appropriateness. The
zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a development, including a sign, satisfies the
terms and conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each structure or associated improvement for which a
certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be established and maintained in accordance with the
terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site plan and building permit shall
demonstrate that the structures and associated site improvements will satisfy the terms, conditions and
requirements of the certificate.
30.6.5 SIGNS
In addition to the special use permit requirement for those signs identified in section 30.6.3.2, signs within the
entrance corridor overlay district shall be subject to the regulations set forth in section 4.15 of this chapter.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 30.6, the agent shall be authorized to issue certificates of
appropriateness for eligible signs under section 4.15.15. For such qualifying signs, the provisions of sections
30.6.4.30.6.7 and 30.6.8 shall apply to the agent as it does to the architectural review board. (Amended 7-8-92)
(12-10-80, § 30.6.3.2; 7-8-92; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
30.6.5.1 GENERAL REGULATIONS (Repealed 7-8-92)
30.6.5.2 REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS (Repealed 7-8- 92)
30.6.5.3 (Repealed 7-8-92)
Sec. 30.6.65 Nonconformities; Exemptions Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of
appropriateness
30.6.6.1 Any use, activity, lot or structure subject to the provisions of the EC overlay district which does not
conform to the provisions of the EC overlay district shall be subject to section 6.0, nonconformities, of
this ordinance.
30.6.6.2 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE OF STRUCTURES
An owner may repair and maintain a nonconforming structure or a structure occupied or used by a
nonconforming use as provided in Section 6.2(C), 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(B) of this chapter, upon determination by
the zoning administrator that such repair or maintenance would not be contrary to the intent and purposes of this
section 30.6. (Amended 6-14-00)
30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94)
The provisions of section 30.6.4.1 notwithstanding, no certificate of appropriateness shall be required for the
following activities:
a. The following exemptions shall apply to all buildings and structures:
1. Interior alterations to a building or structure having no effect on exterior appearance of the
building or structure.
2. Construction of ramps and other modifications to serve the handicapped in accord with section
4.9.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
3. The repair and maintenance of structures authorized pursuant to section 30.6.6.2. (Amended 6-
14-00)
4. Main and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings where no site development
plan is required for the work subject to the building permit.
5. General maintenance where no substantial change in design or material is proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is
proposed as determined by the zoning administrator.
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters (section 5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section
5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7).
d. Agricultural product signs, temporary signs and sandwich board signs.
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial change in
design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by section
6.3(B).
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial change in
design or materials.
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar federal
or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and
6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit has also
been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those sections does not change the
external appearance of the structure.
Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review
Applications for preliminary review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following:
a. Applications. An application for preliminary review shall contain a completed county-provided
application form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”).
The application may be filed with the department of community development by the owner, the owner’s
agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s written consent (the “applicant”). Eight (8) collated
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a preliminary
review shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time
of its filing.
b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that
provides the information required by section 30.6.6(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The
agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the
submittal deadline.
1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon
which the application was officially submitted.
2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by
section 30.6.6(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall
inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the
application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to
later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10)
days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information
the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided
herein.
c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the
date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.6(b), the
applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.6(a) together
with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline
following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application
was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day
period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to
submit the new application.
d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a
complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the
architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the
application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the
application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following:
1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the
applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the
applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the
director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also
inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further
revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter
shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application
without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires
to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so.
2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time,
provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that
decision is made.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the
applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.6(f).
4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be
the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence.
e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the
board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been
officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to
be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial
district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the
department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting
at which the application will be considered.
f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original
application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision date”).
g. Recommendations and decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for
consistency with the applicable design guidelines as follows:
1. Recommendation and decision on preliminary review. In making its recommendations on
applications for preliminary review, the board shall consider the recommendations of the agent,
the statements and information provided by the applicant, and any other information pertaining
to the compliance of the application with the requirements of section 30.6. In making a decision
on the application for preliminary review, the board also may make any recommendations it
deems appropriate. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the
preliminary review.
2. Decision as action on final review. The board, in its discretion, may determine that additional
review of the application is not necessary and make a decision on the application under section
30.6.7(g).
h. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by
subsections 30.6.6(b), (d), (e) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail, be
personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email.
i. Application defined. For the purposes of sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7, the term “application” means an
application for a certificate of appropriateness and a review to determine whether submitted drawings
satisfy the conditions of a certificate of appropriateness, and any other request by an applicant for
review.
Sec. 30.6.7 Administration Submittal, review and action on application; final review
Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be administered by an architectural review board
created and appointed by the board of supervisors of Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A, architectural
review board, of this ordinance.
The architectural review board shall be responsible for issuance of certificates of appropriateness as required by
this section. Application for a certificate of appropriateness together with a fee as set forth in section 35.0, fees,
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
of this ordinance shall be filed by the owner or contract purchaser of the subject property with the zoning
administrator. Materials submitted with the application or on subsequent request by the architectural review
board shall include all plans, maps, studies and reports which may be reasonably required to make the
determinations called for in the particular case, with sufficient copies for necessary referrals and records. The
zoning administrator shall forward the application together with all accompanying materials to the architectural
review board within five (5) calendar days of the date of application.
Notice of application submittal shall be sent by first class mail to each member of the commission and board of
supervisors. No certificate of appropriateness shall be issued within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall state the type of use proposed, specific location of development,
including magisterial district, appropriate county office where the application may be reviewed and date of the
architectural review board meeting.
Upon receipt of an application, the architectural review board shall schedule the same for hearing and shall
cause such notice to be sent as herein above required. The architectural review board shall confer with the
applicant and shall approve or disapprove such application and, if approved, shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness therefor, with or without conditions together with such modifications as deemed necessary to
insure compliance with this section. Failure of the architectural review board t o approve or disapprove such
application within sixty (60) days from the date of application shall be deemed to constitute approval of the
application.
Nothing contained in section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC, shall be deemed to compromise, limit,
or otherwise impair the commission in its exercise of preliminary or final site development plan review as set
forth in section 32.0, site development plan, of this ordinance. It is the express intent of the board of supervisors
that matters related to public health and safety as may be defined by the commission shall prevail over issues of
aesthetics as may be defined by the architectural review board. Therefore, the commission in its review of any
preliminary or final site development plan may modify, vary or waive any requirement of the certificate of
appropriateness as issued by the architectural review board upon finding that such action would better serve the
public health or safety.
Applications for final review under section 30.6 shall be subject to the following:
a. Applications. An application for final review shall contain a completed county-provided application
form and supplemental information required by the director of planning (the “application”). The
application may be filed by the owner, the owner’s agent, or a contract purchaser with the owner’s
written consent (the “applicant”), with the department of community development. Eight (8) collated
copies of the application and all other information required by the application form for a final review
shall be filed. The application shall be accompanied by the fee required by section 35 at the time of its
filing.
b. Determination of complete application; rejection of incomplete application. An application that
provides the information required by section 30.6.7(a) shall be accepted for review and decision. The
agent shall make a determination as to whether an application is complete within ten (10) days after the
submittal deadline.
1. Complete application; date deemed to be officially submitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the submittal of a complete application shall be deemed to be the date upon
which the application was officially submitted.
2. Incomplete application; notice to applicant. An application omitting information required by
section 30.6.7(a) shall be deemed to be incomplete and shall not be accepted. The agent shall
inform the applicant in writing of the reasons why the application was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent does not deliver the notice within the ten (10) day period, the
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
application shall be accepted for review, provided that the agent may require the applicant to
later provide omitted information within a period specified by the agent of not less than ten (10)
days, and further provided that if the applicant fails to timely provide the omitted information
the agent may deem the application to be incomplete and reject the application as provided
herein.
c. Resubmittal of application originally determined to be incomplete. Within fifteen (15) days after the
date the notice of rejection was mailed or delivered by the agent as provided in section 30.6.7(b), the
applicant may resubmit the application with all of the information required by section 30.6.7(a) together
with payment of the fee for the reinstatement of review. The date of the next application deadline
following the resubmittal of the application shall be deemed to be the date upon which the application
was officially submitted. If the applicant fails to resubmit the application within the fifteen (15) day
period, the application shall be deemed to be denied and a new application and fee shall be required to
submit the new application.
d. Resubmittal of revised application originally determined to be complete. During the review process of a
complete application, the director of planning (for county-wide certificates of appropriateness) or the
architectural review board may request further revisions to the application in order to find that the
application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines, or the applicant may revise the
application on its own initiative in the absence of such a request, subject to the following:
1. Request for revision. The director of planning or the architectural review board shall inform the
applicant in writing of the requested revisions to the application. The letter shall inform the
applicant that if it chooses to make some or all of the requested revisions, it shall notify the
director of planning within fifteen (15) days of the date of the writing. The letter shall also
inform the applicant that it may choose to proceed to action on the application without further
revisions, and request that the applicant notify the director of planning within fifteen (15) days
of the date of the letter if it desires to do so. The failure of the applicant to respond to the letter
shall be presumed to be a request by the applicant to proceed to action on the application
without further revisions, provided that an untimely notification by the applicant that it desires
to make some or all of the requested revisions shall not preclude the applicant from doing so.
2. Revision on applicant’s initiative. The applicant may revise the application at any time,
provided that the applicant should inform the director of planning of it doing so when that
decision is made.
3. Suspension of decision date. The receipt by the director of planning of a writing from the
applicant stating that it will revise its application shall suspend the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application under subsection 30.6.7(f).
4. Date revised application deemed to be officially resubmitted. The date of the next application
deadline following the resubmittal of a revised and complete application shall be deemed to be
the date upon which the application was officially resubmitted and the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be made on the application shall recommence.
e. Notice of submitted application. The director of planning shall send a notice to each member of the
board of supervisors, the commission and the architectural review board that an application has been
officially submitted. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the application is determined to
be complete. The notice shall provide the location of the development by street address and magisterial
district, identify the proposed use(s), state that the application may be reviewed in the offices of the
department of community development, and provide the date of the architectural review board meeting
at which the application will be considered.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
f. Time for decision. An application shall be acted on within sixty (60) days after the date the original
application was officially submitted or by a later date requested by or agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision date”).
1. When application may be deemed approved. If the decision date has passed without the
application being acted upon, the applicant may make a written demand for action that is
delivered to the director of planning. If the board fails to act on the application within twenty-
one (21) days after the receipt of the written demand, the application shall be deemed to be
approved.
2. Notice if application deemed approved. If an application is deemed approved, the agent shall
send notice that the application was deemed approved to the applicant, the zoning administrator
and the county executive. The notice shall be sent within five (5) days after the expiration of the
twenty-one (21) day period in which the architectural review board had to act.
3. Consent to extend time for decision. The applicant may consent to extend the time for a
decision.
g. Decisions. The architectural review board shall review the application for consistency with the
applicable design guidelines, exercising the authority granted by section 30.6. In making a decision on
an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other applications for review, the board shall
consider the recommendations of the agent, the statements and information provided by the applicant,
and any other information pertaining to the compliance of the application with the requirements of
section 30.6.
1. Issue or deny. In making a decision on an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the
board may issue the certificate of appropriateness and impose conditions and grant
modifications if it finds that the application is consistent with the applicable design guidelines,
or would be consistent with the applicable design guidelines subject to conditions of approval or
specified modifications. The board shall send notice to the applicant of its decision on the final
review.
2. Recommendations. In lieu of issuing or denying a certificate of appropriateness, the board may
make any recommendations it deems appropriate to the applicant to revise the application so
that it is consistent with the applicable design guidelines before the board acts to issue or deny
the application. If the time for a decision under section 30.6.7(f) would expire before the
application could be thereafter considered by the board, the board must obtain the applicant’s
consent to extend the time for decision.
h. Period of validity of certificate of appropriateness. A certificate of appropriateness shall be valid for
the same period that the site plan is valid or, if no site plan is required for the structure or site
improvements, for three (3) years. The architectural review board may extend the period of validity of a
certificate of appropriateness upon the written request of the applicant. The written request must be
received by the director of planning before the certificate’s period of validity expires and, upon receipt,
the running of the period of validity shall be suspended until the architectural review board acts on the
request. The board may grant an extension determined to be reasonable, taking into consideration the
size and phasing of the proposed development and the laws, ordinances, regulations and design
guidelines in effect at the time of the request for an extension and changes thereto since the certificate of
appropriateness was originally issued.
i. Resubmittal of similar denied application. An applicant may not submit an application that is
substantially the same as the denied application within one (1) year after the date of denial.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
j. Modes of sending notices, letters and other writings. Notices, letters and other writings required by
subsections 30.6.7(b), (d), (e), (f) and (g) shall be mailed to the identified recipients by first class mail,
be personally delivered to the applicant, or be sent by email.
Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right to review all decisions of the architectura l review board
made in the administration of section 30.6 which, in its discretion, it shall deem necessary to the proper
administration hereof.
Any person aggrieved by any decision of the architectural review board in the administration of this section may
demand a review of the application by the board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request
therefor in writing with the clerk of the board of supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such
decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the
architectural review board. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility, the board may
issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public necessity. In considering an appeal,
the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the architectural review board
together with such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application.
