HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-9-08Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
SEPTEMBER 8, 2010
6:00 P.M. – LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing October 2010 as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
b. Proclamation recognizing September 2010 as National Preparedness Month.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. Proposed issuance of general obligation school bonds of Albemarle County in the estimated maximum principal
amount of $7,830,000. The purpose of the proposed bonds is to finance capital projects for public schools. Interested
persons may appear at such time and place and present their views.
9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00008. The Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding
(Sign #9). PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a commercial kennel. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots).
SECTION: 10.2.2.17 Commercial kennel. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 5120 Burnley Station Road, approx. one mile west of Stony Point Road
(20N) junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03500000000500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
10. PROJECT: SP-2010-00006. Baugh Auto Body (Sign #8). PROPOSED: Special Use
Permit to renovate existing building for auto body shop; no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: LI - Light Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2 (11)
Body Shops. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy
industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Community of Piney Mountain.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna
River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32-5B.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
11. PROJECT: SP-2010-00011. Baugh Rental Car Outdoor Storage (Sign #8).
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for outdoor storage of rental cars in association with a proposed auto body shop.
ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: Light Industrial (LI) - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use); Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from
visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 30.6.3.2.b Outdoor storage, display and/or sales
in the Entrance Corridors. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities,
supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Community of Piney
Mountain. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the
Rivanna River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29. TAX MAP/
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100908/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:09:46 PM]
Tentative
PARCEL: 32-5B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna.
12. PROJECT: ZMA-2007-000013. Fontaine Research Park Expansion (Signs
#34&35). PROPOSED: Rezone approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to PDMC Planned Development
Mixed Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow for an
increase from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical, research &
development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial space permitted in the research park. Three parking garages
are proposed. No residential units are proposed. The following Special Use Permits are in conjunction with this rezoning:
SP200700055, SP200900010, SP200900011, SP200900013, and SP200900014. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue in
Neighborhood Six. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7,
17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
13. PROJECT: SP-2007-00055. Fontaine Research Park - Parking Structures
(Signs #34&35). PROPOSED: Parking Structures in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning
District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDMC Planned
Development -Mixed Commercial - large scale commercial uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre).
SECTION: 23.2.2.4 Parking Structures. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses,
regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to
the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue . TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX,
17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
14. PROJECT: SP-2009-00010. Fontaine Research Park - Research &
Development Activities (Signs #34&35). PROPOSED: Research and development activities in
Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDMC Planned Development -Mixed Commercial - large scale commercial uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 23.2.2.12 Research and development activities.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and
Fontaine Avenue. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7,
17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
15. PROJECT: SP-2009-00011. Fontaine Research Park - Laboratories, Medical
or Pharmaceutical (Signs #34&35). PROPOSED: Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical in
Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDMC Planned Development -Mixed Commercial - large scale commercial uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in
Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and
Fontaine Avenue. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7,
17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
16. PROJECT: SP-2009-00013. Fontaine Research Park - Hospitals (Signs
#34&35). PROPOSED: Hospitals in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in
conjunction with ZMA200700013.ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: PDMC Planned Development -Mixed
Commercial - large scale commercial uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 23.2.2.1
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100908/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:09:46 PM]
Tentative
Hospitals. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt
Drive and Fontaine Avenue. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5,
17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
17. PROJECT: SP-2009-00014. Fontaine Research Park - Supporting
Commercial Uses (Signs #34&35). PROPOSED: Supporting commercial uses in Planned Development -
Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA200700013. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: PDMC Planned Development -Mixed Commercial - large scale commercial uses; and residential use by special
use permit (15 units/acre). SECTION: 23.2.2.11 supporting commercial uses. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting
commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 6. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue. TAX MAP/
PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA, 17B8, and 17B9.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
19. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes. (Remove from agenda.)
7.2 Housing Choice Voucher Program Annual Plan.
7.3 Community Development Block Grant for Oak Hill Sewer Service.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100908/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:09:46 PM]
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH
WHEREAS, violence against women, children, and men continues to become more
prevalent as a social problem in our society; and
WHEREAS, the problems of domestic violence are not confined to any group or groups
of people but cross all economic, racial and societal barriers, and are supported by societal
indifference; and
WHEREAS, the crime of domestic violence violates an individual’s privacy, dignity,
security, and humanity, due to systematic use of physical, emotional, sexual, psychological and
economic control and/or abuse, with the impact of this crime being wide-ranging; and
WHEREAS, in our quest to impose sanctions on those who break the law by
perpetrating violence, we must also meet the needs of victims of domestic violence who often
suffer grave physical, psychological and financial losses; and
WHEREAS, it is victims of domestic violence themselves who have been in the forefront
of efforts to bring peace and equality to the home; and
WHEREAS, no one person, organization, agency or community can eliminate domestic
violence on their own—we must work together to educate our entire population about what
can be done to prevent such violence, support victims/survivors and their families, and
increase support for agencies providing services to those community members; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency has led the way in the County of
Albemarle in addressing domestic violence by providing 24-hour hotline services to
victims/survivors and their families, offering support and information, and empowering
survivors to chart their own course for healing; and
WHEREAS, the Shelter for Help in Emergency commemorates its 31st year of providing
unparalleled services to women, children and men who have been victimized by domestic
violence;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in recognition of the important work being
done by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, that I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair of the County of
Albemarle Board of Supervisors, do hereby proclaim the month of October 2010 as
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, and urge all citizens to actively participate
in the scheduled activities and programs sponsored by the Shelter for Help in Emergency, and
to work toward the elimination of personal and institutional violence against women, children
and men.
Signed and sealed this 8th day of September, 2010.
Return to regular agenda
National Preparedness Month
WHEREAS, “National Preparedness Month” creates an important opportunity for every
resident of Albemarle County to prepare their homes, businesses, and
communities for any type of emergency from natural disasters to potential
terrorist attacks; and
WHEREAS, investing in the preparedness of ourselves, our families, businesses, and
communities can reduce fatalities and economic devastation in our
communities and in our nation; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Ready Campaign, Citizen Corps
and other federal, state, local, private, and volunteer agencies are working to
increase public activities in preparing for emergencies and to educate
individuals on how to take action; and
WHEREAS, emergency preparedness is the responsibility of every citizen of Albemarle
County and all citizens are urged to make preparedness a priority and work
together, as a team, to ensure that individuals, families, and communities are
prepared for disasters and emergencies of any type; and
WHEREAS, all citizens of Albemarle County are encouraged to participate in citizen
preparedness activities and asked to review the Ready campaign’s Web sites at
ready.gov or listo.gov (in Spanish) and become more prepared;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby proclaims
September, 2010
as
National Preparedness Month
and encourages all citizens and businesses to develop their own emergency
preparedness plan, and work together toward creating a more prepared
society.
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Housing Choice Voucher Program Annual Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Certification of Compliance – Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 8, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Following an April 7, 2010 public hearing, the Board approved the submission of the County’s 5-Year Plan for the
administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program and authorized the County Executive to execute the required
Public Housing Agency Certification of Compliance as well as Civil Rights Certification. Staff submitted these
documents to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) following the Board’s action.
DISCUSSION:
On August 3, 2010, HUD notified the Office of Housing that the County’s 5-Year Plan for the Housing Choice Voucher
Program was approved but indicated that the Plan did not include a certificate of compliance with the Violence Against
Women (VAWA) as required by the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005. HUD staff recommended that
the County submit a written certification to document its timely compliance with this requirement. The attached
certification statement (Attachment A) has been reviewed and approved by HUD staff.
Albemarle County, as a qualified public housing agency for the Housing Choice Voucher Program, is required to
submit 5-year plans for HUD approval. The Civil Rights and VAWA Certifications are required to be submitted
annually.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to submit the attached VAWA compliance
certification to HUD. In addition, staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign both the
Civil Rights Certification and VAWA Certification each year during the term of the 5-Year plan, provided there are no
significant amendments or modifications to the Plan during its applicable term.
ATTACHMENTS
A – VAWA Certification
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors as its County Executive, I approve the submission of
this annual certification for the County’s administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program
making the following certification to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in
connection with the implementation of the Plan:
Albemarle County certifies that it carries out the Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) in conformity
with the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (VAWA) and
further certifies that the County uses required language found in the amended HAP Contract and Tenancy
Addendum as described in PIH Notice 2007-5.
_______________________________________ ________________
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive Date
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Block Grant for Oak Hill Sewer
Service
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approve Plan and Certifications of Compliance required to
receive the CDBG Funds
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 8, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In June 2010 Albemarle County received a $712,500 allocation from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Program to support the installation of sewer lines to serve 57 dwelling units in the Oak Hill subdivision. The use of CDBG
funds is considered a “federal action” which requires that the local governing body receiving the funds comply with a
number of regulations. Some of the requirements are general and have already been implemented by the County in
previous years; however, some requirements, as outlined below, are project-specific and require further action by the
Board.
DISCUSSION:
The project-specific CDBG requirements for this grant include:
Local Business and Employment Plan – The County must approve a plan to designate the project area boundaries for
the purpose of utilizing, to the greatest extent possible, businesses and lower-income residents located in the project
area to carry out the CDBG-funded activities. The proposed Plan (Attachment A) designates the entire County as the
project area and requires that the public be notified of this through publication of an advertisement in The Daily Progress.
Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Certification – This certification (Attachment B) states
that the County will notify the public and advise the state in the event that a CDBG-funded activity will result in demolition
or conversion of residential units. Furthermore, should displacement occur, the County and/or the development owners
will provide relocation assistance in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970. The proposed Oak Hill project will not involve demolition or conversion of residential units which
result in displacement.
Fair Housing Certification – This certification (Attachment C) states that the County will take at least one action annually
to affirmatively further fair housing. The action must be approved by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development (VDHCD).
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no budget impacts associated with the adoption of these items. The cost of the required Local Business and
Employment Plan advertisement is a CDBG grant-eligible expenditure, which is reimbursable upon the execution of the
CDBG contract.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board 1) approve the Local Business and Employment Plan; 2) authorize the County
Executive to execute the Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Certification; and 3) authorize
the County Executive to execute the Fair Housing Certification.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Local Business and Employment Plan
B – Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Certification
C – Fair Housing Certification
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
1. The County of Albemarle designates as its Local (Section 3) County Business and
Employment Project Area the County of Albemarle.
2. The County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall in
utilizing Community Improvement Grant (CIG) funds utilize businesses and lower
income residents of the Local (Section 3) County in carrying out all activities, to the
greatest extent feasible.
3. In awarding contracts for construction, non-construction, materials, and supplies
the County of Albemarle, its contractors, and designated third parties shall take the
following steps to utilize businesses which are located in or owned in substantial
part by persons residing in the Local (Section 3) County are:
(a) The County of Albemarle shall identify the contracts required
to conduct the CIG activities.
(b) The County of Albemarle shall identify through various and
appropriate sources including:
The Daily Progress
the business concerns within the Local (Section 3) County which are likely to
provide construction contracts, non-construction contracts, materials, and
services which will be utilized in the activities funded through the CIG.
(c) The identified contractors and suppliers shall be included on bid lists used to
obtain bids, quotes or proposals for work or procurement contracts which
utilize CIG funds.
(d) To the greatest extent feasible the identified business and any other pr oject
area business concerns shall be utilized in activities which are funded with
CIGs.
LOCAL BUSINESS AND EMPLOYMENT PLAN
4. The County of Albemarle and its contractors and subcontractors shall take the
following steps to encourage the hiring of lower income persons residing in the
Local (Section 3) County:
(a) The County of Albemarle in consultation with its contractors (including design
professionals) shall ascertain the types and number of positions for both
trainees and employees which are likely to be used to conduct CIG activities.
(b) The County of Albemarle shall advertise through the following sources
The Daily Progress
the availability of such positions with the information on how to apply.
(c) The County of Albemarle, its contractors, and subcontractors shall be required
to maintain a record of inquiries and applications by project area residents
who respond to advertisements, and shall maintain a record of the status of
such inquires and applications.
(d) To the greatest extent feasible, the County of Albemarle, its contractors, and
subcontractors shall hire lower income project area residents in filling training
and employment positions necessary for implementing activities funded by
CIGs.
5. In order to document compliance with the above affirmative actions and Section 3
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, the County of Albemarle
shall keep, and obtain from its contractors and subcontractors, Registers of
Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers and Registers of Assigned Employees
for all activities funded by CIGs. Such listings shall be completed and shall be
verified by site visits and employee interviews, crosschecking of payroll reports and
invoices, and through audits if necessary.
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
RESIDENTIAL ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PLAN CERTIFICATION
ATTACHMENT B
The County Of Albemarle will replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low/moderate-income
dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than as low/moderate income dwelling unit
as a direct result of activities assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended. All replacement housing will be provided within three
(3) years of the commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation relating to conversion.
Before obligating or expending funds that will directly result in such demolition or conversion ,
the County Of Albemarle will make public and advise the state that it is undertaking such an
activity and will submit to the state, in writing, information that identifies:
(1) A description of the proposed assisted activity;
(2) The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as
low/moderate-income dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activity;
(3) A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the demolition or
conversion;
(4) The general location on a map and approximate number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling units;
(5) The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of replacement dwelling
units;
(6) The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a
low/moderate-income dwelling unit for at least 10 years from the date of initial
occupancy; and
(7) Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of dwelling units with
smaller dwelling units is consistent with the housing needs of low - and moderate-
income households in the jurisdiction.
The County Of Albemarle will provide relocation assistance to each low/moderate – income
household displaced by the demolition of housing or by the direct result of assisted activities.
Such assistance shall be that provided under Section 104 (d) of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, or the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended.
The County Of Albemarle’s FY10 project includes the following activities which will not result
in demolition of any residential structures or displacement of residents:
Installation of approximately 5000 feet of sewer line and appurtenances to include service
laterals to dwelling units.
The County Of Albemarle will work with the grant management staff, engineers, project area
residents, and the Department of Housing and Community Development to insure that any
changes in project activities do not cause any displacement from or conversion of occupiable
structures.
In all cases, an occupiable structure will be defined as a dwelling that meets local building codes
or a dwelling that can be rehabilitated to meet code for $25,000 or less.
Chief Administrative Official
Date
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Appendix 9: Fair Housing Certification
1
ATTACHMENT C
Fair Housing Certification
Compliance with Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968
Whereas, the County of Albemarle has been offered and intends to accept federal
funds authorized under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and
Whereas, recipients of funding under the Act are required to take action to
affirmatively further fair housing;
Therefore, the County of Albemarle agrees to take at least one action to
affirmatively further fair housing each grant year, during the life of its project funded
with Community Development Block Grant funds. The action taken will be selected
from a list provided by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development.
_________________________________
Signature of Authorized Official
_________________________________
Date
Return to exec summary
FAIR HOUSING CERTIFICATION
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Public School Authority Bond Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the issuance of bonds
in the maximum principal amount of $7,830,000 to finance
certain capital improvements for the County’s public
schools
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 8. 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The FY 2010/11 Capital Improvement Budget was approved with the intent to issue approximately $7,830,000 in
bonds through the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) for the following projects:
Crozet Elementary School Improvements $395,000
Greer Elementary School Addition/Renovations $80,000
Gymnasium HVAV & Lighting Replacement $1,171,632
School Maintenance Projects $6,183,368
Total $7,830,000
DISCUSSION:
A Resolution authorizing the application to VPSA was adopted by the School Board on August 12, 2010. The attached
Resolution would authorize the issuance of the bonds not to exceed $7,830,000 and the sale of the bonds to VPSA,
and would approve as to form the Bond Sale Agreement details relating to the bonds. A public hearing is required to
be held by the Board prior to the Board’s approval of the Resolution.
A public hearing is scheduled on September 8, 2010, after which the Board may adopt the attached Resolution if it
decides to proceed with the issuance of the bonds.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY 2010/11 CIP and Debt Service budgets anticipated the issuance of $7,830,000 in bonds for the above
referenced projects.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the attached Resolution to authorize the issuance of bonds in
the maximum principal amount of $7,830,000 to finance certain capital improvements for the County’s public schools.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Resolution
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED
$7,830,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION SCHOOL BONDS OF THE COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, TO BE SOLD IN ONE OR MORE SERIES, TO THE
VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL AUTHORITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE FORM AND
DETAILS THEREOF
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") of the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(the "County"), has determined that it is necessary and expedient to borrow an amount not to
exceed $7,830,000 and to issue its general obligation school bonds for the purpose of financing
certain capital projects for school purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Board has been informed that on September 9, 2010, the Virginia Public
School Authority’s (“VPSA”) Board of Commissioners intends to approve a series resolution
authorizing the issuance under its 1997 Resolution of one or more series of bonds (the “VPSA
Resolution”), the proceeds of which will be loaned to Virginia localities in connection with its Fall
pool financing program (the “Fall Pool”);
WHEREAS, the VPSA Resolution will permit the issuance of one or more series of
taxable bonds, the proceeds of which will be used to purchase “Build America Bonds” issued
pursuant to Section 54AA of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), by
Virginia Localities participating in the Fall Pool, upon the request of one or more Virginia
localities;
WHEREAS, the County held a public hearing, duly noticed, on September 8, 2010, on the
issuance of the Bonds (as defined below) in accordance with the requirements of Section
15.2-2606, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"); and
WHEREAS, the School Board of the County has, by resolution, requested the Board to
authorize the issuance of the Bonds (as hereinafter defined) and consented to the issuance of the
Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Bond Sale Agreement (as defined below) shall indicate that $7,830,000 is
the amount of proceeds requested (the “Proceeds Requested”) from the VPSA in connection with
the sale of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, VPSA’s objective is to pay the County a purchase price for the Bonds which,
in VPSA’s judgment, reflects the Bonds’ market value (the “VPSA Purchase Price Objective”),
taking into consideration such factors as the amortization schedule the County has requested for the
Bonds relative to the amortization schedules requested by other localities, the purchase price to be
received by VPSA for its bonds and other market conditions relating to the sale of VPSA’s bonds;
and
WHEREAS, such factors may result in the Bonds having a purchase price other than par
and consequently (i) the County may have to issue a principal amount of Bonds that is greater than
or less than the Proceeds Requested in order to receive an amount of proceeds that is substantially
2
equal to the Proceeds Requested, or (ii) if the maximum authorized principal amount of the Bonds
set forth in section 1 below does not exceed the Proceeds Requested by at least the amount of any
discount, the purchase price to be paid to the County, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and
market conditions, will be less than the Proceeds Requested; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. Authorization of Bonds and Use of Proceeds. The Board hereby determines that it is
advisable to contract a debt and issue and sell its general obligation school bonds in one or more
series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $7,830,000 (the "Bonds") for the purpose of
financing certain capital projects for school purposes including, without limitation, the projects as
described in Exhibit B. The Chairman of the Board and the County Executive (each, a “Delegate”)
are hereby authorized to approve the issuance of one or more series of Bonds, including the
issuance of a series of Bonds the interest on which is not includable in gross income for Federal
income tax purposes (“Tax-Exempt Bonds”) and the issuance of a series of “Build America Bonds”
as described in Section 54AA of the Code (“Build America Bonds”), to make any elections
required under the Code and to designate a portion of such Bonds as Build America Bonds under
the Code, if the Delegate determines, in consultation with VPSA, that it is in the best interest of the
County to do so. The Board hereby authorizes the issuance and sale of the Bonds in the form and
upon the terms established pursuant to this Resolution.