Any person or persons jointly or severally aggrieved by any decision of the board of supervisors may appeal
such decision to the circuit court of the county for review by filing a petition at law, setting forth the alleged
illegality of the action of the board of supervisors, provided such petition is filed within thirty (30) days after the
final decision is rendered by the board of supervisors. The filing of said petition shall stay the decision of the
board of supervisors pending the outcome of the appeal to the court.
For the purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, the architectural
review board or any member thereof, the commission or any member thereof, the agent, the zoning
administrator, the county executive, the board of supervisors or any member thereof.
A decision of the architectural review board on an application for a certificate of appropriateness and other
applications for review, and an application deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f), may be appealed to the
board of supervisors as follows:
a. Persons and entities having right to appeal. An appeal may be filed by the applicant, any person
aggrieved, the zoning administrator, or the county executive.
b. Written appeal required; timing for filing. An appeal shall be in writing and be filed with the clerk of
the board of supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the architectural review board’s decision
under section 30.6.7(g), or within ten (10) days after the date of the required notice if the application is
deemed approved under section 30.6.7(f). The appeal shall state the grounds for the appeal.
c. Consideration of appeal by board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse, or
modify in whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the
certificate of appropriateness. In so doing, the board shall give due consideration to the
recommendations of the architectural review board together with any other information it deems
necessary for a proper review of the appeal. When considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety
facility, the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it finds that the facility is a public
necessity.
d. Appeal of board of supervisors’ decision. The applicant or any person aggrieved may appeal the final
decision of the board of supervisors to the circuit court by filing a petition setting forth the alleged
illegality of the action of the board of supervisors. The petition shall be filed within thirty (30) days
after the date of the final decision.
Draft: 04/26/10
ATTACHMENT B
Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered
Where the public health or safety and any requirement of this section 30.6 or any term or condition of a
certificate of appropriateness conflict, the public health or safety shall prevail. In addition:
a. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the agent or the
commission in their review of a preliminary or final site plan under section 32. In their review of any
preliminary or final site plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or waive any term or
condition of a certificate of appropriateness upon finding that such action would better serve the public
health or safety; provided that the agent may modify, vary or waive any such a term or condition only
after consulting with the building official, the county engineer, a representative of the department of fire
rescue or other public official who advises the agent that the public health or safety would be at risk if
the condition is not modified, varied or waived.
b. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to impair the authority of the zoning administrator under
section 31.4(d).
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
ATTACHMENT C
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
Comparison of Original and Proposed Text
ORIGINAL TEXT PROPOSED TEXT (4/26/10 draft) COMMENTS
1 30.6 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR
OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC (Added 10-
3-90) 30.6.1 INTENT
30.6.1 Purpose and intent
2 The entrance corridor overlay district is
intended to implement the comprehensive
plan goal of protecting the county's natural,
scenic and historic, architectural and
cultural resources including preservation of
natural and scenic resources as the same
may serve this purpose; to ensure a quality
of development compatible with these
resources through architectural control of
development; to stabilize and improve
property values; to protect and enhance the
county's attractiveness to tourists and other
visitors; to sustain and enhance the
economic benefits accruing to the county
from tourism; to support and stimulate
complimentary development appropriate to
the prominence afforded properties deemed
to be of historic, architectural or cultural
significance, all of the foregoing being
deemed to advance and promote the public
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
the county and visitors thereto.
The purpose of this section 30.6 is to implement the
enabling authority in Virginia Code § 15.2-2306(A) by
identifying those arterial streets and highways found to be
significant routes of tourist access to the county and to
designated historic landmarks, structures or districts
within the county or in contiguous localities, and to
require that the erection, reconstruction, alteration or
restoration of structures, including signs, on parcels
contiguous to those streets and highways as provided
herein, be architecturally compatible with those historic
landmarks or structures.
The comprehensive plan provides that scenic resources
contribute to the community’s desirability as a place to
live, enhance and protect property values, and contribute
to the overall quality of life for the county’s residents.
The comprehensive plan also acknowledges that scenic
resources are important to visitors as well as the county’s
residents, and that visitors to the Blue Ridge Mountains
and the county’s rural historic structures gather a lasting
impression of the county as they travel the county’s scenic
roadways. The significant routes of tourist access within
the entrance corridor overlay district provide access to the
county and to many of the county’s historic landmarks,
structures and districts including, but not limited to
Monticello, the home of Thomas Jefferson, which is on
the World Heritage List administered by the United
Nations and a National Historic Landmark, Ash Lawn-
Highland, the home of James Monroe, the University of
Virginia, whose Rotunda is on the World Heritage List
and a National Historic Landmark, and whose academical
village is on the World Heritage List, a National Historic
The original text in this section has
been deleted. The new text establishes
a more direct link to the section of
Virginia Code that enables the
creation of Entrance Corridors and to
establish a more direct link to
Albemarle’s comprehensive plan.
Additions include more direct
reference to significant routes of
tourist access, identification of some
of the County’s significant historic
resources, and references to the
applicable goals of the County’s
comprehensive plan.
Planning Commission discussion at
the May 2009 work session suggested
adding “including but not limited to”
prior to the list of the County’s
historic landmarks to clarify that the
list included here is not complete.
ATTACHMENT C
Landmark and a National Register Historic District, and
the county’s eight historic districts on the National
Register of Historic Places, including the Southwest
Mountains Rural Historic District and the Southern
Albemarle Rural Historic District.
The entrance corridor overlay district is intended to
implement the comprehensive plan’s goal to preserve the
county’s scenic resources because they are essential to the
county’s character, economic vitality and quality of life.
An objective of this goal is to maintain the visual integrity
of the county’s roadways by using design guidelines. The
entrance corridor overlay district will ensure that
development is compatible with the county’s natural,
scenic, historic and architectural resources by providing
for review of new construction along the identified
significant routes of tourist access by an architectural
review board under design guidelines promulgated by that
board and ratified by the board of supervisors.
3 30.6.2 APPLICATION 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district
4 The entrance corridor overlay district is
created to conserve elements of the county's
scenic beauty and to preserve and protect
corridors: (i) along arterial streets or
highways designated as such pursuant to
Title 33.1 of the Virginia Code found by the
board of supervisors to be significant routes
of tourist access to the county; (ii) to
historic landmarks as established by the
Virginia Landmarks Commission together
with any other buildings or structures within
the county having an important historic,
architectural or cultural interest and any
historic areas within the county as defined
by Virginia Code § 15.2-2201; or (iii) to
designated historic landmarks, buildings,
structures or districts in any contiguous
locality.
The entrance corridor overlay district is established upon
and comprised of those parcels contiguous to significant
routes of tourist access, regardless of the underlying
zoning district or the existence of other applicable overlay
districts, as provided in section 30.6.2(b) as follows:
a. Significant routes of tourist access. (See next cell
down.)
b. Parcels contiguous to EC streets. Parcels contiguous to
EC streets are:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on
reference date. Each parcel that had a boundary
that was shared at any point with the right-of-way
of an EC street on one of the following applicable
reference dates: (i) on October 3, 1990 for those
parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street
The original text in this section has
been deleted and replaced with text
that more specifically identifies how
the boundaries of an EC Overlay
District are established, particularly
regarding contiguous parcels, parcels
within 500’ of the right-of-way, and
subdivided parcels. The new text
outlines current practice, with the
following exception. Text of the
existing ordinance indicates that EC
parcels are the parcels as they existed
at the time the EC section of the
ordinance was adopted, which was
1990. The proposed text revises this
to parcels as they existed at the time
the corresponding street was
designated an Entrance Corridor; for
ATTACHMENT C
a. An entrance corridor overlay district may
be established over any basic zoning district
and/or any other overlay district, and upon
the highways and their rights-of-way
identified in subsection (c) (the “EC
streets”), regardless of whether such EC
streets are otherwise within a zoning
district.
b. Entrance corridor overlay districts are
hereby established upon the parcels of land
contiguous to the EC streets delineated in
subsection (c), from the edge of the right-of-
way to the greater of either: (i) the full
depth of the parcel, as the parcel existed on
the original adoption date of section 30.6; or
(ii) a depth of five hundred (500) feet.
identified in section 30.6.2(a)(1) through (16); (ii)
on November 14, 1990 for those parcels sharing a
boundary with an EC street identified in section
30.6.2(a)(17) and (18); (iii) on April 12, 2000 for
those parcels sharing a boundary with an EC street
identified in section 30.6.2(a)(19) and (20); and
(iv) on November 2, 2005 for those parcels
sharing a boundary with an EC street identified in
section 30.6.2(a)(21) (hereinafter, the “applicable
reference date”).
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC
street. Each parcel within five hundred (500) feet
of the right-of-way of an EC street that did not
share at any point a boundary with the right-of-
way of an EC street on the applicable reference
date.
c. Extent of overlay district. The overlay district extends
across the entire width of each parcel contiguous to an EC
street. The overlay district extends to the depth of each
parcel as follows:
1. Parcels sharing boundary with an EC street on
reference date. If the parcel shared a boundary
with an EC street on the applicable reference date
as provided in section 30.6.2(b)(1), the overlay
district extends to the full depth of the parcel.
2. Parcels not sharing boundary with an EC street.
If the parcel is within five hundred (500) feet of
an EC street and did not share a boundary with an
EC street on the applicable reference date as
provided in section 30.6.2(b)(2), the overlay
district extends to a depth of five hundred (500)
feet from the right-of-way of the EC street.
d. Effect of subsequent change to parcel boundaries. The
example, Route 29 North in 1990 and
East Rio Road in 2005.
ATTACHMENT C
subdivision, boundary line adjustment, or any other
change to the boundaries of a parcel after the applicable
reference date shall not reduce the area subject to this
section 30.6 without a zoning map amendment that
changes the boundaries to the entrance corridor overlay
district.
5 c. Subject to subsection (b), entrance
corridor overlay districts are hereby
established upon and along the following
highways:
1. U.S. Route 250 East.
2. U.S. Route 29 North.
3. U.S. Route 29 South.
4. Virginia Route 20 South.
5. Virginia Route 631 South from
Charlottesville City limits to Route 708 and
from U.S. Route 29 North to Route 743.
(Amended 11-14-90; Amended 4-12-00)
6. U.S. Route 250 West.
7. Virginia Route 6.
8. Virginia Route 151.
9. Interstate Route 64.
10. Virginia Route 20 North.
11. Virginia Route 22.
12. Virginia Route 53.
13. Virginia Route 231.
14. Virginia Route 240.
15. U.S. Route 29 Business.
16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass.
17. Virginia Route 654. (Added 11-14-90)
18. Virginia Route 742. (Added 11-14-90)
19. Virginia Route 649 from U.S. Route 29
North to Virginia Route 606.
20. Virginia Route 743 from U.S. Route 29
North to Virginia Route 676.
21. Virginia Route 631 from U.S. Route 29
North easterly to the Norfolk Southern
Railway tracks.
30.6.2.a. Significant routes of tourist access. The
following arterial streets and highway are found to be
significant routes of tourist access and are hereinafter
referred to in section 30.6 as “EC streets”:
1. U.S. Route 250 East (Richmond Road).
2. U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail).
3. U.S. Route 29 South (Monacan Trail).
4. Virginia Route 20 South (Monticello Avenue and
Scottsville Road).
5. Virginia Route 631 (5th Street and Old Lynchburg
Road) from Charlottesville City limits to Route 708
(Red Hill Road) and Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road
West) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to
Route 743 (Earlysville Road).
6. U.S. Route 250 West (Ivy Road and Rockfish Gap
Turnpike).
7. Virginia Route 6 (Irish Road).
8. Virginia Route 151 (Critzers Shop Road).
9. Interstate Route 64.
10. Virginia Route 20 North (Stony Point Road).
11. Virginia Route 22 (Louisa Road).
12. Virginia Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway).
13. Virginia Route 231 (Gordonsville Road).
14. Virginia Route 240 (Three Notch’d Road).
15. U.S. Route 29 Business (Fontaine Avenue)
16. U.S. Route 29/250 Bypass.
17. Virginia Route 654 (Barracks Road).
18. Virginia Route 742 (Avon Street).
19. Virginia Route 649 (Airport Road) from U.S. Route
29 North (Seminole Trail) to Virginia Route 606
(Dickerson Road).
20. Virginia Route 743 (Hydraulic Road and Earlysville
There are no proposed changes to the
list of designated Entrance Corridors.
Street names have been added to the
list of route numbers for easier
identification, as requested by the
ARB.
ATTACHMENT C
Road) from U.S. Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) to
Virginia Route 676 (Woodlands Road).
21. Virginia Route 631 (Rio Road) from U.S. Route 29
North (Seminole Trail) easterly to the Norfolk
Southern Railway tracks.
6 30.6.3 PERMITTED USES 30.6.3 Permitted uses and applicable standards
7 30.6.3.1 BY RIGHT
The following uses shall be permitted by
right in any EC overlay district:
Within the EC overlay district:
a. Uses. The following uses may be permitted within the
EC overlay district in accordance with the applicable
requirements of this section 30.6 and the underlying
zoning district:
No substantive change.
8 a. Uses permitted by right shall include all
uses permitted by right in the underlying
districts except as herein otherwise
provided.
1. By right. Uses permitted by right in the underlying
zoning district shall be permitted by right in the EC
overlay district, except as otherwise provided in
section 30.6.
No substantive change.
9 30.6.3.2 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Each of the following uses are authorized
within the entrance corridor overlay district
only by special use permit:
2.By special use permit. The following uses shall be
permitted by special use permit in the EC overlay
district:
No substantive change.
10 a. All uses authorized by special use permit
in the underlying districts;
a. Uses authorized by special use permit in the
underlying zoning district.
No substantive change.
11 b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales
serving or associated with permitted uses,
any portion of which would be visible from
an EC street; provided that review shall be
limited to the intent of this section.
Residential, agricultural and forestal uses
shall be exempt from this provision.
b. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or
associated with a permitted uses, other than a
residential, agricultural or forestal use, any portion
of which would be visible from the EC street to
which it is contiguous or from any other EC street
which is located within five hundred (500) feet;
provided that review shall be limited to
determining whether the outdoor storage, display
and/or sales is consistent with the applicable
design guidelines.
This text has been revised to clarify
that this section applies to outdoor
storage, display and sales that are
visible from the EC street to which
the parcel is contiguous, or visible
from an EC street that lies within
500’. This section does not apply to
storage, display or sales outside these
parameters, even if visible.
Changes have also been made to
clarify that the intent is to ensure that
display is consistent with the EC
guidelines and that the special use is
compatible with the building. This
text describes current practice.
12 c. The construction or location of any c. The construction or location of any structure, No substantive change.
ATTACHMENT C
structure, including any subdivision sign or
sign identifying a planned development as
provided in section 4.15.16(I) of this
chapter, upon the superjacent and subjacent
airspace of an EC street that is not required
for the purpose of travel or other public use
by the Commonwealth of Virginia or other
political jurisdiction owning such street.
including any subdivision sign or sign identifying
a planned development as provided in section
4.15.16(I), upon the superjacent and subjacent
airspace of an EC street that is not required for the
purpose of travel or other public use by the
Commonwealth of Virginia or other political
jurisdiction owning such street.
13 30.6.4 AREA AND BULK
REGULATIONS; MINIMUM YARD
AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS;
HEIGHT REGULATIONS;
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING;
PRESERVATION OF NATURAL
FEATURES
14 Area and bulk regulations, including options
for bonus factors (except where the
provisions of this section require provision
of improvements or design features for
which a bonus might otherwise be
permitted) and rural preservation
development, minimum yard, and setback
requirements, and height regulations shall
be as provided by the underlying district,
except that the following provisions and
limitations shall apply to any development
or portion thereof which shall be visible
from a designated EC street.
30.6.3.b. Area and bulk and other regulations. The area
and bulk, minimum yard and setback requirements, and
maximum building height requirements of the underlying
zoning district shall apply to all uses and structures in the
EC overlay district.
30.6.3.c. Bonus factors. A condition of a certificate of
appropriateness that requires improvements or design
features for which a bonus might otherwise be permitted
under the applicable district regulations shall not affect the
eligibility for the bonus.
In response to PC recommendations,
the text regarding bonus factors has
been updated to indicate that a CofA
condition cannot affect eligibility for
a bonus factor.
15 30.6.4.1 A certificate of appropriateness is
required for the following:
30.6.4 Certificates of Appropriateness
16 a. Except as otherwise provided in section
30.6.6, no building permit shall be issued
for any purpose unless and until a certificate
of appropriateness has been issued in accord
with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for
improvements subject to such building
permit.
The architectural review board is authorized to issue
certificates of appropriateness for any structure, and
associated improvements, or any portion thereof, that are
visible from the EC street to which the parcel is
contiguous, as follows:
a. Development requiring a certificate of
appropriateness. The following developments
This section has been reworked to
clarify the types of improvements that
are subject to ARB review/approval.
It describes current practice.
ATTACHMENT C
b. Except as otherwise provided in section
30.6.6 and section 32.3.8, for any
development subject to approval under
section 32.0, site development plan, no final
site development plan shall be approved by
the commission or be signed pursuant to
section 32.4.3.6 unless and until a certificate
of appropriateness has been issued in accord
with section 30.6.7 or section 30.6.8 for all
buildings and improvements shown thereon.
require a certificate of appropriateness:
1. Building permits required. Each structure
and/or site improvement for which a building
permit is required, even though it is not a
development for which a site plan is required,
unless the structure and/or site improvement
is exempt under section 30.6.5. No building
permit shall be approved until the certificate
of appropriateness is obtained.
2. Site plans required. Each structure and/or site
improvement for which a building permit is
required in a development for which a site
plan is required, unless the improvement is
exempt under section 30.6.5. No site plan
shall be approved until the certificate of
appropriateness is obtained.
17 b. Types of certificates of appropriateness. The
architectural review board is authorized to issue the
following types of certificates of appropriateness:
1. Specific developments. For specific
developments associated with one or more
building permits or a single site plan.
This section has been added to clarify
the various types of Certificates of
Appropriateness. It describes current
practice.
18 2. Signs in a new multi-business complex or
shopping center. For all of the signs in a new
multi-business complex or shopping center,
where the architectural review board first
conducts a comprehensive sign review. Once
a certificate of appropriateness for signs in a
new multi-business complex or shopping
center is issued, the director of planning is
authorized to determine whether a particular
sign satisfies the conditions of the certificate
of appropriateness.
This section identifies comprehensive
sign reviews as a type of CofA. It
describes current practice.
19
3. County-wide certificates of appropriateness.
County-wide certificates of appropriateness
The new provision for countywide
CofAs is located here. This section
ATTACHMENT C
may be issued for classes of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural
elements, subject to the applicable design
criteria and procedures, as follows:
a.Categories of structures, sites,
improvements, or architectural elements
eligible for county-wide certificates of
appropriateness. The following
categories of structures, sites,
improvements, or architectural
elements shall be eligible for county-
wide certificates of appropriateness:
1.Structures located seven hundred
fifty (750) feet or more from an EC
street that are not more than five (5)
stories tall.
2.Structures that are proposed to be
located behind another structure that
fronts an EC street as viewed from the
EC street, where the rear structure is
no more than twice the height of the
front structure.
3.Personal wireless service facilities.
4. Wall signs proposed for structures
having a single occupant.
5.Safety fencing and screening fencing.
6.New or replacement rooftop-mounted
or ground-mounted equipment.
7.Additions to structures or
improvements for which a certificate of
appropriateness was issued, where the
design of the addition to the structure
or improvement is consistent with the
architectural design approved with the
certificate of appropriateness.
8.New structure or site lighting or
lists the categories of county-wide
CofAs, the design criteria to be
followed under a county-wide CofA,
the method for determining
compliance with a county-wide CofA,
and the process for determining if a
proposal satisfies the county-wide
criteria.
The categories (3a) were added at
the request of the BOS at the
March 3 work session. The
categories include the types of
development identified in the 2008
and 2009 joint meetings of the
ARB, PC and BOS as potential
candidates for county-wide CofAs,
and some additional categories
(fencing, lighting, equipment) for
items that have more simplified
design criteria.
The design criteria (3b) were added
following suggestions at the
November PC work session that the
parameters of the county-wide CofA
should be defined in the ordinance.
The design criteria include criteria
that are already established in the EC
Guidelines. They provide direction
for establishing the parameters of
county-wide CofAs.
ATTACHMENT C
changes to existing structure or site
lighting.
9.Minor amendments to site plans and
architectural plans.
10.Building permits for which the
proposed change occupies fifty (50)
percent or less of the altered elevation
of an existing structure.
11.Permits classified in sections 5-202,
5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) not otherwise
exempt under section 30.6.5(k).
b. Design criteria. The board may
establish appropriate architectural or
design features under the design
guidelines that a structure, site,
improvement or architectural element
must be found to be consistent with in
order to be eligible to be subject to a
county-wide certificate of
appropriateness. The architectural or
design features may include, but are not
limited to: (i) building and structure
height; (ii) building and structure size;
(iii) scale or mass; (iv) appropriate roof
forms; (v) appropriate building materials
and/or colors; (vi) minimum planting
requirements; (vii) minimum screening
requirements; (viii) building, structure
and/or site improvement locations; and
(ix) the structural and design details of
signs.
c.Determination of compliance by
director of planning. Once a county-wide
certificate of appropriateness is issued, the
director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular structure,
ATTACHMENT C
site, improvement or architectural element
satisfies the specific design criteria of the
county-wide certificate of
appropriateness. The director or a
member of the architectural review board
may request at an upcoming meeting that
the architectural review board, instead of
the director, determine whether a
particular structure, site, improvement or
architectural element satisfies the specific
design criteria of the county-wide
certificate of appropriateness.
d.Action and appeal. Any person
requesting a determination whether a
proposed structure, site, improvement or
architectural element satisfies the specific
design criteria of a county-wide certificate
of appropriateness shall submit a request
to the director of planning providing the
information required by the director. The
procedure for submittal and action under
section 30.6.6(b), (c), (d) and (f) shall
apply.
1. By the director. If the
director determines that the
proposed structure, site,
improvement or architectural
element does not satisfy the
specific design criteria of the
county-wide certificate of
appropriateness, the director
shall send notice to the person
requesting the determination
of his decision. The person
requesting the determination
may either: (1) appeal the
ATTACHMENT C
director’s decision to the
architectural review board by
filing an appeal with the
director within ten (10) days
after the date of the director’s
notice of decision; or (2) file
an application and proceed
under sections 30.6.6 and
30.6.7.
2. By the board. If the board
determines in its own review
or on an appeal of the
director’s decision that the
proposed structure, site,
improvement or architectural
element does not satisfy the
specific design criteria of the
county-wide certificate of
appropriateness, the board
shall send notice to the person
requesting the determination
of its decision. The person
requesting the determination
may either: (1) appeal the
board’s decision to the board
of supervisors under the
procedure in section
30.6.8(b), (c) and (d); or (2)
file an application and
proceed under sections 30.6.6
and 30.6.7.
20 The certificate of appropriateness shall be
binding upon the proposed development as
to conditions of issuance. The certificate
shall certify that the proposed development
as may be modified by the conditions of
issuance is consistent with the design
30.6.4.e. Authority of zoning administrator to determine
compliance with certificate of appropriateness. The
zoning administrator is authorized to determine whether a
development, including a sign, satisfies the terms and
conditions of the certificate of appropriateness.
No substantive change.
ATTACHMENT C
guidelines adopted by the board of
supervisors for the specific EC street.
Signature by the zoning administrator upon
the final site development plan or building
permit, as the case may be, shall be deemed
to constitute such certification.
30.6.4.f. Effect of certificate of appropriateness. Each
structure or associated improvement for which a
certificate of appropriateness was issued shall be
established and maintained in accordance with the terms,
conditions and requirements of the certificate. Each site
plan and building permit shall demonstrate that the
structures and associated site improvements will satisfy
the terms, conditions and requirements of the certificate.
21 In making such determination as to
consistency with design guidelines, the
architectural review board may specify any
architectural feature as to appearance, such
as, but not limited to, motif and style, color,
texture and materials together with
configuration, orientation and other
limitations as to mass, shape, height and
location of buildings and structures, location
and configuration of parking areas and
landscaping and buffering requirements to
the extent such practices are authorized
under the adopted design guidelines without
regard to regulations of the underlying
zoning district or regulations of section 32.0
of this ordinance. (Amended 5-18-94)
30.6.4.c Authority to assure consistency with applicable
design guidelines. In determining whether a structure or
associated improvements are consistent with the
applicable design guidelines, the architectural review
board may specify the following, which are in addition to
the requirements of the underlying zoning district or of
section 32, provided that the board may not authorize any
maximum standard to be exceeded, or any minimum
standard to not be met:
1. Architectural features. The appearance of any
architectural feature including, but not limited
to, its form and style, color, texture and
materials.
2. Size and arrangement of structures. The
configuration, orientation and other
limitations as to the mass, shape, area,
bulk, height and location of structures. In
considering the arrangement and location of
structures, the architectural review board may
require that the existing vegetation and natural
features be used to screen structures and
associated improvements from one or
more EC streets to which the parcel is
contiguous as provided in section 30.6.2(b).
3. Location and configuration of parking areas
and landscaping. The location and
configuration of parking areas and
landscaping and buffering requirements.
This section provides additional detail
regarding the features of buildings
and sites that the ARB may address in
its review. It is consistent with current
practice. Some of this draft language
was simplified at the request of the
PC.
ATTACHMENT C
4. Landscaping measures. In addition to the
requirements of section 32.7.9, landscaping
measures determined to be appropriate to
assure that the structures and associated
improvements are consistent with the
applicable design guidelines.
5. Preservation of existing vegetation and
natural features. The preservation of existing
trees, wooded areas and natural features.
6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the
applicable requirements of section 4.15, the
appropriate style, size, colors, materials,
illumination and location of all proposed
signs, and any other applicable design
guidelines. Each application for a certificate
of appropriateness for one or more signs shall
be accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan
that shows the location of all signs proposed
to be erected on the lot or lots subject to the
site plan or sketch plan.
7. Fencing. The location, type and color of all
fencing, including safety fencing.