2. Sale of the Bonds. It is determined to be in the best interest of the County to accept
the offer of VPSA to purchase from the County, and to sell to VPSA, the Bonds at a price,
determined by VPSA to be fair and accepted by a Delegate that is substantially equal to the
Proceeds Requested, except that the Bonds may be sold for a purchase price not lower than 95%
of the Proceeds Requested if issuing the Bonds in the maximum principal amount authorized by
Section 1 of this Resolution is insufficient, given the VPSA Purchase Price Objective and market
conditions, to generate an amount of proceeds substantially equal to the Proceeds Requested.
Each Delegate is hereby authorized and directed to enter into one or more Bond Sale
Agreements, dated as of October 8, 2010, with VPSA providing for the sale of the Bonds to
VPSA. The agreements shall be in substantially the forms submitted to the Board at this
meeting, which form is hereby approved (the "Bond Sale Agreement"), with such completions
omissions, insertions and changes not inconsistent with this Resolution as may be approved by
the Delegate executing such agreement.
3. Details of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be dated the date of issuance and delivery of the
Bonds; shall be designated "General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2010A-1 (Tax-Exempt)" and
“General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2010A-2 (Federally Taxable – Build America Bonds)”
(if designated as Build America Bonds) or such other designation as the Delegate shall determine;
shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof payable semi-annually on each January 15 and
July 15 beginning July 15, 2011 (each an "Interest Payment Date"), at the rates established in
accordance with Section 4 of this Resolution; and shall mature on July 15 in the years (each a
"Principal Payment Date") and in the amounts acceptable to a Delegate (the "Principal
Installments"), subject to the provisions of Section 4 of this Resolution.
3
4. Interest Rates and Principal Installments. A Delegate is hereby authorized and
directed to accept the interest rates on the Bonds established by VPSA, provided that each interest
rate shall be five one-hundredths of one percent (0.05%) over the interest rate to be paid by VPSA
for the corresponding principal payment date of the bonds to be issued by VPSA (the "VPSA
Bonds"), a portion of the proceeds of which will be used to purchase the Bonds, and provided
further that the true interest cost of the Bonds does not exceed five and fifty one-hundredths percent
(5.50%) per annum in the case of Tax-Exempt Bonds or seven and fifty one-hundredths percent
(7.50%) per annum in the case of Build America Bonds. The Interest Payment Dates and the
Principal Installments are subject to change at the request of VPSA. A Delegate is hereby
authorized and directed to accept changes in the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal
Installments at the request of VPSA, provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds
shall not exceed the maximum principal amount authorized by this Resolution. The execution and
delivery of the Bonds as described in Section 8 hereof shall conclusively evidence such interest
rates established by VPSA and the Interest Payment Dates and the Principal Installments requested
by VPSA as having been so accepted by the Delegate as authorized by this Resolution.
5. Form of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially in the form of single, temporary
typewritten bonds substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A with such revisions as are
necessary in the case of the issuance of a series of Build America Bonds.
6. Payment; Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. The following provisions shall apply to
the Bonds:
(a) For as long as VPSA is the registered owner of the Bonds, all payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be made in immediately available funds to VPSA
at, or before 11:00 a.m. on the applicable Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption, or if such date is not a business day for Virginia banks or for
the Commonwealth of Virginia, then at or before 11:00 a.m. on the business day next succeeding
such Interest Payment Date, Principal Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
(b) All overdue payments of principal and, to the extent permitted by law, interest shall
bear interest at the applicable interest rate or rates on the Bonds.
(c) U.S. Bank, National Association, Richmond, Virginia, is designated as Bond Registrar
and Paying Agent for the Bonds. The County may, in its sole discretion, replace at any time the
Bond Registrar with another qualified bank or trust company as successor Bond Registrar. The
County shall give prompt written notice to VPSA of the appointment of any successor Bond
Registrar and Paying Agent for the Bonds.
7. Prepayment or Redemption.
(a) Tax-Exempt Bonds. The Principal Installments of the Tax-Exempt Bonds held by
VPSA coming due on or before July 15, 2020, and the definitive bonds for which the Tax-Exempt
Bonds held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2020, are not subject to
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The Principal Installments of the Tax-
4
Exempt Bonds held by VPSA coming due after July 15, 2020, and the definitive bonds for which
the Tax-Exempt Bonds held by VPSA may be exchanged that mature after July 15, 2020, are
subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of the County prior to their stated maturities in
whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2020, upon payment of the prepayment or
redemption prices (expressed as percentages of Principal Installments to be prepaid or the principal
amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below plus accrued interest to the date set for
prepayment or redemption:
Dates Prices
July 15, 2020 through July 14, 2021 101%
July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022 100½
July 15, 2022 and thereafter 100
Provided, however, that the Principal Installments of the Tax-Exempt Bonds shall not be
subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without first
obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Tax-Exempt Bonds. Notice of any
such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by
registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for
prepayment or redemption.
(b) Build America Bonds. The Board hereby delegates to a Delegate, either of whom
may act, the authority, subject to the limitations contained herein, to determine the redemption
provisions, including the redemption dates, of the Principal Installments of any Build America
Bonds. Based on financial market considerations, the Principal Installments of the Build
America Bonds may (i)(A) contain the option to be redeemed at a redemption price not to exceed
101% of the principal amount of the bonds to be redeemed, and/or (B) have a “make whole
redemption” price and (ii) upon the occurrence of an “Extraordinary Event” be optionally
redeemed on any business day. The Principal Installments of the Build America Bonds which
are subject to such redemption may be redeemed, before their respective maturities on any date
not earlier than the redemption date, determined as set forth above, in whole or in part, upon
payment of the redemption price, determined as set forth above, plus accrued interest to the
redemption date.
An “Extraordinary Event” will have occurred if a material adverse change has occurred to
Section 54AA or Section 6431 of the Code (as such Sections were added by Section 1531 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, pertaining to Build America Bonds) pursuant
to which the County’s 35% cash subsidy payment (the “Federal Subsidy”) from the United States
Treasury is reduced or eliminated.
Provided, however, that the Principal Installments of the Build America Bonds shall not
be subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above
without first obtaining the written consent of the registered owner of the Bonds to be issued as
Build America Bonds. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption shall be given by the Bond
Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety (90) and not less than
sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
5
8. Execution of the Bonds. The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Board (either of
whom may act) and the Clerk and any Deputy Clerk of the Board (either of whom may act) are
authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Bonds and to affix the seal of the County thereto.
9. Pledge of Full Faith and Credit. For the prompt payment of the principal of, premium,
if any, and the interest on the Bonds as the same shall become due, the full faith and credit of the
County are hereby irrevocably pledged, and in each year while any of the Bonds shall be
outstanding there shall be levied and collected in accordance with law an annual ad valorem tax
upon all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient in amount to provide for
the payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and the interest on the Bonds as such principal,
premium, if any, and interest shall become due, which tax shall be without limitation as to rate or
amount and in addition to all other taxes authorized to be levied in the County to the extent other
funds of the County are not lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
10. Use of Proceeds Certificate and Certificate as to Arbitrage. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such other officer or officers of the County as either may
designate are hereby authorized and directed to execute a Certificate as to Arbitrage and a Use of
Proceeds Certificate each setting forth the expected use and investment of the proceeds of the
Bonds and containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), and applicable
regulations relating to the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Tax-Exempt Bonds and
on the corresponding VPSA Bonds or the qualification of any Build America Bonds to qualify as
“Build America Bonds” under the Code. The Board covenants on behalf of the County that (i) the
proceeds from the issuance and sale of the Bonds will be invested and expended as set forth in such
Certificate as to Arbitrage and such Use of Proceeds Certificate and that the County shall comply
with the other covenants and representations contained therein and (ii) the County shall comply
with the provisions of the Code so that (i) interest on any Tax-Exempt Bonds and on the
corresponding VPSA Bonds will remain excludable from gross income for Federal income tax
purposes and (ii) any Build America Bonds shall not fail to qualify as “Build America Bonds”
under the Code.