22 30.6.4.2 Regulations of section 32.7.9,
landscaping and screening requirements,
shall apply within any EC overlay district
except that:
a. In addition to the provisions of section
30.6.4.1, the architectural review board may
require specific landscaping measures in
issuance of a certificate of appropriateness,
as the same may be related to insuring that
the proposed development is consistent with
the design guidelines adopted by the board
30.6.4.d. Authority to impose conditions to assure
development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines. The architectural review board is authorized
to impose reasonable conditions in conjunction with any
approved certificate of appropriateness to assure that the
development is consistent with the applicable design
guidelines. The architectural review board also is
authorized to approve plans showing, or identifying in a
certificate of appropriateness, existing trees, wooded areas
and natural areas to be preserved, the limits of grading or
other land disturbing activity including trenching and
tunneling, in order to, among other things, protect existing
The text in this section has been
simplified.
ATTACHMENT C
of supervisors for the specific EC street.
Existing trees, wooded areas and natural
features shall be preserved except as
necessary for location of improvements as
described in section 32.5.6.n, provided that
the architectural review board may
authorize additional activity upon finding
that such activity will equally or better serve
the purposes of this ordinance. Such
improvements shall be located so as to
maximize the use of existing features in
screening such improvements from EC
streets to the extent such practices are
authorized under the adopted design
guidelines.
b. The certificate of appropriateness shall
indicate the existing features to be preserved
pursuant to the preceding paragraph; the
limits of grading or other earth disturbance
(including trenching or tunneling); the
location and type of protective fencing; and
grade changes requiring tree wells or tree
walls.
features, and grade changes requiring tree wells or tree
walls.
23 c. No grading or other earth disturbing
activity (including trenching or tunneling),
except as necessary for the construction of
tree wells or tree walls, shall occur within
the drip line of any trees or wooded areas
nor intrude upon any other existing features
designated in the certificate of
appropriateness for preservation.
30.6.3.d. Grading or land disturbing activity. No grading
or other land disturbing activity (including trenching or
tunneling), except as necessary for the construction of tree
wells or tree walls, shall occur within the drip line of any
trees or wooded areas designated on the site plan to be
preserved, nor intrude upon any other existing features
designated in the certificate of appropriateness for
preservation.
As recommended by the Planning
Commission, the words “designated
on the site plan to be preserved” have
been added to this section to clarify
that all existing trees are not
automatically required to be
preserved.
24 d. Areas designated on approved plans for
preservation of existing features shall be
clearly and visibly delineated on the site
prior to commencement of any grading or
other earth-disturbing activity (including
30.6.3.f. Designating and protecting preserved features.
Areas on a site containing features to be preserved shall be
identified on approved site plans and building plans and
shall be clearly and visibly delineated on the site prior to
commencing grading or other land disturbing activity,
No substantive changes.
ATTACHMENT C
trenching or tunneling) and no such
disturbing activity or grading or movement
of heavy equipment shall occur within such
area. The visible delineation of all such
existing features shall be maintained until
the completion of development of the site.
including trenching or tunneling. No grading, other land
disturbing activity, or movement of heavy equipment shall
occur within the delineated areas. The visible delineation
of the boundaries of the areas to be preserved shall be
maintained until a certificate of occupancy is issued by the
county. All features designated for preservation shall be
protected during development.
25 In addition, an applicant for development
subject to the provisions of section 30.6,
shall sign a conservation checklist approved
by the designated agent of the architectural
review board to further ensure that the
specified existing features will be protected
during development. Except as otherwise
expressly approved by the agent in a
particular case, such checklist shall conform
to specifications contained in the Virginia
Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
pp III-284 through III-297.
30.6.3.e. Method for preserving designated features. An
applicant for a development subject to the provisions of
section 30.6 shall sign a conservation checklist provided
by the director of planning or his or her designee (the
“director of planning”) specifying the method for
preserving the designated features, and the method shall
conform to the specifications contained in Standard and
Specification 3.38 at pages III-393 through III-413 of the
Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook;
provided that the architectural review board, or the
director of planning, may require alternative methods of
tree protection if greater protection is deemed necessary.
The reference to the E&SC handbook
has been updated.
26 30.6.5 SIGNS In addition to the special use
permit requirement for those signs
identified in section 30.6.3.2, signs within
the entrance corridor overlay district shall
be subject to the regulations set forth in
section 4.15 of this chapter.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this
section 30.6, the agent shall be authorized to
issue certificates of appropriateness for
eligible signs under section 4.15.15. For
such qualifying signs, the provisions of
sections 30.6.4.30.6.7 and 30.6.8 shall apply
to the agent as it does to the architectural
review board.
Signs are now addressed in 4.15
(below) and 30.6.4 (above).
27 30.6.6 NONCONFORMITIES;
EXEMPTIONS 30.6.6.1 Any use, activity,
lot or structure subject to the provisions of
the EC overlay district which does not
conform to the provisions of the EC overlay
This section was reworked as 30.6.5
Exemptions. See below.
ATTACHMENT C
district shall be subject to section 6.0,
nonconformities, of this ordinance.
28 30.6.6.2 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
OF STRUCTURES An owner may repair
and maintain a nonconforming structure or a
structure occupied or used by a
nonconforming use as provided in Section
6.2(C), 6.3(A)(3) and 6.3(B) of this chapter,
upon determination by the zoning
administrator that such repair or
maintenance would not be contrary to the
intent and purposes of this section 30.6.
Repair and maintenance are addressed
under 30.6.5 Exemptions. See below.
29 30.6.6.3 EXEMPTIONS (Added 5-18-94) 30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to
obtain certificate of appropriateness
30 The provisions of section 30.6.4.1
notwithstanding, no certificate of
appropriateness shall be required for the
following activities:
a. The following exemptions shall apply to
all buildings and structures:
1. Interior alterations to a building or
structure having no effect on exterior
appearance of the building or structure.
2. Construction of ramps and other
modifications to serve the handicapped in
accord with section 4.9.
3. The repair and maintenance of structures
authorized pursuant to section 30.6.6.2.
(Amended 6-14-00)
4. Main and accessory residential, forestal
and agricultural buildings where no site
development plan is required for the work
subject to the building permit.
The following development is exempt from the
requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is
required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site
plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters (section
5.1.18(a)), temporary construction yards (section
5.1.18(b)), and temporary mobile homes (section 5.7).
d. Agricultural product signs, temporary signs and
sandwich board signs.
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site
improvements where there is no substantial change in
design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming
structures or site improvements as authorized by
section 6.3(B).
The list of exemptions has been
expanded to include: temporary
construction headquarters, temporary
construction yards, temporary mobile
homes, temporary signs,
changes/repair/maintenance to
improvements that don’t constitute a
substantial change in design, and sub-
permits associated with building
permits for which the main
construction permit has already been
approved. Primary and accessory
dwelling units have been added to the
list. These additions would codify
long-standing ARB practice.
Agricultural products signs were
added as an exempt class of signs to
coordinate with the changes
proposed in the farm wineries and
farm stands/farm sales/farmers’
markets ZTAs recently reviewed by
the BOS.
The sub-permit exemption would
ATTACHMENT C
5. General maintenance where no
substantial change in design or material is
proposed.
6. Additions or modifications to a building
where no substantial change in design or
material is proposed as determined by the
zoning administrator.
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site
improvements where there is no substantial change in
design or materials.
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent
necessary to comply with the minimum requirements
of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair
Housing Act, or any other similar federal or state law
providing for the reasonable accommodation of
persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming
structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3) and
6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no
change in the exterior appearance of the structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-
203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit has also
been issued and the work authorized by the permit
classified in those sections does not change the
external appearance of the structure.
eliminate duplicate review of permits
following issuance of a CofA.
Additional procedures will need to be
established to take advantage of the
sub-permit provision.
The amendment adds “site
improvements” in sections e, f and g,
consistent with current practice.
31 30.6.7 ADMINISTRATION Sec. 30.6.6 Submittal,
review and action on
application; preliminary
review
Sec. 30.6.7 Submittal,
review and action on
application; final review
The “Administration” section has
been expanded to outline submittal
and review processes for both
preliminary and final EC applications,
thereby eliminating inconsistencies in
the current application procedure.
(See the flow chart for a graphic
representation of this
submittal/review process.)
32 Section 30.6, entrance corridor overlay
district - EC, shall be administered by an
architectural review board created and
appointed by the board of supervisors of
Albemarle County pursuant to section 34A,
architectural review board, of this
Applications for
preliminary review under
section 30.6 shall be subject
to the following:
Applications for final
review under section 30.6
shall be subject to the
following:
The proposed text of section 30.6
outlines the submittal and review
process for preliminary applications.
The proposed text of section 30.7
outlines the submittal and review
process for final applications.
ATTACHMENT C
ordinance. Sections 30.6 and 30.7 are very
similar and are presented here side-
by-side for comparison.
33 The architectural review board shall be
responsible for issuance of certificates of
appropriateness as required by this section.
Application for a certificate of
appropriateness together with a fee as set
forth in section 35.0, fees, of this ordinance
shall be filed by the owner or contract
purchaser of the subject property with the
zoning administrator. Materials submitted
with the application or on subsequent
request by the architectural review board
shall include all plans, maps, studies and
reports which may be reasonably required to
make the determinations called for in the
particular case, with sufficient copies for
necessary referrals and records.
a. Applications. An
application for preliminary
review shall contain a
completed county-provided
application form and
supplemental information
required by the director of
planning (the
“application”). The
application may be filed
with the department of
community development by
the owner, the owner’s
agent, or a contract
purchaser with the owner’s
written consent (the
“applicant”). Eight (8)
collated copies of the
application and all other
information required by the
application form for a
preliminary review shall be
filed. The application shall
be accompanied by the fee
required by section 35 at
the time of its filing.
a.Applications. An
application for final review
shall contain a completed
county-provided
application form and
supplemental information
required by the director of
planning (the
“application”). The
application may be filed by
the owner, the owner’s
agent, or a contract
purchaser with the owner’s
written consent (the
“applicant”), with the
department of community
development. Eight (8)
collated copies of the
application and all other
information required by the
application form for a final
review shall be filed. The
application shall be
accompanied by the fee
required by section 35 at
the time of its filing.
Changes here allow the owner’s agent
to make application and require
owner’s written consent. The consent
is a new requirement for EC
applications, but is consistent with the
requirements for other similar
applications. The remainder of this
section describes current practice.
34 The zoning administrator shall forward the
application together with all accompanying
materials to the architectural review board
within five (5) calendar days of the date of
application.
Notice of application submittal shall be sent
by first class mail to each member of the
commission and board of supervisors. No
30.6.6.e. Notice of
submitted application. The
director of planning shall
send a notice to each
member of the board of
supervisors, the
commission and the
architectural review board
that an application has been
30.6.7.e. Notice of
submitted application. The
director of planning shall
send a notice to each
member of the board of
supervisors, the
commission and the
architectural review board
that an application has been
Changes in this section would
simplify notification requirements by
allowing for electronic mailing of
such notification, which has been a
long-standing practice. Changes also
modify the notification procedure to
coordinate with the requirement for
determining if an application is
complete.
ATTACHMENT C
certificate of appropriateness shall be issued
within ten (10) calendar days of the date of
mailing of such notice. The notice shall
state the type of use proposed, specific
location of development, including
magisterial district, appropriate county
office where the application may be
reviewed and date of the architectural
review board meeting.
officially submitted. The
notice shall be sent within
five (5) days after the
application is determined to
be complete. The notice
shall provide the location of
the development by street
address and magisterial
district, identify the
proposed use(s), state that
the application may be
reviewed in the offices of
the department of
community development,
and provide the date of the
architectural review board
meeting at which the
application will be
considered.
officially submitted. The
notice shall be sent within
five (5) days after the
application is determined to
be complete. The notice
shall provide the location of
the development by street
address and magisterial
district, identify the
proposed use(s), state that
the application may be
reviewed in the offices of
the department of
community development,
and provide the date of the
architectural review board
meeting at which the
application will be
considered.
35 Upon receipt of an application, the
architectural review board shall schedule
the same for hearing and shall cause such
notice to be sent as herein above required.
The architectural review board shall confer
with the applicant and shall approve or
disapprove such application and, if
approved, shall issue a certificate of
appropriateness therefor, with or without
conditions together with such modifications
as deemed necessary to insure compliance
with this section.
30.6.6.g. Recommendations
and decisions. The
architectural review board
shall review the application
for consistency with the
applicable design
guidelines as follows:
30.6.6.g.1.Recommendation
and decision on
preliminary review. In
making its
recommendations on
applications for preliminary
review, the board shall
consider the
recommendations of the
agent, the statements and
information provided by the
30.6.7.g. Decisions. The
architectural review board
shall review the application
for consistency with the
applicable design
guidelines, exercising the
authority granted by section
30.6. In making a decision
on an application for a
certificate of
appropriateness and other
applications for review, the
board shall consider the
recommendations of the
agent, the statements and
information provided by the
applicant, and any other
information pertaining to
the compliance of the
This section has been reworded and
expanded for consistency with the
preliminary and final review
procedures outlined elsewhere in this
draft.
ATTACHMENT C
applicant, and any other
information pertaining to
the compliance of the
application with the
requirements of section
30.6. In making a decision
on the application for
preliminary review, the
board also may make any
recommendations it deems
appropriate. The board
shall send notice to the
applicant of its decision on
the preliminary review.
application with the
requirements of section
30.6.
36 30.6.6.g.2. Decision as
action on final review. The
board, in its discretion, may
determine that additional
review of the application is
not necessary and make a
decision on the application
under section 30.6.7(g).
The ARB process is typically a two-
step process, with a preliminary
review followed by a final review.
Occasionally, only a single review is
required by the ARB. This new text
clarifies that the ARB may take a
final action on a preliminary review.
37 1.Issue or deny. In making
a decision on an application
for a certificate of
appropriateness, the board
may issue the certificate of
appropriateness and impose
conditions and grant
modifications if it finds that
the application is consistent
with the applicable design
guidelines, or would be
consistent with the
applicable design
guidelines subject to
conditions of approval or
specified modifications.
This section has been reworded and
expanded for consistency with the
preliminary and final review
procedures outlined elsewhere in this
draft.
ATTACHMENT C
The board shall send notice
to the applicant of its
decision on the final
review.
38 2.Recommendations. In
lieu of issuing or denying a
certificate of
appropriateness, the board
may make any
recommendations it deems
appropriate to the applicant
to revise the application so
that it is consistent with the
applicable design
guidelines before the board
acts to issue or deny the
application. If the time for
a decision under section
30.6.7(f) would expire
before the application could
be thereafter considered by
the board, the board must
obtain the applicant’s
consent to extend the time
for decision.
This new text clarifies that with the
applicant’s consent, the ARB can
postpone approving or denying an
application when additional revisions
would make the proposal consistent
with the guidelines. This describes
current practice.
39 Failure of the architectural review board to
approve or disapprove such application
within sixty (60) days from the date of
application shall be deemed to constitute
approval of the application.
30.6.6.f. Time for decision.
An application shall be
acted on within sixty (60)
days after the date the
original application was
officially submitted or by a
later date requested by or
agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision
date”).
30.6.7.f. Time for decision.
An application shall be
acted on within sixty (60)
days after the date the
original application was
officially submitted or by a
later date requested by or
agreed to by the applicant
(collectively, the “decision
date”).
This section clarifies that an
application must be acted on in 60
days, which is current practice, or
later at the applicant’s
request/agreement.
40 1. When application may be
deemed approved. If the
decision date has passed
This section outlines specific steps
required for approving a final
application if the 60-day review
ATTACHMENT C
without the application
being acted upon, the
applicant may make a
written demand for action
that is delivered to the
director of planning. If the
board fails to act on the
application within twenty-
one (21) days after the
receipt of the written
demand, the application
shall be deemed to be
approved.
2.Notice if application
deemed approved. If an
application is deemed
approved, the agent shall
send notice that the
application was deemed
approved to the applicant,
the zoning administrator
and the county executive.
The notice shall be sent
within five (5) days after
the expiration of the
twenty-one (21) day period
in which the architectural
review board had to act.
3.Consent to extend time
for decision. The applicant
may consent to extend the
time for a decision.
period expires without the ARB
taking action. Although the review
period rarely expires, staff recognizes
that in situations where significant
amounts of time have lapsed in
negotiation for changes, the applicant
could demand approval of the original
proposal at the end of the 60 days.
The new provision would allow for
ARB action in this situation.
Staff has requested this clarification
to address reviews that are extended
due to the need for multiple rounds of
revisions, or due to long periods of
time that lapse between the end of the
comment period and the submittal of
revisions.
41 30.6.6.b. Determination of
complete application;
rejection of incomplete
application. An application
30.6.7.b. Determination of
complete application;
rejection of incomplete
application. An application
This and the following several
sections are all new text intended to
address concerns of staff and the
ARB related to the acceptance and
ATTACHMENT C
that provides the
information required by
section 30.6.6(a) shall be
accepted for review and
decision. The agent shall
make a determination as to
whether an application is
complete within ten (10)
days after the submittal
deadline.
1. Complete application;
date deemed to be officially
submitted. The date of the
next application deadline
following the submittal of a
complete application shall
be deemed to be the date
upon which the application
was officially submitted.
that provides the
information required by
section 30.6.7(a) shall be
accepted for review and
decision. The agent shall
make a determination as to
whether an application is
complete within ten (10)
days after the submittal
deadline.
1.Complete application;
date deemed to be officially
submitted. The date of the
next application deadline
following the submittal of a
complete application shall
be deemed to be the date
upon which the application
was officially submitted.
review of incomplete applications.
These sections outline the specific
steps to be taken for processing
complete and incomplete
applications, and for re-submitted
applications. The new text is intended
to encourage the submittal of
complete applications, and to
eliminate time wasted in the review of
incomplete applications.
This section clarifies the official
submittal date.
42 2. Incomplete application;
notice to applicant. An
application omitting
information required by
section 30.6.6(a) shall be
deemed to be incomplete
and shall not be accepted.
The agent shall inform the
applicant in writing of the
reasons why the application
was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent
does not deliver the notice
within the ten (10) day
period, the application shall
be accepted for review,
provided that the agent may
require the applicant to later
2.Incomplete application;
notice to applicant. An
application omitting
information required by
section 30.6.7(a) shall be
deemed to be incomplete
and shall not be accepted.
The agent shall inform the
applicant in writing of the
reasons why the application
was rejected as being
incomplete. If the agent
does not deliver the notice
within the ten (10) day
period, the application shall
be accepted for review,
provided that the agent may
require the applicant to later
This section allows incomplete
applications to be rejected and
outlines the steps necessary for doing
so. It requires that the applicant be
notified within 10 days of the
submittal deadline.
ATTACHMENT C
provide omitted
information within a period
specified by the agent of
not less than ten (10) days,
and further provided that if
the applicant fails to timely
provide the omitted
information the agent may
deem the application to be
incomplete and reject the
application as provided
herein.
provide omitted
information within a period
specified by the agent of
not less than ten (10) days,
and further provided that if
the applicant fails to timely
provide the omitted
information the agent may
deem the application to be
incomplete and reject the
application as provided
herein.
43 30.6.6.c. Resubmittal of
application originally
determined to be
incomplete. Within fifteen
(15) days after the date the
notice of rejection was
mailed or delivered by the
agent as provided in section
30.6.6(b), the applicant may
resubmit the application
with all of the information
required by section
30.6.6(a) together with
payment of the fee for the
reinstatement of review.
The date of the next
application deadline
following the resubmittal of
the application shall be
deemed to be the date upon
which the application was
officially submitted. If the
applicant fails to resubmit
the application within the
fifteen (15) day period, the
application shall be deemed
30.6.7.c. Resubmittal of
application originally
determined to be
incomplete. Within fifteen
(15) days after the date the
notice of rejection was
mailed or delivered by the
agent as provided in section
30.6.7(b), the applicant may
resubmit the application
with all of the information
required by section
30.6.7(a) together with
payment of the fee for the
reinstatement of review.
The date of the next
application deadline
following the resubmittal of
the application shall be
deemed to be the date upon
which the application was
officially submitted. If the
applicant fails to resubmit
the application within the
fifteen (15) day period, the
application shall be deemed
This section outlines the steps
required for accepting resubmitted
applications that were originally
incomplete. It allows the applicant 15
days to submit a complete
application, and it requires a
reinstatement fee. It moves the
official submittal date to correspond
with the resubmittal date and it allows
for denial of the application if
resubmittal is not made within the 15
days.
ATTACHMENT C
to be denied and a new
application and fee shall be
required to submit the new
application.
to be denied and a new
application and fee shall be
required to submit the new
application.
44 30.6.6.d. Resubmittal of
revised application
originally determined to be
complete. During the
review process of a
complete application, the
director of planning (for
county-wide certificates of
appropriateness) or the
architectural review board
may request further
revisions to the application
in order to find that the
application is consistent
with the applicable design
guidelines, or the applicant
may revise the application
on its own initiative in the
absence of such a request,
subject to the following:
1.Request for revision. The
director of planning or the
architectural review board
shall inform the applicant in
writing of the requested
revisions to the application.
The letter shall inform the
applicant that if it chooses
to make some or all of the
requested revisions, it shall
notify the director of
planning within fifteen (15)
days of the date of the
30.6.7.d. Resubmittal of
revised application
originally determined to be
complete. During the
review process of a
complete application, the
director of planning (for
county-wide certificates of
appropriateness) or the
architectural review board
may request further
revisions to the application
in order to find that the
application is consistent
with the applicable design
guidelines, or the applicant
may revise the application
on its own initiative in the
absence of such a request,
subject to the following:
1.Request for revision. The
director of planning or the
architectural review board
shall inform the applicant in
writing of the requested
revisions to the application.
The letter shall inform the
applicant that if it chooses
to make some or all of the
requested revisions, it shall
notify the director of
planning within fifteen (15)
days of the date of the
This section clarifies the process to be
followed when additional information
or revisions are submitted for an
application that has been determined
to be complete. This situation would
occur when all submittal materials
have been provided, but staff has
identified aspects of the proposal that
don’t meet the EC Guidelines.
This section requires the suspension
of the 60-day review period if the
applicant chooses to provide
revisions. But, these provisions also
allow the applicant to choose not to
provide the revisions and remain on
the original review schedule, which
addresses Planning Commission
concerns about maintaining some
flexibility in stopping the review
clock, balanced with the need to keep
the review process moving forward.
ATTACHMENT C
writing. The letter shall
also inform the applicant
that it may choose to
proceed to action on the
application without further
revisions, and request that
the applicant notify the
director of planning within
fifteen (15) days of the date
of the letter if it desires to
do so. The failure of the
applicant to respond to the
letter shall be presumed to
be a request by the
applicant to proceed to
action on the application
without further revisions,
provided that an untimely
notification by the applicant
that it desires to make some
or all of the requested
revisions shall not preclude
the applicant from doing so.
2.Revision on applicant’s
initiative. The applicant
may revise the application
at any time, provided that
the applicant should inform
the director of planning of
it doing so when that
decision is made.
3.Suspension of decision
date. The receipt by the
director of planning of a
writing from the applicant
stating that it will revise its
writing. The letter shall
also inform the applicant
that it may choose to
proceed to action on the
application without further
revisions, and request that
the applicant notify the
director of planning within
fifteen (15) days of the date
of the letter if it desires to
do so. The failure of the
applicant to respond to the
letter shall be presumed to
be a request by the
applicant to proceed to
action on the application
without further revisions,
provided that an untimely
notification by the applicant
that it desires to make some
or all of the requested
revisions shall not preclude
the applicant from doing so.
2.Revision on applicant’s
initiative. The applicant
may revise the application
at any time, provided that
the applicant should inform
the director of planning of
it doing so when that
decision is made.
3.Suspension of decision
date. The receipt by the
director of planning of a
writing from the applicant
stating that it will revise its
ATTACHMENT C
application shall suspend
the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be
made on the application
under subsection 30.6.6(f).
4.Date revised application
deemed to be officially
resubmitted. The date of
the next application
deadline following the
resubmittal of a revised and
complete application shall
be deemed to be the date
upon which the application
was officially resubmitted
and the sixty (60) day
period in which a decision
must be made on the
application shall
recommence.
application shall suspend
the sixty (60) day period in
which a decision must be
made on the application
under subsection 30.6.7(f).
4.Date revised application
deemed to be officially
resubmitted. The date of
the next application
deadline following the
resubmittal of a revised and
complete application shall
be deemed to be the date
upon which the application
was officially resubmitted
and the sixty (60) day
period in which a decision
must be made on the
application shall
recommence.
45 30.6.6.h.Modes of sending
notices, letters and other
writings. Notices, letters
and other writings required
by subsections 30.6.6(b),
(d), (e) and (g) shall be
mailed to the identified
recipients by first class
mail, be personally
delivered to the applicant,
or be sent by email.
30.6.7.j.Modes of sending
notices, letters and other
writings. Notices, letters
and other writings required
by subsections 30.6.7(b),
(d), (e), and (g) shall be
mailed to the identified
recipients by first class
mail, be personally
delivered to the applicant,
or be sent by email.
These sections have been added for
clarification regarding the method of
sending correspondence. It allows for
email, which is already standard
practice.
46 30.6.7.h. Period of validity
of certificate of
appropriateness. A
certificate of
appropriateness shall be
valid for the same period
This is all new text. It addresses
staff’s request for the addition of a
provision for expiration of CofAs to
accommodate updates to guidelines
and policies. It aligns the period of
validity for an ARB approval with
ATTACHMENT C
that the site plan is valid or,
if no site plan is required
for the structure or site
improvements, for three (3)
years. The architectural
review board may extend
the period of validity of a
certificate of
appropriateness upon the
written request of the
applicant. The written
request must be received by
the director of planning
before the certificate’s
period of validity expires
and, upon receipt, the
running of the period of
validity shall be suspended
until the architectural
review board acts on the
request. The board may
grant an extension
determined to be
reasonable, taking into
consideration the size and
phasing of the proposed
development and the laws,
ordinances, regulations and
design guidelines in effect
at the time of the request
for an extension and
changes thereto since the
certificate of
appropriateness was
originally issued.
that of a site plan, as recommended
by the Planning Commission and the
ARB. It also allows the applicant to
request an extension of the approval.