11. State Non-Arbitrage Program; Proceeds Agreement. The Board hereby determines
that it is in the best interests of the County to authorize and direct the County Director of Finance to
participate in the State Non-Arbitrage Program in connection with the Bonds. The Chairman of the
Board, the County Executive and such officer or officers of the County as either may designate are
hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver a Proceeds Agreement with respect to the
deposit and investment of proceeds of the Bonds by and among the County, the other participants in
the sale of the VPSA Bonds, VPSA, the investment manager and the depository, in such form as
may be approved by the officer executing such Proceeds Agreement.
12. Continuing Disclosure Agreement. The Chairman of the Board, the County
Executive and such other officer or officers of the County as either may designate are hereby
authorized and directed to execute a Continuing Disclosure Agreement, as set forth in Appendix F
to the Bond Sale Agreement, setting forth the reports and notices to be filed by the County and
containing such covenants as may be necessary in order to show compliance with the provisions of
the Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12, under the Securities Exchange Act of
6
1934, as amended, and directed to make all filings required by Section 3 of the Bond Sale
Agreement should the County be determined by VPSA to be a MOP (as defined in the Bond Sale
Agreement).
13. Filing of Resolution. The appropriate officers or agents of the County are hereby
authorized and directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be filed with the Circuit Court
of the County.
14. Further Actions. The members of the Board and all officers, employees and agents of
the County are hereby authorized to take such action as they or any one of them may consider
necessary or desirable in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds and any such action
previously taken is hereby ratified and confirmed.
15. Request to VPSA. By its delivery of a copy this Resolution to VPSA, the County
hereby requests that VPSA issue a series of taxable bonds under the VPSA Resolution.
16. Filing of 8038-CP The County recognizes that in order to receive the Federal Subsidy
for any Build America Bonds, it must file, or cause to be filed, a Form 8038-CP with the Internal
Revenue Service not less than 45 days and not more than 90 days prior to each Interest Payment
Date, as provided in Notice 2009-26 issued by the Internal Revenue Service, so long as filing such
form is a condition to receipt of the Federal Subsidy on each Interest Payment Date.
17. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
7
* * *
The undersigned Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
hereby certifies that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct extract from the minutes of a
meeting of the Board of Supervisors held on September 8, 2010, and of the whole thereof so far as
applicable to the matters referred to in such extract. I hereby further certify that such meeting was a
regularly scheduled meeting and that, during the consideration of the foregoing resolution, a
quorum was present. Members present at the meeting were: ______________________.
Members absent from the meeting were: ________________. Members voting in favor of the
foregoing resolution were: ______________________. Members voting against the foregoing
resolution were: ____________________________. Members abstaining from voting on the
foregoing resolution were: ________________.
WITNESS MY HAND and the seal of the Board of Supervisors of the County of
________, Virginia, this ___ day of ___________, 2010.
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of
the County of ________, Virginia
[SEAL]
A-1
EXHIBIT A
(FORM OF TEMPORARY BOND)
NO. TRA1-1 $___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
General Obligation School Bond
Series 2010 [A-1] (Tax-Exempt) [A-2] (Federally Taxable - Build America Bonds)
The COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), for value received,
hereby acknowledges itself indebted and promises to pay to the VIRGINIA PUBLIC SCHOOL
AUTHORITY the principal amount of _____________ DOLLARS ($__________), in annual
installments in the amounts set forth on Schedule I attached hereto payable on July 15, 2011 and
annually on July 15 thereafter to and including July 15, 20__ (each a "Principal Payment Date"),
together with interest from the date of this Bond on the unpaid installments, payable semi-annually
on January 15 and July 15 of each year, commencing on July 15, 2011 (each an "Interest Payment
Date"; together with any Principal Payment Date, a "Payment Date"), at the rates per annum set
forth on Schedule I attached hereto, subject to prepayment or redemption as hereinafter provided.
Both principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in lawful money of the United States of
America.
For as long as the Virginia Public School Authority is the registered owner of this Bond,
U.S. Bank, National Association, Richmond, Virginia, or any successor entity appointed by the
County, as bond registrar and paying agent (the "Bond Registrar"), shall make all payments of
principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond, without the presentation or surrender hereof,
A-2
to the Virginia Public School Authority, in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on
the applicable Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or redemption. If a Payment Date or date
fixed for prepayment or redemption is not a business day for banks in the Commonwealth of
Virginia or for the Commonwealth of Virginia, then the payment of principal, premium, if any, or
interest on this Bond shall be made in immediately available funds at or before 11:00 a.m. on the
business day next succeeding the scheduled Payment Date or date fixed for prepayment or
redemption. Upon receipt by the registered owner of this Bond of said payments of principal,
premium, if any, and interest, written acknowledgment of the receipt thereof shall be given
promptly to the Bond Registrar, and the County shall be fully discharged of its obligation on this
Bond to the extent of the payment so made. Upon final payment, this Bond shall be surrendered to
the Bond Registrar for cancellation.
The full faith and credit of the County are irrevocably pledged for the payment of the
principal of and the premium, if any, and interest on this Bond. The resolution adopted by the
Board of Supervisors authorizing the issuance of the Bonds provides, and Section 15.2-2624, Code
of Virginia 1950, as amended, requires, that there shall be levied and collected an annual tax upon
all taxable property in the County subject to local taxation sufficient to provide for the payment of
the principal, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same shall become due which tax
shall be without limitation as to rate or amount and shall be in addition to all other taxes authorized
to be levied in the County to the extent other funds of the County are not lawfully available and
appropriated for such purpose.
This Bond is duly authorized and issued in compliance with and pursuant to the
Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, including the Public Finance Act of 1991,
Chapter 26, Title 15.2, Code of Virginia 1950, as amended, and resolutions duly adopted by the
Board of County Supervisors of the County and the School Board of the County to provide funds
A-3
for capital projects for school purposes.
This Bond may be exchanged without cost, on twenty (20) days written notice from the
Virginia Public School Authority, at the office of the Bond Registrar on one or more occasions for
one or more temporary bonds or definitive bonds in marketable form and, in any case, in fully
registered form, in denominations of $5,000 and whole multiples thereof, and having an equal
aggregate principal amount, having principal installments or maturities and bearing interest at rates
corresponding to the maturities of and the interest rates on the installments of principal of this Bond
then unpaid. This Bond is registered in the name of the Virginia Public School Authority on the
books of the County kept by the Bond Registrar, and the transfer of this Bond may be effected by
the registered owner of this Bond only upon due execution of an assignment by such registered
owner. Upon receipt of such assignment and the surrender of this Bond, the Bond Registrar shall
exchange this Bond for definitive Bonds as hereinabove provided, such definitive Bonds to be
registered on such registration books in the name of the assignee or assignees named in such
assignment.
[The principal installments of this Bond coming due on or before July 15, 2020 and the
definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be exchanged that mature on or before July 15, 2020, are
not subject to prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities. The principal installments
of this Bond coming due after July 15, 2020, and the definitive Bonds for which this Bond may be
exchanged that mature after July 15, 2020, are subject to prepayment or redemption at the option of
the County prior to their stated maturities in whole or in part, on any date on or after July 15, 2020,
upon payment of the prepayment or redemption prices (expressed as percentages of principal
installments to be prepaid or the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed) set forth below
plus accrued interest to the date set for prepayment or redemption:
A-4
Dates Prices
July 15, 2020 through July 14, 2021 101%
July 15, 2021 through July 14, 2022 100½
July 15, 2022 and thereafter 100]
[The principal installments of this Bond [maturing on or before ______, 20__] are subject
to redemption prior to maturity at the option of the County, in whole or in part, on any business
day, at the Make-Whole Redemption Price (as defined herein). The “Make-Whole Redemption
Price” is the greater of (i) the issue price of this Bond (but not less than 100%) of the prin cipal
installments amount of this Bond to be redeemed or (ii) the sum of the present value of the
remaining scheduled payments of principal and interest on the principal installments to the
maturity date of this Bond to be redeemed, not including any portion of those payments of
interest accrued and unpaid as of the date on which the principal installments of this Bond to be
redeemed, discounted to the date on which the principal installments of this Bond are to be
redeemed on a semi-annual basis, assuming a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months,
at the Treasury Rate plus [15] basis points, plus, in each case, accrued and unpaid interest on the
principal installments of this Bond to be redeemed on the redemption date.
The principal installments bonds of this Bond are subject to redemption at any time prior
to their maturity at the option of the County, in whole or in part, upon the occurrence of an
Extraordinary Event (as defined herein), at a redemption price (the “Extraordinary Optional
Redemption Price”) equal to the greater of (i) the issue price of this Bond (but not less than
100%) of the principal amount of such Bonds to be redeemed or (ii) the sum of the present value
of the remaining scheduled payments of principal and interest to the maturity date of this Bond to
be redeemed, not including any portion of those payments of interest accrued and unpaid as of
the date on which this Bond are to be redeemed, discounted to the date on which the bonds of
this series are to be redeemed on a semi-annual basis, assuming a 360-day year consisting of
A-5
twelve 30-day months, at the Treasury Rate, plus [100] basis points, plus, in each case, accrued
and unpaid interest on the principal installments of this Bonds to be redeemed on the redemption
date.
An “Extraordinary Event” will have occurred if a material adverse change has occurred to
Section 54AA or Section 6431 of the Code (as such Sections were added by Section 1531 of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, pertaining to “Build America Bonds”)
pursuant to which the County’s 35% cash subsidy payment from the United States Treasury is
reduced or eliminated.
For purpose of determining the Make-Whole Redemption Price or Extraordinary Optional
Redemption Price, the following definition applies:
“Treasury Rate” means, with respect to any redemption date for a particular principal
installment on this bond, the yield to maturity as of such redemption date of United States
Treasury securities with a constant maturity (as compiled and published in the Federal Reserve
Statistical Release H.15 (519) that has become publicly available at least two Business Days, but
not more than 45 calendar days, prior to the redemption date (excluding inflation indexed
securities) (or, if such Statistical Release is no longer published, any publicly available source of
similar market data)) most nearly equal to the period from the redemption date to the maturity
date of the principal installment on this Bond to be redeemed; provided, however that if the
period from the redemption date to such maturity date is less than one year, the weekly average
yield on actually traded United States Treasury securities adjusted to a constant maturity of one
year will be used.]
Provided, however, that the principal installments on this Bond shall not be subject to
A-6
prepayment or redemption prior to their stated maturities as described above without the prior
written consent of the registered owner of this Bond. Notice of any such prepayment or redemption
shall be given by the Bond Registrar to the registered owner by registered mail not more than ninety
(90) and not less than sixty (60) days before the date fixed for prepayment or redemption.
All acts, conditions and things required by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth
of Virginia to happen, exist or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond have
happened, exist and have been performed in due time, form and manner as so required, and this
Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the County, is within every debt and other limit
prescribed by the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle has
caused this Bond to be issued in the name of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, to be signed by its
Chairman or Vice-Chairman, its seal to be affixed hereto and attested by the signature of its Clerk
or any of its Deputy Clerks, and this Bond to be dated [November 10], 2010.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________________
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the Chairman, Board of Supervisors of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia County of Albemarle, Virginia
A-7
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF
ASSIGNEE)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE: ____________________________
the within Bond and irrevocably constitutes and appoints
__________________________________________________ attorney to exchange said Bond for
definitive bonds in lieu of which this Bond is issued and to register the transfer of such definitive
bonds on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Date:
Registered Owner
Signature Guaranteed: (NOTICE: The signature above
must correspond with the name
of the Registered Owner as it
(NOTICE: Signature(s) must be appears on the front of this
guaranteed by an “eligible guarantor Bond in every particular,
institution” meeting the requirements without alteration or change.)
of the Bond Registrar which
requirements will include Membership or
participation in STAMP or such other “signature
guarantee program” as may be determined by
the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for,
STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended.
I-1
SCHEDULE I
[Schedule of Principal Installments]
[to be provided by VPSA after pricing]
1
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project consists of capital projects for school purposes, including without limitation,
the following components:
Crozet Elementary Addition/Renovations
The project consists of site improvements to reconfigure the parking area and bus loop. The
purpose of this work is to separate bus traffic from the parent drop-off area.
Greer Elementary Addition/Renovations
The project consists of design and construction of an addition of approximately 8,340 SF
and renovations to existing spaces and parking areas.
Gymnasium HVAC/Lighting Replacement
The project consists of air conditioning to be installed and replacement/upgrade of the
existing lighting and painting for the gymnasiums in eight schools.
Maintenance/Replacement
The project consists of funding for school maintenance and replacement projects including
floor tile, lighting, carpet, paving, HVAC and energy management projects.
Return to exec summary
26222.000042 EMF_US 32266609v4
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 6, 2010
Amy C. Peloquin
5120 Burnley Station Rd.
Barboursville, VA 22923
RE: SP201000008, The Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding
TMP 03500000000500
Dear Ms. Peloquin:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 2010, recommended approval of
the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission recommends approval of SP-2010-00008 Canine Clipper Dog
Grooming and Boarding subject to staff’s recommended conditions, as amended:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “The Canine Clipper
Composite Plan”, prepared by the applicant and dated April 15, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with
the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Kennel yard and house yard within fenced area
• Entrance gate
• Three structures: kennel, residence, and garage
• Fence circumscribing the entire site, including the three structures and the
kennel yard, house yard, and front yard
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The number of dogs attending the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business during the
day shall not exceed, in the aggregate for both the grooming and boarding activities, 20 at any one
time (does not include personal pets owned by the applicant).
3. The number of dogs attending the overnight boarding business shall not exceed 10 (not including
personal pets owned by the applicant), or one dog per run, at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM, except for
occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business shall not begin
earlier than 9 A.M. and shall end not later than 9 P.M., each day.
6. The number of customer trips generated for the dog grooming business shall not exceed eight (8)
trips per day.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval
8. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (b) shall be required.
Action on Waivers from Section 5.1.11.b and 5.1.11.a:
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission approved waivers from sections 5.11.1(a) and 5.11.1(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance for SP-2010-00008 Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 8, 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,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials
for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this
preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff
will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be
advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that
good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be
scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are
made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to
deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward
the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the
advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing
resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that
the policy can be re-examined annually.
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP201000008 The Canine Clipper
Dog Grooming and Boarding
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 27, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To be determined
Owner: Amy Peloquin Applicant: Amy Peloquin
Acreage: 6.126 Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.17 Commercial
kennel
TMP: Tax Map 35 Parcel 5
Location: 5120 Burnley Station Road, approx.
one mile west of Stony Point Road (20N) junction
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas:
agricultural, forestral, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre)
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: N/A
Proposal: Special Use Permit to allow a
commercial kennel and dog grooming business
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas – preserve and protect
agricultural, forestral, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic
resources/density (0.5 unit/acre)
Character of Property: The 6.126 acre parcel is
entirely wooded except for the main house, yards,
and kennel buildings.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The area is
primarily characterized by rolling terrain, steep
slopes, forested areas, and scattered residential
and farmland. Some large single-family lots are
located to the south and west of the property.
Factors Favorable:
1. The nearest residence is 400 feet away
from the kennel and the subject property is
surrounded by wooded areas.
2. The applicant transports 40% of the dogs
for the dog boarding business; therefore, any
adverse impact on traffic would be negligible.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The dog kennel facility does not meet the
requirements of Section 5.1.11 (a) and (b),
without approval of waivers; however, waivers
of these sections are considered appropriate.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 27, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2010-08 The Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201000008 The Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a commercial kennel
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.17 Commercial kennel
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 5120 Burnley Station Road, approx. one mile west of Stony Point Road (20N) junction
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03500000000500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
Character of the Area:
The area is primarily characterized by rolling terrain, steep slopes, forested areas, and scattered
residential and farmland. Some large single-family lots are located to the south and west of the
property. The adjacent property to the west is under conservation e asement with The Nature
Conservancy (Attachment A).
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant is seeking approval to operate a dog day camp facility, a dog grooming business, and
overnight dog accommodation on the property. The applicant, unaware that a Special Use Permit
was required for the business use, has been operating the business on the property for thirteen
years. The grooming station and boarding kennel are located in a concrete block structure behind
the main house, and the boarding kennel houses ten runs (Attachment B). The applicant has
provided the following specific information regarding the Special Use Permit application:
Day Camp and Dog Grooming
Days of operation – seven days a week
Hours of operation - 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM
A maximum number of drop-offs and pick-ups per day – 8 (4 trips total)
The applicant picks-up and drops-off 18% - 20% of the grooming and day camp clients
One employee
A maximum number of dogs per day – 20
Dogs are kept in the kennel in between scheduled outdoor time in f enced areas
Closed one week per year during the summer
Overnight Dog Accommodations
Open seven days a week
Pick-ups an drop-offs occur at specified times:
o Monday thru Thursday – 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM, 8:30 PM
o Friday and Saturday – 9:00 AM
o Sunday – 8:30 PM
Dogs are kept in the kennel during the night
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
The applicant picks-up and drops-off 35% - 40% of the overnight clients
A maximum of 10 dog guests per night
The applicant currently owns two dogs that have not been included in the number of dog clients
listed in the operation information above, as they are her personal pets.
The entrance to the property is gated, and a contiguous wood post and wire mesh fence encloses
the main house, front yard, children’s play yard, garage, two dog yards, and the board kennel an d
grooming station (Attachment C; see also images provided by the applicant ). The day camp and
boarding dogs are only allowed in the yards located to the northeast and to the south of the kennel.
The applicant has also requested Waivers from Se ction 5.1.11 (a) and (b) of the zoning ordinance.
Planning and Zoning History:
In 1981, a Special Use Permit for a mobile home was approved. In 2004, a Home Occupation Class
A permit was approved for this landowner to allow one truck and one trailer with a loader on the
property.