47 i. Resubmittal of similar
denied application. An
applicant may not submit
This is new text added at staff’s
request to limit re-hearing of denied
proposals.
ATTACHMENT C
an application that is
substantially the same as
the denied application
within one (1) year after the
date of denial.
48 30.6.6.i.Application
defined. For the purposes
of sections 30.6.6 and
30.6.7, the term
“application” means an
application for a certificate
of appropriateness and a
review to determine
whether submitted
drawings satisfy the
conditions of a certificate of
appropriateness, and any
other request by an
applicant for review.
This section has been added so that
the proposed review timeline applies
to all types of EC submittals that
require review.
49 (30.6.7 cont.) Nothing contained in section
30.6, entrance corridor overlay district - EC,
shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or
otherwise impair the commission in its
exercise of preliminary or final site
development plan review as set forth in
section 32.0, site development plan, of this
ordinance. It is the express intent of the
board of supervisors that matters related to
public health and safety as may be defined
by the commission shall prevail over issues
of aesthetics as may be defined by the
architectural review board. Therefore, the
commission in its review of any preliminary
or final site development plan may modify,
vary or waive any requirement of the
certificate of appropriateness as issued by
the architectural review board upon finding
that such action would better serve the
Sec. 30.6.9 Public health or safety considered
Where the public health or safety and any requirement of
this section 30.6 or any term or condition of a certificate
of appropriateness conflict, the public health or safety
shall prevail. In addition:
Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise,
limit, or otherwise impair the agent or the commission in
their review of a preliminary or final site plan under
section 32. In their review of any preliminary or final site
plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or
waive any term or condition of a certificate of
appropriateness upon finding that such action would better
serve the public health or safety, provided that the agent
may modify, vary or waive such a term or condition only
after consulting with the building official, the county
engineer, a representative of the department of fire rescue
or other public official who advises the agent that the
Changes in this section clarify the
relationship between EC requirements
and public health/safety issues. At the
recommendation of the PC, new text
specifies that an ARB condition may
be waived for public health/safety
reasons only after consultation with
the building official, the county
engineer, a representative of
fire/rescue, etc.
The last sentence of this section was
added to clarify that improvements
required by the Zoning
Administrator to protect the public
health or safety prior to issuing a
Certificate of Occupancy under
31.4(d) are not subject to ARB
approval.
ATTACHMENT C
public health or safety. public health or safety would be at risk if the condition is
not modified, varied or waived.
Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to impair the
authority of the zoning administrator under section
31.4(d).
50 30.6.8 APPEALS Sec. 30.6.8 Appeals
51 The board of supervisors reserves unto itself
the right to review all decisions of the
architectural review board made in the
administration of section 30.6 which, in its
discretion, it shall deem necessary to the
proper administration hereof.
Any person aggrieved by any decision of
the architectural review board in the
administration of this section may demand a
review of the application by the board of
supervisors. Such demand shall be made by
filing a request therefore in writing with the
clerk of the board of supervisors within ten
(10) calendar days of the date of such
decision. The board of supervisors may
affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in
part, the decision of the architectural review
board. When considering an appeal
pertaining to a public safety facility, the
board may issue a certificate of
appropriateness if it finds that the facility is
a public necessity. In considering an appeal,
the board of supervisors shall give due
consideration to the recommendations of the
architectural review board together with
such other evidence as it deems necessary
for a proper review of the application.
Any person or persons jointly or severally
aggrieved by any decision of the board of
A decision of the architectural review board on an
application for a certificate of appropriateness and other
applications for review, and an application deemed
approved under section 30.6.7(f), may be appealed to the
board of supervisors as follows:
a.Persons and entities having right to appeal. An appeal
may be filed by the applicant, any person aggrieved, the
zoning administrator, or the county executive.
b.Written appeal required; timing for filing. An appeal
shall be in writing and be filed with the clerk of the board
of supervisors within ten (10) days after the date of the
architectural review board’s decision under section
30.6.7(f), or within ten (10) days after the date of the
required notice if the application is deemed approved
under section 30.6.7(f). The appeal shall state the grounds
for the appeal.
c.Consideration of appeal by board of supervisors. The
board of supervisors may affirm, reverse, or modify in
whole or in part the issuing, the issuing with conditions or
modifications, or the denial of the certificate of
appropriateness. In so doing, the board shall give due
consideration to the recommendations of the architectural
review board together with any other information it deems
necessary for a proper review of the appeal. When
considering an appeal pertaining to a public safety facility,
the board may issue a certificate of appropriateness if it
finds that the facility is a public necessity.
This section generated discussion at
the PC. Currently, the ARB, PC and
BOS members can appeal a decision
of the ARB. This practice is not
consistent with other comparable
appeal provisions. Revised text in this
section provides for appeal by the
applicant, aggrieved persons, the
zoning administrator and the county
executive. The other provisions of
this section haven’t changed.
ATTACHMENT C
supervisors may appeal such decision to the
circuit court of the county for review by
filing a petition at law, setting forth the
alleged illegality of the action of the board
of supervisors, provided such petition is
filed within thirty (30) days after the final
decision is rendered by the board of
supervisors. The filing of said petition shall
stay the decision of the board of supervisors
pending the outcome of
the appeal to the court.
For the purposes of this section, the term
"person aggrieved" shall be limited to the
applicant, the architectural review board or
any member thereof, the commission or any
member thereof, the agent, the zoning
administrator, the county executive, the
board of supervisors or any member thereof.
d. Appeal of board of supervisors’ decision. The applicant
or any person aggrieved may appeal the final decision of
the board of supervisors to the circuit court by filing a
petition setting forth the alleged illegality of the action of
the board of supervisors. The petition shall be filed within
thirty (30) days after the date of the final decision.
52 Sec. 3.1 Definitions
Certificate of appropriateness: A decision made by the
architectural review board or, on appeal, by the board of
supervisors, certifying that a proposed structure and/or site
improvements located within the entrance corridor overlay
district, as may be modified by terms and conditions of the
certificate, are consistent with the applicable design
guidelines.
Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision
made by the architectural review board establishing
specific design criteria consistent with applicable design
guidelines for a class of structures, sites, improvements, or
architectural elements. The decision applies to any
structure, site, improvement or architectural element
within that class that complies with the specific design
criteria.
The Planning Commission asked that
a definition be provided for the
county-wide CofA. The CofA and c-
wCofA definitions are being added
for clarity. The county-wide CofA is a
new approach to reviewing EC
applications. It would allow similar
classes of structures/improvements to
be reviewed/approved by staff
without being heard at an ARB
meeting, if criteria previously
outlined by the ARB for that specific
type of improvement or structure have
been met. Some examples of
structures and improvements for
which the c-wCofA might be utilized
include: telecommunications
facilities, buildings located 2000’ or
more from the EC, and minor
ATTACHMENT C
alterations to buildings and
landscaping.
53 Nonconforming Structure: The term
“nonconforming structure” means a lawful
structure existing on the effective date of
the zoning regulations applicable to the
district in which the structure is located, that
does not comply with the minimum
applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area
or other structure requirements of that
district.
Nonconforming Structure: The term “nonconforming
structure” means a lawful structure existing on the
effective date of the zoning regulations applicable to the
district, including any overlay district, in which the
structure is located, that does not comply with the
minimum applicable bulk, height, setback, floor area or
other structure requirements of that district.
The “nonconforming structure”
definition is being revised to clarify
that it pertains to overlay districts.
54 Sec. 4.15.15 Signs - Regulations
applicable in the entrance corridor
overlay district
Sec. 4.15.15 Signs - Regulations applicable in the
entrance corridor overlay district
55 In addition to all other regulations set forth
in this section 4.15, the following
regulations shall apply within the entrance
corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required.
Prior to the erection of a sign that would be
visible from an entrance corridor street,
including a sign erected on or visible
through a window on a structure, the owner
or lessee of the lot on which the sign will be
located shall obtain a certificate of
appropriateness for that sign.
In addition to all other regulations set forth in this section
4.15, the following regulations shall apply within the
entrance corridor overlay zoning district:
a. Certificate of appropriateness required. Prior to the
erection of a sign that would be visible from an entrance
corridor street, including a sign erected on or visible
through a window on a structure, the owner or lessee of
the lot on which the sign will be located shall obtain a
certificate of appropriateness for that sign unless the sign
is exempt under section 30.6.5.
This text has been revised to clarify
that it doesn’t apply to signs that are
exempt under 30.6.5.
56 b. Authority and procedure for acting upon
application for certificate of
appropriateness. The authority and
procedure for acting upon an application for
a certificate of appropriateness for a sign
shall be as set forth in sections 30.6.4,
30.6.7 and 30.6.8 of this chapter, and as
follows:
b.Authority and procedure for acting upon application for
certificate of appropriateness. The authority and
procedure for acting upon an application for a certificate
of appropriateness for a sign shall be as set forth in section
30.6.
No substantive change.
57 1. The agent is authorized to review and act
upon an application for a certificate of
appropriateness for a sign if the sign will
The current language in this section
of the ordinance allows staff to
process most sign applications
ATTACHMENT C
not require a variance and the sign: (i) will
either not be internally illuminated or will
be internally illuminated with an opaque
background; (ii) will replace an existing
sign that will be substantially the same as
the existing sign; or (iii) will be in a multi-
business complex or shopping center, the
architectural review board has completed its
comprehensive sign review therefore and
the sign will meet all of the requirements
established by the architectural review
board during its review. The agent may
require that a sign otherwise eligible for
review by the agent be reviewed by the
architectural review board.
2. The architectural review board shall
review and act upon an application for a
certificate of appropriateness for each sign
that is not eligible for review by the agent as
provided in subsection (B)(1), or that is
referred to the architectural review board by
the agent.
without forwarding them to the ARB
for review. In the proposed draft,
most of this language is deleted. The
current practice of staff review of sign
applications will be able to continue
after a county-wide Certificate of
Appropriateness is processed. The
county-wide certificate will identify
the criteria by which the application
must be reviewed/approved, including
the criteria outlined in the current text
of the ordinance. Signs in shopping
centers are also addressed in
30.6.4.b.2.
58 3. Each application for a certificate of
appropriateness shall be accompanied by a
site plan that shows the location of all signs
proposed to be erected on the lot or lots
subject to the site plan.
c. Scope of review and authority to impose
conditions. Each application for a certificate
of appropriateness for a sign shall be
reviewed for consistency with the purposes
and requirements of this section 4.15 and
the architectural review board’s design
guidelines, and conditions may be imposed
upon the certificate of appropriateness to
assure such consistency, including but not
limited to conditions minimizing window
signs.
30.6.4.c.6. Appearance of signs. In addition to the
applicable requirements of section 4.15, the appropriate
style, size, colors, materials, illumination and location of
all proposed signs, and any other applicable design
guidelines. Each application for a certificate of
appropriateness for one or more signs shall be
accompanied by a site plan or sketch plan that shows the
location of all signs proposed to be erected on the lot or
lots subject to the site plan or sketch plan.
No substantive change.
ATTACHMENT C
59 d. Comprehensive sign review. For each
proposed new multi-business complex or
shopping center, the architectural review
board shall conduct a comprehensive sign
review prior to issuing a certificate of
appropriateness. The review shall include,
but not be limited to, a review and
determination of the appropriate style, size,
colors, materials, illumination and location
of all proposed signs, and any other
provisions of the architectural review
board’s design guidelines.
30.6.4.b.2.Signs in a new multi-business complex or
shopping center. For all of the signs in a new multi-
business complex or shopping center, where the
architectural review board first conducts a comprehensive
sign review. Once a certificate of appropriateness for
signs in a new multi-business complex or shopping center
is issued, the director of planning is authorized to
determine whether a particular sign satisfies the conditions
of the certificate of appropriateness.
No substantive change.
60 4.15.15.c. Opaque backgrounds. All internally
illuminated box-style and cabinet-style signs shall have an
opaque background.
The EC sign design guidelines have
included a guideline for opaque
backgrounds for internally
illuminated cabinet signs since 2004,
and the ARB consistently required
opaque backgrounds for such signs
prior to 2004. The proposed changes
in these sections codify this
requirement. Both staff and the ARB
have requested this change to
facilitate sign review and approval.