In March 2010, an anonymous complaint against the business was filed with the Zoning Division,
resulting in this Special Use Permit application to relieve the zoning violation. Since the application
has been submitted, seven of the nine adjacent properties owners have submitted letters of support,
and an additional eleven letters of support from clients and property owners in Albemarle County
have also been submitted. Correspondence in opposition to this application has not been received.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan emphasize the
preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources. The dog care operation would not would require any additional structures or cause any
adverse environmental impacts. Although the proposed use does not directly contribute to the land
uses outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, it also does not adversely affect those uses, and,
therefore, does not have a detrimental impact on the property or adjacent properties.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be iss ued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The dog care operation is surrounded by forest on all sides. Adverse impacts are not anticipated
from this use. The traffic impact would also be negligible since the applicant carries out
approximately 40% of the pick-ups and drop-offs for overnight clients, and the dog grooming
business does not generate on average more than four trips per day. Also, the longtime operation
of the business on the property has been generally accepted in the area. An existing wire mesh
fence is located as close as 15 feet to an adjacent property west of the kennel; however, the four
owners whose property lines are located closest to the kennel along the west have all submitted
letters of support for the application. In a ddition, three other adjacent property owners, including the
one whose house is closest to the kennel, have also submitted letters of support (Attachment D).
The Brown property located south of the parcel and the Levine property located east of the property
did not submit a letter of opposition or support for the application.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The dog grooming and boarding business would not adversely impact the character of the area, as
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
no additional permanent structures are proposed to be built. The traffic impact would also be
negligible as noted above.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and
activities, to protect the water supply, to limit service to rural areas, and to conserve the natural,
scenic, and historic resources of the County. The dog grooming and boarding business would not
have a negative impact on the preservation of agricultural lands or the conservation of the Rural
Areas. The business also would not have an adverse impact on the water supply, nor would it
create a demand for service delivery to the Rural Areas.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The dog care grooming and boarding business would not conflict with the agricultural, forestal, and
residential uses allowed by right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
The applicant has requested waivers from the additional requirements of Section 5.1.11. Although
the dog grooming business may be approved without approval of waivers of Section 5.1.11 (a) and
(b) (discussed below), the operation of the dog kennel is dependent on approval of the waivers.
Therefore, a condition of approval of the special use permit has been offered that would require
that the special use permit be subject to the approval of the waivers.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Health had no objection to the application. The applicant met with a
VDOT representative on June 10, 2010, who determined that the sight distance for the current
driveway entrance met the minimum standards and that the entrance is more than wide enough to
accommodate two vehicles coming and going to access the business safely.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The nearest residence is 400 feet away from the kennel and the subject property is
surrounded by wooded areas.
2. The applicant transports approximately 40% of the dogs for the dog boarding business ;
therefore, any adverse impact on traffic would be negligible.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The dog kennel facility does not meet the requirements of S ection 5.1.11 (a) and (b);
however, waivers of these sections are considered appropriate.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP201000008
Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “The Canine
Clipper Composite Plan”, prepared by the applicant and dated April 15, 2010 (hereafter,
the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
Kennel yard and house yard within fenced area
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 5
Entrance gate
Three structures: kennel, residence, and garage
Fence circumscribing the entire site, including the three structures and the
kennel yard, house yard, and front yard
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with
the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The number of dogs attending the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business
during the day shall not exceed, in the aggregate for both the grooming and boarding
activities, 20 at any one time (does not include personal pets owned by the applicant).
3. The number of dogs attending th e overnight boarding business shall not exceed 10 (not
including personal pets owned by the applicant), or one dog per run, at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM,
except for occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business shall
not begin earlier than 9 A.M. and shall end not later than 5 P.M., each day, Monday
through Friday.
6. The number of trips generated for the dog grooming business shall not exceed five (5) trips
per day.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater
than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval
8. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (b) shall be required.
Waiver Requests
The applicant has requested waivers from the following zoning ordinan ce requirements.
[Section 5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR HOSPITAL,
ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary and animal hospital shall be subject to the following:]
1. Waiver from Section 5.1.11(a) Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air -
conditioned buildings, no structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred
(500) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For non -soundproofed animal confinements, an
external solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the
animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material approved by
the zoning administrator;
Applicant’s Justification: This requirement is not needed for the following reasons because the
critical slopes and close proximity to adjacent property lines limit the buildable areas on the site. In
addition, the 5’ tall wood post and wire mesh fence is more compatible with the rural character of the
area, and constructing a 6’ tall solid block or brick fence would be detrimental to the property and
surrounding area. The site complex is also surrounded by forest, which mitigates any noise
generated from the dog grooming and boarding business.
Staff Analysis: Outside areas where the dogs are allowed , as identified on Attachment B, do not
meet the 500’ minimum setback distance to agricultural or residential lot lines and the existing
fencing materials used to confine the dogs consist of a 5’ high wood post and wire mesh fence.
Attachment E shows approximate distances from the kennel site to adjacent property lines and
houses. The kennel is located as close as 15’ to property lines west of the parcel and the nearest
house is 400’ northeast of the site, beyond a densely wooded area. D espite the proximity of the
kennel to adjacent neighbors, seven of the nine adjacent property owners, including those whose
SP 2010-8
PC July 27, 2010
Staff Report Page 6
property lines and houses are closest to the kennel, have submitted lett ers of support for the dog
grooming and boarding business (Attachment B and Attachment D).
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the re quirements of Section
5.1.11(a) given that the kennel is surrounded by a wooded area, which helps to mitigate any noise
generated from the dog grooming and boarding business, and the fact that a majority of the adjacent
property owners, including those closest to the kennel , have submitted letters of support for the
application. Furthermore, a 6’ tall solid fence would not be compatible with the rural character of the
area, nor would it be necessary for sound attenuatio n.
2. Waiver from Section 5.1.11(b) For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be
located closer than two hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For
soundproofed confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line
shall not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels;
Applicant’s Justification: The kennel is believed to be mostly soundproof, and neither the residence
nor the kennel can be relocated on the 6.126 acre parcel due to critical slopes on the parcel which
limit the buildable areas.
Staff Analysis: As stated in the Section 5.1.11(a) staff analysis, the confinemen t areas for the dogs
are inside wire fenced areas and inside the existing residential and board and grooming kennel
structures. These areas are not soundproofed and would not me et the 200’ setback requirement.
The applicant notes in the application that they stop any barking immediately; however, any barking
that does occur is not anticipated to exceed the maximum fifty-five (55) decibels allowed at the
property lines. Also, as previously mentioned, seven of the nine adjacent property owners have
submitted letters of support for this application.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of a waiver from the requirements of Secti on
5.1.11(b), as the wooded characteristics of the property would sufficiently mitigate noise generated
from the dog grooming and boarding business, attested to by the fact that a majority of the adjacent
property owners have submitted letters of support for this application.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Character of Area
Attachment B – Concept Plan
Attachment C – Images of Site
Attachment D – Letters of Support
Attachment E – Distance of Kennel to Property Lines and Houses
Return to PC actions letter
s 0 170 340 510 680
Feet
SP2010-8, The Canine Dog Clipper Grooming and Boarding Attachment A
Legend
Applicant's Parcel
Conservation Easement
Stream Buffers
Attachment C
This image shows the entrance gate to the property. This image shows the children’s play yard.
This image shows the house yard and wire mesh
fence.
This image shows the kennel yard.
4755 Liberty Road
Barboursville, VA 22923
July 22nd, 2010
To Whom it May Concern:
Re: SP201000008, The Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding
TMP 03500000000500
As I will be out of the area on the date of Tuesday, July 27, 2010 when the above referenced
petition is to be discussed at the Albemarle County Planning Commission Meeting, I am sending
this letter with the hope that my support for Amy Peloquin in obtaining a Special Use Permit for
her commercial kennel will be noted.
As a close neighbor I can state in all honesty that I have never had any problem with noise
coming from the premises in question. I doubt anyone sitting in my garden would ever be aware
of a boarding kennel in the vicinity.
I consider Amy and her family to be excellent neighbors and, despite an illness which would
have devastated many others, she maintains her grooming and boarding kennel better than any
other I have seen. I have taken my own dog to her on several occasions both for boarding and
grooming and have always been very satisfied; I have no problem in recommending Amy to
friends and acquaintances.
I would very much like to see Amy get the Special Use Permit for this business. Good, hard
working families like this are an asset to our community and we need to encourage not
discourage them.
Sincerely,
Joyce Russenberger, Mrs.
200’ to lot
line; 400’ to
building
192’ to lot
line; 385’ to
building
340’ to lot
line; 720’ to
building
192’ to lot
line; 385’ to
building
192’ to lot
line; 385’ to
building
180’ to lot
line; 770’ to
building
175’ to lot
line; 585’ to
building
230’ to lot
line; 675’ to
building
340’ to lot
line
Attachment E Distance of Kennel to Property Lines and Houses
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 27, 2009
Public Hearing Items
SP-2010-00008 Canine Dog Clipper. PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to allow a commercial kennel.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.17 Commercial kennel.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ densi ty (.5 unit/ acre in development
lots).ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 5120 Burnley Station Road, approx. one mile west of
Stony Point Road (20N) junction. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 03500000000500. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rivanna. (Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an application to allow operation of a dog day camp facility, a dog grooming business, and an
overnight dog accommodation on the property.
The applicant was unaware that a Special Use Permit was required for the business use and has
been operating the business on the property for thirteen years. In March 2010, an anonymous
complaint was received and filed with the Zoning Division, resulting in this Special Use Permit
application to relieve the zoning violation.
The applicant has provided specific information regarding the application as included in the staff
report. Some of the more important elements of the application include:
- The grooming business operates daily from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and generates approximately
4 round trip vehicular trips per day.
- The applicant conducts roughly 20% of the pick -ups and drop-offs, and is requesting a
maximum of 20 dogs per day be allowed on the property. For the kennel business, pick -
ups and drop-offs occur only at specified times and the applicant carries out roughly 40%
of these.
- The applicant is also requesting a maximum of 10 dogs be allowed for overnight
boarding.
The area is characterized primarily by wooded lots and large single-family residential lots, and the
dog care operation is surrounded by forest on all sides. On the presentation slide the green
shaded area is under conservation easement, and the pink shaded areas show stream buffer
areas.
The entrance to the property is gated, and a contiguous wood post and wire mesh fence encloses
the main house, front yard, children’s play yard, garage, two dog yards, and the board kennel and
grooming station. The day camp and boarding dogs are only allowed in the yards located to the
northeast and to the south of the kennel, both of which are identified as number 1 on the Concept
Plan.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The nearest residence is 400 feet away from the kennel and the subject property is
surrounded by wooded areas.
2. The applicant transports approximately 40% of the dogs for the dog boarding business;
therefore, any adverse impact on traffic would be negligible.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The dog kennel facility does not meet the requirements of Section 5.1.11 (a) and (b);
however, waivers of these sections are considered appropriate.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
2
Minor revisions to two of the conditions were suggested after further discussion with the applicant
and with Zoning.
- It was suggested that Condition 5 be simplified and clarified in order to meet the needs of
both the grooming and boarding businesses. The proposed revised condition shows the
hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Sunday in order to account for
all aspects of the business, such as later drop-off and pick-up times on Sunday.
- In Condition 6, it was suggested that “customer trips” be added to the condition so as not
to limit the property owners’ trips per day related to the business.
- Last, zoning suggested changing the number in the condition to reflect both the maximum
number of pick-ups and drop offs generated from the dog grooming portion of the
business, as opposed to the number of round-trip trips. So, based on the specifics of the
proposal outlined on page 1, it was suggested that this number be changed to 8.
The applicant is also requesting waivers from Sections 5.1.11(a) and (b), as the dog kennel
facility does not meet these requirements. In regards to section 5.1.11(a), outside areas where
the dogs are allowed, as identified on Attachment B, do not meet the 500’ minimum setback
distance to agricultural or residential lot lines and the existing fencing materials consist of a 5’
high wood post and wire mesh fence. Staff recommends approval of this waiver because seven
of the nine adjacent property owners have submitted letters of support for this application, and the
wire mesh fence is more in keeping with the rural character of the area than requiring
construction of a solid 6’ high fence on the property.
In regards to Section 5.1.11(b), the confinement areas for the dogs are inside the wire fenced
areas and inside the existing residential and boarding and grooming kennel structures. These
areas are not soundproofed and would not m eet the 200’ setback requirement. However, any
barking that does occur is not anticipated to exceed the maximum fifty-five (55) decibels allowed
at the property lines; therefore, staff also recommends approval of a waiver from this section of
the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist asked if staff’s changes were to make it 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. every day of the week and to place
“customer” in front of trips with a limit of 8 customer trips per day.
Ms. Brennan agreed noting that the condition would allow four customers to visit, which would generate
eight trips with one there and one back per day.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Planning Commission.
Amy Peloquin, applicant, said that she did not anything to add.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there were any questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked if it was necessary to start at 6 a.m. with the dogs outside since it was for 7 days
per week.
Ms. Peloquin replied yes because her last out is around 9:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and usually the dogs
cannot make it past 6:00 a.m. The only way to make that later would be to basically allow her to let an old
dog or a dog that would not be able to hold it out earlier. That is the reason for requesting 6:00 a.m.
There may be days that she does 6:30 a.m. or 7:00 a.m. if all of the dogs being boarded are capable of
holding it. But generally she knows which ones can or can’t.
Ms. Porterfield clarified that if approved the special use permit goes with the land and not for this specific
operator. Therefore people need to understand that once approved the applicant could stop the
business, but somebody could buy her house and have the same business. That is why she wanted to
see if there was any way to tighten the conditions a little bit for the neighbors. She felt that 6:00 a.m.
every morning was too much.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
3
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment.
Michael Lavene, adjacent neighbor, said that his property was in a conservatio n easement. His biggest
issue was that he was not aware that she was able to board dogs overnight to such a degree. If 20 dogs
were left out over night he was concerned with the amount of noise that could be generated. If the
special use permit is in perpetuity this business could be passed on to another potential owner . That is an
issue for him and potentially other neighbors. He did not have any issues with the dog grooming, but was
more concerned about multiple dogs up to 20 outside at night and naturally barking at deer or whatever
that takes place in the county. His biggest concern is the noise, how much is 55 decibels, how do they
maintain that and how does he address an issue if it becomes untenable.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he had had any noise problems.
Mr. Lavene replied no, but he heard dogs barking occasionally. It appears that there is a potential for this
business to expand. What he really wants to address is that this business is just for clipping and
maintaining dogs, but not for overnight kenneling dogs on a regular basis. That is his biggest issue.
Mr. Zobrist questioned if the applicant is currently boarding dogs overnight.
Ms. Brennan replied yes that the applicant is requesting ten dogs be allowed to be boarded overnight and
20 dogs during the day.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ten dogs boarded overnight will be inside.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that is in the recommended special use permit conditions. If the applicant is not
keeping up with the conditions he could pick up the phone and call the zoning department who will send
an inspector out to check it. They will bring their sound equipment out and put it on the property line to
see if it is over 55 decibels.
Mr. Lavene asked if the special use permit could be conditioned only to this particular owner or does it
have to go with the land.
Mr. Kamptner replied that staff strongly discourages conditions that tie permits to particular owners. If
there are impacts that need to be addressed it should not be based on faith in the o wner. There should be
a condition that deals with the particular impact.
Mr. Lavene asked why this special use permit should go to this land in perpetuity.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it was the nature of special use permits, which essentially rezone the land.
Mr. Morris pointed out that the conditions would also go with the land so any person would have to abide
by the conditions of this.
Mr. Kamptner said that was correct.
Mr. Lavene said that he would prefer to maintain their quiet enjoyment as they have it now.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that the applicant said that this is the current use and there is no change. He
asked staff how many letters in support of the request had been received from adjacent neighbors.
Ms. Brennan replied with the last em ail sent it topped at 20 letters with 7 from adjacent owners and the
rest from county residents.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that the Commission talk about the waivers, which was a separate issue than the
special use permit. The special use permit requires the waivers. He invited other public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
4
Christy Larson said she had been an adjacent neighbor since the early 80’s and lived 400’ from the
applicant’s home. She had sent in a letter. The whole time the applicant has been operating this kennel
she rarely, if ever, hears a dog bark just like one would in a regular neighborhood. There is not a traffic
problem whatsoever. Her home actually faces the kennel itself and she has no objections whatsoever.
There being no further public comments, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Mr. Franco asked if the Commission grants the waivers on the construction side for the fencing and the
soundproofing, and if noise does become a problem in the future, do they have the ability to reevaluate
the special use permit. Or, do they need to make that a condition of the special use permit.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it needs to be made a condition of the special use permit so once the action is
taken it is there.
Mr. Franco said that the proper phasing of that would be that the use needs to be contained to be in
compliance with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Zobrist asked staff to put the two conditions up on the waivers.
Mr. Franco noted that the conditions will help mitigate the noise. If they grant the request he just wanted
to make sure that there is a way to reevaluate the special use permit if it does become a problem in the
future. He was looking for a condition.
Ms. Brennan pointed out that there are actually two components for each of the waivers. There is a 500’
setback for the waiver a) and the fence. Then for waiver b) there is a 200’ setback and the 55 decibels.
She asked if the two could be broken apart so that they are voting to support identifying each of the
aspects of the waivers for which they are choosing to vote in support of.
Mr. Franco said he was comfortable moving forward with the waivers, but he would like to have some kind
of mechanism in the special use permit that gives the county the ability in the future if the dog noise
becomes an issue that they can reevaluate either the waivers or the special use permit.
Mr. Lafferty said that would be normal recourse
Mr. Kamptner said the Board has done one thing a couple of times where they had uses that they were
not fully confident that the conditions would be complied with that they put a life on the special use permit
so that the applicant needs to reapply within a certain period of time. Also, compliance with the
conditions and the nature of the activity if it has created problems requires a reevaluation.
Mr. Zobrist asked if that was a continuing obligation over time.
Mr. Kamptner replied that in the circumstances where that has happened usually it was the first special
use permit that had the condition and then it went away after the one, two or three year period if there
was confidence that the conditions were addressing the problem or new conditions were imposed to
address the situation.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they could grant the waiver conditionally. He thought that was the right solution.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Mr. Cilimberg noted in reality the second of the two waivers was really for the distance only because it is
less than 200’. So it could not exist unless that waiver is granted. It was not for the 55 decibels.