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 15, 2009
Public Hearing Items:
ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Amendments
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.15, Regulations applicable to the entrance corridor
overlay district, and 30.6.8, Appeals; Amend and rename Secs. 30.6.1, Intent, 30.6.2, Application, 30.6.3,
Permitted uses, 30.6.4, Area and bulk regulations; minimum yards and setback requirements; height
regulations; landscaping and screening; preservation of natural features, and 30.6.7, Administration;
Amend, renumber and rename Secs. 30.6.3.1, By right, 30.6.3.2, By special use permit, 30.6.6,
Nonconformities; exemptions, 30.6.6.1, Untitled, 30.6.6.2, Repair and maintenance of structures,
30.6.6.3, Exemptions; Add Secs. 30.6.6, Submittal, review and action on application; preliminary review,
and 30.6.9, Public health or safety considered; and repeal Sec. 30.6.5, Signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of
the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend and reorganize the regulation pertaining to
lands within the ECOD by adding and amending definitions related to the ECOD ((All references are to
new Sec. numbers) 3.1 and 4.15.2; amending the regulation of signs in the ECOD by requiring certain
sign styles to have opaque backgrounds and moving the sign review regulations to Sec. 30.6 (4.15.15);
amending the stated purpose and intent of the ECOD (30.6.1); restating the existing boundaries of the
ECOD (30.6.2); amending the permitted uses and applicable standards for development in the ECOD,
and combining those regulations in a single section (30.6.3); clarifying the types of development for which
a certificate of appropriateness ("CA") is required, establishing a new class of CA - the county-wide CA -
to allow expedited review of certain classes of development, and delineating the scope and authority of
the architectural review board ("ARB") in reviewing an application for a CA (30.6.4); expanding the types
of development exempt from the requirements of Sec. 30.6 (30.6.5); deline ating the procedures for the
submittal, review and action on an application for a CA, for both preliminary (30.6.6) and final review
(30.6.7); restating the procedure to appeal a decision of the ARB to the Board of Supervisors (30.6.8);
and, amending the authority of the planning commission to supersede any condition or requirement of a
CA for any public health or safety reason, and expanding that authority to the agent under prescribed
circumstances (30.6.9). A copy of the full text of the ordinance is o n file in the office of the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Margaret Maliszewski)
Ms. Maliszewski noted tonight the Commission was reviewing the most recent changes to the draft
amendment to the Entrance Corridor sections of the Zoning Ordinance. This draft is dated December 7,
2009. The changes are primarily to address the Commission’s comments from the last work session on
November 17. Many of those changes are rewording for better clarity. Other changes are related to
additional information that has been added regarding the county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness.
Staff reviewed the comparison table in the staff report to note the more significant changes, which were
underlined in the comparison table that was included as an attachment to the staff report. (See Staff
Report)
In Section 3.1 the definition of county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness has been clarified with
the addition of the words “sites” and ”architectural elements”, as noted below.
Certificate of appropriateness, county-wide: A decision made by the architectural review board
establishing specific design criteria consistent with applicable design guidelines for a class of structures,
sites, improvements, or architectural elements. The decision applies to any structure, site, improvement
or architectural element within that class that complies with the specific design criteria.
Minor wording changes have been made in 30.6.1 INTENT that don’t change the meaning of the section.
In 30.6.2 Boundaries of the district: The words “routes” and “significant routes of tourist access” have
been changed to “Entrance Corridor streets”.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
2
In Section 30.6.4 Certificates of Appropriateness the following changes were made to clarify the following:
- Building permits in the Entrance Corridors do require ARB approval even if a site plan is not
required for that project. That is current practice.
- Under #3 is where county-wide Certificate of Appropriateness has been expanded. Section 3a,
factors considered in issuing, has been added following suggestions at the Commission’s last
work session that the parameters of the county-wide certificate should be outlined more
specifically. That is what has been done under 3a.
- Section 3b, design criteria has been added to outline more specifically the types of design
features that the ARB specifies as criteria for the certificate. The factors listed in 3a would allow
the types of projects that were discussed back in the early work sessions and joint meetings of
the Planning Commission, Board of Supervisors and ARB -- the types of things that the ARB
would consider establishing the county-wide certificates for, such as telecommunication facilities,
developments 2,000 feet or more from the Entrance Corridor, minor amendments, etc. Under
design criteria #9 that reads other architectural or design features required for compliance with
the architectural design guidelines there has been more thought about this particular section.
That particular criteria is a very important one and staff is recommending that it should be made a
more prominent consideration in the text. Staff has recommended a minor change to bring that
out more specifically.
- Sections 3c and 3d, action and appeal, addresses the review process for the county-wide
certificate. This is an addition since it was not outlined this specifically in the last version. Under
section c it says that the director of planning determines if the proposal meets the criteria that had
been established by the ARB, but the Director can forward that proposal on to the ARB for a
decision if that is found to be the better route for that particular proposal. Section 3d says that an
applicant who wants this sort of determination made needs to submit an application for review.
Section 3d1 says if the director determines that proposal, which has been received, does not
meet the criteria that had been established by the ARB, that the applicant can appeal the decision
to the ARB. Section 3d2 says that if the ARB determines that the proposal does not meet the
criteria that the applicant can appeal that decision to the Board of Supervisors. That is the
current process.
There being no questions on the process, Ms. Maliszewski continued.
- Section 30.6.6.g.1 has been added. This section clarifies that the ARB can make a final decision
on a preliminary application. Generally the ARB process is a two -step process with a preliminary
first with the applicant com ing back for a final. On occasion the ARB will find that only one review
is needed. This is simply saying that an applicant does not have to come back for a final if the
ARB thinks a single review is all that is required.
- In row #39 a section has been added to address the times when an applicant has gone through a
preliminary review and is back for a final review and the ARB is not ready to approve the
application yet. If the applicant agrees the ARB would not have to approve or deny, but the
applicant could come back again with the additional revisions that the ARB suggests.
- In signs and definitions there had been a request to revise the opaque background definition to
not use word the word “background” in the definition. The definition has been revised.
- The flow chart has been revised. Staff added some color and made some other changes based
on the Commission’s recommendations. The ARB also had some recommendations on the flow
charts to simplify them. The overall flow chart was broken down into two separate ones that
simplify the process for complete applications and incomplete applications. Staff presented and
explained the revised flow charts for a complete application and the simplified version of the
process for an incomplete application.
Mr. Morris noted that the yellow was very difficult to see especially on paper.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
3
Ms. Maliszewski reviewed the flow chart for an incomplete application that outlined all of the options. An
incomplete application comes in and staff either informs the applica nt or doesn’t. If the applicant does get
informed within the time period, the applicant has 15 days to resubmit. That would be with a restatement
fee. If the applicant does not resubmit within 15 days, then the application is denied. If they do resubmi t,
then the application continues in the process with the next submittal deadline. If staff fails to inform the
applicant within the specified time period that the application is incomplete , that application is accepted
for review. There is still an opportunity to ask the applicant to submit the omitted information. If that
request is not made, then that application proceeds on to the ARB for review. If the request for the
omitted information is submitted and received in ten days, then it would proceed to action. If it is not
submitted within ten days, then it is determined that application is incomplete and rejected.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the flow chart was a lot easier to read with the colors.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted that he sincerely appreciates staff’s efforts on this.
There are some really good things in here. But, he finds this to be window dressing and not
comprehensive reform. His understanding from the Development Review Committee was that there was
going to be a discussion process in how the ARB process could be integrated with the Planning
Commission process so that applicants could move through in a uniform manner. He did not believe th at
this addresses that unification process at all. Most of the errors that he sees in most of the charts point to
“NO”, which is always a challenge to have that very narrow band to getting to “Yes”. Rather than bump
this up and approve it today to a new Board of Supervisors who won’t have the background that they do,
he would encourage this Commission to defer a decision on this until a new Commission is seated so
they can review and perhaps enhance some of the very good work that is here rather than losing a month
or two or whatever bouncing between the elected body and the appointed body.
Paul Wright, Chairman of the Architectural Review Board, made the following comments on the
amendment.
Mr. Williamson’s criticism was one reason the ARB improved the flow chart. To fully guarantee
everybody’s rights all of the extra boxes have to be put in because even if they say “no” they can
allow someone to do many different things. He thought that was best displayed in the way they
have done so. The majority of applications that come in are complete. In reality the very first flow
chart does accomplish a great deal of everything that they are looking for.
Secondly, to the streamlining process he thought that it would take a lot of flexibility out of the
applicant’s hand. A lot of people like to come to the ARB first and others to the Planning
Commission first. There is nothing that would prevent the applicant from doing both at exactly the
same time.
What he had learned, which he was looking forward to implementing in this time when things are
slower, is there is absolutely nothing that prevents them from hearing something earlier than six
weeks if they have the staff time and effort. He thought that it was going to be extraordinary to do
and may be a little difficult. But, at least they can be accommodating when it is possible given
staff time. There is absolutely nothing that prevents them from doing so. He thought this was a
good first step.
There are many things that they need to deal with in the futur e that he looks forward to dealing
with the Planning Commission on. For example, environmental issues are very important yet he
did not think that he could take LEED Certification into any sort of condition simply because they
could promise to be LEED Certified in anything, but at the end if the applicant does not get it
there is nothing they can do about it. That is something he would like to resolve in some sort of
meaningful way. Another example is the Crozet Library, which was not done in a way that was
good for anyone. Now he was looking at the fact that there might be revisions on something that
is not even on the CIP for the next ten years. Perhaps they need to be a little bit more careful
with the County’s business in those issues and not use up staff time where it might be better
spent on other things.
He supported the request and encouraged the Planning Commission to take action on this today.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
4
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter back
before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action.
Ms. Joseph suggested that they talk with staff about the implementation of the process. She felt that
they have done some streamlining of that in the past couple of years regarding rezoning and special use
permits. She asked staff if that is true.
Mr. Maliszewski replied that in terms of Entrance Corridor review for rezonings and special use permits
what they have done in the past couple of years is not immediately forward all of those proposals to the
ARB. The ARB Planner has been reviewing the proposal and providing comments to the lead planner on
those requests to incorporate into that review process. The Entrance Corridor comments are forwarded
on to the lead planner for those requests. That has reduced a lot of the work that the applicant was
previously doing in having to make another application and go through another whole process.
Ms. Joseph said that was an attempt in streamlining, and Ms. Maliszewski agreed that was definitely
streamlining.
Ms. Joseph noted that the other thing they heard is that the applicant can determine themselves whether
they want to come before the Planning Commission or the ARB first. The applicant can decide how they
are going to deal with that. Staff does not pressure the applicant, but tells them w hat the best process is
for their project. She asked if that is correct.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that for site plans the ARB approval is required prior to the final site plan
approval. So that leaves it up to the applicant at the preliminary site plan stage if they want to apply for
the ARB application and the preliminary site plan at the same time or do one or the other first. If there are
different circumstances or something in particular that is really complicating, staff might suggest that they
do them together or one or the other first. But it is totally up to the applicant.
Ms. Joseph reiterated that staff has made some attempts to streamline the process with the ARB by
simplifying the process, which was in the document.
Ms. Maliszewski said that the other way that staff has simplified the process is through the ARB’s
comprehensive sign review for shopping centers and buildings with multiple businesses. That process
has significantly reduced the number of sign applications that go to the ARB for review.
Ms. Joseph noted that the other attempt at streamlining is the county-wide certificate of appropriateness.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that would be very similar to that process.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Wright regarding the flow chart, but disagreed with Mr. Williamson because
most of this is not a “no”. In fact, there are only two instances in the flow chart where the application is
denied or rejected. Depending on what the applicant does, the rest take the applicant into the process or
back into the process and again to completion. Again, he thought that the flow chart is good.
Mr. Franco asked for clarification on how the design guidelines are maintained. In other words, there
were some changes that could be adopted for the overall county-wide permits and things like that. He
asked if those changes get adopted by just the ARB or does the Board get involved.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that it goes to the Board of Supervisors for final approval.
Mr. Franco pointed out that he was not at the previous work session. He did not disagree with what Ms.
Joseph said that there have been some things that have been done to streamline the process. One of
the confusing things was trying to apply this to his experience on the Planning Commission. The
Commission heard a special use permit request for a church in Keswick where there was a lot of
discussion back and forth about who had the final authority on a site layout. One of the things he was a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
5
little disappointed in is that they have not resolved some of that process issue. He thought what they
have here is good in the fact that it takes the existing ordinance and helps to simplify it somewhat. But he
still did not know if they were addressing some of the overall concerns of how the ARB folds into the rest
of the process. He agreed that it is nice to have the applicant have the ability to go to the ARB first, but
he was still struggling having been an applicant before on whether the ARB is going help dictate the land
use issues or whether the rezoning or the Planning Commission helps to lay that out. A lot of time there
is some conflict back and forth between the Commission and the ARB.
Ms. Joseph said what he was talking about is the land use decisions, which normally occurs with the
rezoning request. What they are hearing now is that the rezoning application does not go to the ARB, but
goes to staff and staff makes the comment. She was hearing that the process has changed a bit .
Mr. Franco agreed that the process has changed as far as having to go to the ARB. He was not trying to
put blame on the ARB so to speak. But, it is still the application of the Entrance Corridor provisions. It is
going back to that core question of should that be involved in the land use. Again, if they go back to the
church it was not a rezoning but a special use permit. There were considerations that they have that are
not listed in here as exceptions.
Ms. Joseph pointed out when a rezoning or special use permit comes in there is an application plan. The
Planning Commission looks at the application plan. It has been her experience that it has to be in
compliance with or in conformance to the application plan itself. The Planning Commission looks at the
application plan and makes that determination of where the buildings are and the ARB is kind of stuck
with where the buildings are located and can’t move them around. That is the way she understands the
process.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there was a little confusion in the church case about what the Commission and
ultimately what the Board’s decision meant in terms of the ARB review. It was clarified in the Board
meeting that while comments on the Entrance Corridor are considered during the legislative pr ocess of a
special use permit and taken into consideration that those things that the Board decides are absolutes or
conditions of a special use permit cannot be modified by the ARB. There is an understanding of what is
superior in terms of the ultimate decision on a plan. In the case of that church what was not known is how
the ARB might require landscaping along the road to be provided. But that was not affecting the location
of the church or the parking lot.
Mr. Franco understood that there was a lot of discussion about the location of the building and the parking
lot.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that there was discussion about location, but what was brought to the Planning
Commission was the recommendation for a particular location as the applicant wanted to provide. The
Planning Commission is then in the position of advising the Board as to whether they want to go with
what the applicant desires to provide or whether they want to go with what the ARB staff have
recommended might have been a better location. In that case he believed that the Commission went with
the applicant’s proposal. He did not think that was confusing the process, but really just laying it before
the Commission as to which decision they want to make and ultimately what the Board would make.
Mr. Franco asked staff to talk briefly about the Montessori School site plan and Certificate of
Appropriateness. There was a complication in that the site plan was approvable to planning staff but the
building was not approvable because of the way it looked. He asked how that played out.
Mr. Cilimberg recalled that it was a question of how the building was being designed by the applicant for
possible consideration of a kind of certification like LEED. There was concern about how that design
might play out by the ARB. That was not in a legislative decision. That was in a site plan decision that a
design of the building itself was up to the ARB.
Mr. Franco noted this is where the complication comes in. He understood from other people that t he
issue on that particular building came because there was not LEED certification that th ey were pursuing,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
6
but it was capturing the storm water. They had a special design that accommodated that and the ARB
did not like the design. At some point they now have a conflict between sort of an engineering choice and
an ARB side of things. He heard from Mr. Wright that LEED certification is not enforceable and therefore
something they don’t really consider as a good thing in the design side. He questioned how that plays out.
He sees exceptions for health and safety, but in his mind he thought that environmental ly better design
ought to be something that the applicant has the ability to pursue in a by-right scenario.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the best way that it could play out would be the Board would establish what the
priorities are in consideration of the plans. They established an Entrance Corridor Ordinance with
guidelines adopted for the ARB to implement. They can only implement what they have to work with. If
the Board feels there are other considerations in design to deal with other priorities of the county, they
need to decide that and establish that as overriding. That is not for this ordinance.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that is what needs to be worked on for the ARB to take a look at some of these
other issues, which would be guidelines.
Mr. Franco noted that was the part that he would like to see incorporated into this process whether it is
something attached to this or it is something that follows this. It is important that some of that structure
take place.
Ms. Joseph pointed out when they were looking at this initially she was talking with people in the city to
see how they approve LEED Certified, etc. buildings. That information is in their guidelines. That is how
most localities do it. She noted that it is not in their ordinance. But it is in their design guidelines
themselves that allow for that flexibility for the ARB to look at those issues. She was voting that the ARB
or the county looks at their guidelines and changes those and does not put it in the ordinance.
Mr. Franco asked if there was any reaction to what Mr. Williamson suggested.
Mr. Edgerton replied that he did not see how bringing three new people into this process would be
beneficial to the process. Back to the initial concerns he pointed out that Ms. Joseph and he over a year
ago had several meetings with several representatives of the ARB trying to talk about streamlining the
process and some of these issues. Some of it was triggered by concerns related to the Montessori
School rainwater collection system. There is a difference that comes from the Code of Virginia in the
mandate of the ARB and what it can and can’t do. But he thought that a lot of that is represented in the
existing guidelines, which are more focused on more traditional architecture. Until those guidelines are
changes there is some limiting language in the Code about that.
Mr. Kamptner said that what the enabling authority does is give Virginia l ocalities who wish to do so the
ability to regulate visual impacts in certain designated areas. He suggested that they look at the example
of the special use permit of South Plains Church. They may look at location of a building and may be
trying to deal with the land use impact. It may be that the new building needs to be setback from a
property line because of the impacts it may have on the house next door. The ARB can look at the exact
same issue for the location of the buildings for a completely different reason for the visual impacts and
how that location is important to being in compliance with the Architectural Guidelines that the Board has
adopted. The enabling authority is unique, different and very specific. Mr. Edgerton pointed out that the
Planning Commission does not have any authority in the development of the guidelines. The ARB
develops the guidelines working with the Board and then the Board makes the decisions of what the
guidelines say. The ARB was following their guidelines when they ch allenged the design of the
Montessori School. If the guidelines did incorporate and put aesthetic value on LEED Certified project or
sustainable project, then it could be reviewed as part of their review. Under the current guidelines that is
not the case. The recommendation would be that the ARB go back and determine whether the guidelines
need some adjusting. That direction needs to come from the Board of Supervisors and not necessarily
the Planning Commission. The ARB makes recommendations for amendments to the guidelines. But,
ultimately it is the Board of Supervisors’ decision. The guidelines are not passed through the Planning
Commission for comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
7
Mr. Edgerton pointed out that he was not happy about it.
Mr. Franco asked that the minutes reflect that this is a concern. As the process moves forward for a
reform that is not just to the procedures related to the guidelines , to incorporate some of those other
things into it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the guidelines could address how development app ears from the Entrance
Corridor. Where they can’t change the guidelines is getting in how it relates to adjacent properties.
Mr. Franco noted that is where he struggles that it really needs to be part of the process though. There
are times when the applicant comes in after meeting with the neighbors. The applicant will reflect their
concerns. The neighbors are pushing the development away from them and the ARB is pushing it away
from the street. There is a lot of conflict and in the end there are not a lot of good negotiations that take
place because the neighbors really have no standing in some of this. The neighbors can present their
case to the ARB, but their domain really is to consider the Entrance Corridor and not the adjacent
properties. He thought that the process should somehow include those neighbors and give them some
type of standing.
Ms. Joseph disagreed. She thought the neighbors do have some standing. When neighbors come to the
ARB meeting and speak that the ARB does not ignore them, but listen to them and try to make some sort
of compromise that they are dealing with the aesthetics and the concerns of the neighbors. The ARB
listens to people just as the Planning Commission does.
Mr. Franco suggested that could be part of the streamlining in that they might be able to do that earlier.
His focus has been as the applicant submitting this in if he has met with the neighbors ahead of time and
develop a plan that meets that. Then if he has to go to the ARB and they send him the other direction how
does he get that compromised faster and sooner. That is the streamlining that he thought would help.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant has the choice in working with neighbors to go to the ARB as early
as they want to get a response even before they are filing anything. Nothing in these regulations
prevents that. There is a lot of flexibility in how the ARB can review projects.
Mr. Franco noted that the other minor comments he has are questions in the flow chart regarding when
they look at a submittal and the applicant chooses to make revisions. He asked are revisions always of
such a big nature that they can’t be similar to site review. It seems the loop always ends up suspending
the review and resubmitting. Are there any kinds of plans that are quick changes to those that could
enable them to stay in the process? The site review normally has about 11 days so they can stay in the
process versus being kicked out. He asked if there was a way to allow small revisions so the applicant
can stay on the time line. If revisions could be done within one or two weeks would it be possible to stay
on track.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that she was not sure how to define what can be done quickly and what might be
longer.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the applicant is informed in writing if he responds in 15 days the application
stays on track. A lot of the issue with the suspension has to do with how quickly the applicant responds.
The submittal date runs in cycles. The suspension allows for the restart once it is resubmitted. If it is
submitted quickly it will hit the next submittal date and the suspension will be only the time when it is
resubmitted and the next submittal date. There are two submittal dates per month.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they would lose two week at most.
Mr. Franco said that he was not hung up on it, but was just pointing out some concerns.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that it might be helpful to determine what should come first. She questioned if
it would be better if the ARB review was first so when the request comes before the Planning Commission
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
8
they already have the information from the ARB on how they want the site treated. Then the Planning
Commission can use that information in their review along with concerns regarding the neighboring
properties.
Mr. Loach said based on their knowledge with staff he would agree that it should go to the ARB first.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there are so many Entrance Corridors in the county.
Mr. Loach asked does the applicant have the knowledge of which they should go to first or should they
make it procedural.
Mr. Franco noted that it had been years since he had gone through his process. There were two different
things. One is whether it looks appropriate. The other is can you do it and what are the technical
concerns. When talking about going to the ARB he did not know if all of the details would be worked out
at that point in time, such as if the parking is going to be relegated or how tall the buildings are. There
also may be site plan waivers required. In order to get some questions answered such as access points,
etc. one would have to have a site plan. In the end the building layout may change because when he
goes back to the ARB they may say these buildings need to be arranged differently for Entrance Corridor
concerns. He asked if he should go to the ARB first with the assumption that he was going to get the
waivers or how. There is a lot of confusion in that process. Maybe they could circumvent that by saying
they have made a legislative act as far as giving the critical slope, but then they would have taken some
of the power away from the ARB if they create that condition.
Mr. Loach asked if staff makes a recommendation to the applicant based on what has been submitted as
to what they should do first.
Ms. Maliszewski pointed out that there is always the pre-application conference where representatives
from each of the divisions are present to make comments. That is an early point in the review process
where some of these possible conflicting issues come out and the applicant is made aware of those. For
a site plan submittal ARB staff doesn’t make comments until there is an ARB application.
Mr. Strucko felt that it was not a linear process where an appl icant moves from a to z.
Mr. Kamptner asked which type of applications presents the most conflicts between an ARB’s decision
and what is approved by the Commission and Board.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that the biggest issues in the past were with the special use permits and rezoning
that went to the ARB for review. That seems to have worked itself out since they are doing those as staff
comments to the lead planner. There does not seem to be conflicts very often with waivers.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the biggest conflicts in the past was with big rezoning that either were
looked at by the ARB and their comments were not part of the action taken by the Board or they never
saw it and the Board took action that kind of tied the ARB’s hands. That creat ed issues. To address that
staff that was very knowledgeable of what the ARB looks for reviewed the rezoning and some special use
permits before the Commission reviewed the application to provide comments so that could be factored
into the decisions that got made. He thought that those had generally gone away as issues. The
legislative matters are ultimately decided on by the Commission and Board. Site plans are being worked
out ministerially.
Mr. Strucko said that this process as outlined is probably the best they can do with what information they
can control. He did not think it was going to be a perfectly linear way of getting through the process. He
supported the Commission taking an action at this stage since they were at the public hearing stage and
not at the work session stage. Therefore, he did not think they should defer it to another Commission.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out she had some editorial changes to submit to Ms. Maliszewski for review.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 15, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
9
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend adoption of ZTA-2009-00009
Entrance Corridor Process Amendments, with the incorporation of minor nonsubstantive corrections
identified by Ms. Porterfield.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that ZTA-2009-00009 Entrance Corridor Process Amendments would go to the Board
of Supervisors on a February 10, 2009 with a recommendation for approval.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
4-5-2010 FINAL MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
April 5, 2010
EC ZTA and County-wide Certificates of Appropriateness: Categories and benchmarks
Proposal: To revise the categories and benchmarks proposed for county-wide Certificates of
Appropriateness
Motion: Mr. Daggett moved for approval of the revised benchmarks as proposed by staff, including the
attachments, with the following proposed additions:
For #3, add a definite maximum “feet above the building in front”, or use a ratio to prevent an
over-towering building behind;
For #10, maybe a percentage change could trigger it, for example, 50%
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 5:0.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: CPA2008-00003 Village of Rivanna
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Public Hearing
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Amend the Land Use
Plan section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by
replacing the existing profile of the Village of Rivanna with the
Village of Rivanna Master Plan, which establishes new
policies, guidelines, recommendations, goals and strategies
for future development within the master plan area.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Echols, Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
May 12, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/
Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda
/2010Files/0203/VORMasterPlan.pdf
BACKGROUND: The development of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan began in the summer of 2007. After many
meetings with the community and six work sessions with the Planning Commission, the Commission recommended
approval with minor wording changes. Staff provided the Board of Supervisors a draft of the Plan containing the
Commission’s recommended changes for a worksession on February 3, 2010. At that meeting, the Board took public
comment and indicated the Plan was ready for a public hearing with no recommended changes.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Relevant Goals:
1. Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
2. Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
As with all master plans, this plan provides a vision for the area, which would be a distinct small community
surrounded by rural Albemarle, guiding principles; a description of existing conditions pertaining to natural, scenic and
historic assets, demographics, land uses, community facilities and the transportation network; a framework for future
land use, transportation, and parks and green systems; and a plan for implementing the master plan, including a list of
implementation projects.
The most significant recommendation in the Master Plan is that new development will be limited to low density and in
some places, very low density, on the remaining undeveloped areas of the Village not previously approved for
development. No new development is recommended until major transportation improvements on Route 250 East
have occurred. Any increase in the density shown on the future land use plan for the Village would be dependent on
additional sewer capacity at the treatment plant. At this time, there is no approved plan for the recommended
transportation improvements and no money allocated for them. Increase in capacity of the sewage treatment plant
serving the Village would require major improvements which currently are not planned. Other recommendations in
the plan include limitations on access points and density radiating away from the Village Center , which is the
proposed Rivanna Village at Glenmore development.
Staff has received no additional comments since the Board’s work session in February.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Village of Rivanna Master Plan dated
January 25, 2010 which was provided to the Board at its February 3, 2010 work session, and is available on-line at
http://albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board_of_Supervisors/Forms/Agenda/2010Files/0203/VORExe
cSummary.pdf.
Return to regular agenda