Mr. Kamptner said if that was clear that the 55 decibel standard remains, that would be fine. Then this
owner would be subject to that standard.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
5
Ms. Porterfield asked if the reapplication would be required if there is a change in the ownership of the
dog grooming business.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they have strongly discouraged against that. There was a brief period in the
late 1980’s where conditions like that were being imposed, which created problems down the road. The
impacts need to be evaluated independent of who is actually conducting the use.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that the first waiver was to waiver the 500’ limitation. Since it is not soundproofed
the second request is to waive the external solid fence not less than 6 ’ in height located within 50’ of
animal confinement. He heard Mr. Franco saying that he would be more comfortable saying the
Commission will waive the 500’ conditionally so that any neighbors that have any problem s can come
back and ask the Commission to reevaluate it in the event that there are noise issues.
Mr. Franco noted that becomes difficult because he would not want to make an enforcement issue here.
Maybe it does make more sense to give the special use permit a life of three years or something so that
there is an opportunity to collect some data so the neighbors have an opportunity. The request came
before the Commission tonight because it was complaint driven. They have heard at least one neighbor
raise concerns about the potential in the future.
Mr. Zobrist reiterated Mr. Franco’s suggestion that the waiver be for a limited time.
Mr. Franco suggested that the waiver be associated with this special use permit and it have a life of three
years. Then the applicant would have to come back in three years. At that point they would have an
opportunity to see if the neighbors have had any problems.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the Commission could do that.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that has been a practice before when impacts were not fully identified.
Mr. Morris pointed out that with all due respect they have 13 years of data that includes happy neighbors.
Three more years will not give them any additional overwhelming data. He visited the property and it is
an isolated piece of property surrounded by woods. As anyone knows foliage absorbs noise. It is
soundproofed
Ms. Porterfield asked if they can put the 55 decibels in the conditions for the special use permit so that
they could double it.
Mr. Franco questioned if they need to double it.
Ms. Porterfield said she wondered about that. They have gotten lots of good feedback, but she would
feel better if they did not need to have these dogs go outside at 6 a.m. for 7 days a week. If there is a
way to write a condition to move it to 7 a.m., except in very unusual circumstances so it would take care
of the very old dog or something like that, she would support it.
Ms. Lafferty noted that they should not interfere with the way the applicant operates now. If they go over
65 decibels and the neighbors complain about it, then after it is measured it can be stopped.
Ms. Porterfield noted this was the second similar request within a year. The biggest problem is the
special use permit traveling with the land.
Mr. Franco said that he had no problem with it.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they can tighten up anything that makes it a little bit easier if there are problems in
the future and a neighbor has to come in and complain.
Mr. Lafferty said that they should not restrict the business practice just because the special use permit
travels with the land.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
6
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission needs to take two actions with one on the special use permit
and the other on the waivers. Also, they need to specify that they are using the conditions as
recommended by staff if that is what they are proposing.
Mr. Franco asked if the noise ordinance was 65 or 55 decibels.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it depends on the hours of day.
Mr. Zobrist asked that discussion be held off until the waiver consideration.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00008, Canine
Dog Clipper subject to staff’s recommended conditions in the staff report, as amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “The Canine Clipper
Composite Plan”, prepared by the applicant and dated April 15, 2010 (hereafter, the “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord
with the Conceptual Plan, the development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
• Kennel yard and house yard within fenced area
• Entrance gate
• Three structures: kennel, residence, and garage
• Fence circumscribing the entire site, including the three structures and the
kennel yard, house yard, and front yard
as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The number of dogs attending the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business during
the day shall not exceed, in the aggregate for both the grooming and boarding activities, 20 at
any one time (does not include personal pets owned by the applicant).
3. The number of dogs attending the overnight boarding business shall not exceed 10 (not including
personal pets owned by the applicant), or one dog per run, at any one time.
4. Dogs boarding overnight shall be kept inside between the hours of 10:00 P M and 6:00 AM,
except for occasional supervised trips outside.
5. The hours of operation for the Canine Clipper Dog Grooming and Boarding business shall not
begin earlier than 9 A.M. and shall end not later than 9 P.M., each day.
6. The number of customer trips generated for the dog grooming business shall not exceed eight
(8) trips per day.
7. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3
foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval
8. Approval of Waivers from Sections 5.1.11 (a) and (b) shall be required.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Action on Waiver from Section 5.1.11(a) and Waiver from Section 5.1.11(b):
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the waivers as listed for SP -2010-
00008 Canine Dog Clipper.
Discussion:
Mr. Zobrist asked about the conditions. Regarding the limitation on Section 5.1.11b it is only limited to
soundproof confinements. He asked about non-soundproof confinements. He asked if that was the 65
decibels during the day and 55 decibels at night.
Mr. Kamptner replied that in the Rural Area district the day time standard is 60 decibels and the night time
standard 55 decibels.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
7
Mr. Zobrist asked if 5.1.11.b does not apply because they don’t have soundproof kennels.
Mr. Kamptner replied that is correct. The Commission can condition the granting of a wa iver to address
impacts. It is within the Commission’s discretion if they are inclined to grant the waiver as to the
soundproofing requirement in the first sentence and then establish a noise standard of 55 decibels as
measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line.
Mr. Zobrist asked if Mr. Smith would like to amend his motion.
Mr. Smith replied no, that the motion was as written.
Mr. Franco said having heard that the Noise Ordinance will still be standing in the Rural Areas and that it
is 55 and 65 decibels that he was comfortable since there was another mechanism. The special use
permit or business may still exist, but there will be an opportunity for the adjacent neighbors if concerned
to call the county and to complain and have that go down as a zoning violation at that point in time.
Therefore, he was comfortable with the motion.
Mr. Lafferty asked if 11b would preclude them from clear-cutting the land, and Mr. Kamptner replied no.
Mr. Lafferty noted that with clear-cutting they would be getting rid of the soundproofing.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that condition 1 of the special use permit refers to the composite plan and there
were no trees shown on it. So there would be no limitation on removing trees.
Mr. Smith asked if the property was zoned rural agricultural, and Mr. Cilimberg replied yes.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that the waivers were approved, which did not go to the Board of Supervisors. Also,
SP-2010-00008 Canine Dog Clipper would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 6, 2010
Engineering Design Associates
P.O. Box 50067
Richmond, Va 23250
RE: SP201000006 Baugh Auto Body
Tax Map 32, Parcel 5B
Dear Mr. Hooker:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 2010, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled, “Baugh Auto
Body II, Special Use Permit Plan,” prepared by Engineering Design Associates, and dated May 25,
2010 (hereinafter, the “Special Use Permit Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
– location of parking areas
– relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the Special Use Permit Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing location and
design may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB). Minor
modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The rental of passenger vehicles under SP-2010-00011 is permitted as an accessory use associated
with SP-2010-00006, Baugh Auto Body Shop.
3. Rental cars available on the site may only be rented to customers of the auto body shop.
4. The hours of operation for the auto body shop and accessory rental car use shall not begin before
6:00 a.m. on Monday and shall not end later than 6:00 p.m. on the next Saturday.
5. The US 29 frontage and the perimeters of parking areas shall be improved with landscaping to meet
the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The landscaping shall be shown on a plan, to be approved with the
site plan amendment. The plan shall include identification of existing trees and shrubs on the site,
although trees and shrubs in the heavily wooded area on the south side of the parcel need not be
individually identified.
6. The design of the screening fence shall be subject to ARB approval. The fence shall be
supplemented with landscaping, which shall be subject to ARB approval. Sufficient area for planting
shall be provided, as determined by the ARB.
7. A planting island shall be added at the west end of the rental car parking row with plants as
determined by the ARB. The island and planting shall be shown on a plan, to be approved with the
site plan amendment.
8. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on the parcel outside of the building.
9. Rental vehicles shall be parked only in the area indicated for rental car parking shown on the Special
Use Permit Plan. Rental car parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces, as identified
on this plan. No parking shall occur in travelways. No sign identifying the rental car use shall be
visible from offsite locations.
10. No chain link, barbed wire, razor wire, or other similar fencing or attachments other than that existing
on the site on [date of Board of Supervisors approval] shall be installed on this parcel.
11. Existing site and exterior building lighting shall be brought into conformance with Section 4.17 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
12. No damaged vehicle awaiting repair shall be outside the building for longer than 48 hours, and no
damaged vehicle leaking fluids shall be stored outside.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 8, 2010.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Judith Wiegand
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Baugh, LLC
6018 West Broad Street
Charlottesville, Va 23230
HMC Holdings LLC
9 Canterbury Rd
Charlottesville Va 22903
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 2010-00006, Baugh Auto Body;
SP 2010-00011 Baugh Rental Car Outdoor
Storage
Staff: Judith Wiegand
Margaret Maliszewski
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 27, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not scheduled
Owners: H.M.C. Holdings, LLC Applicant: Baugh, LLC
Acreage: Approximately 16.8 acres Special Use Permit (SP 2010-00006): to allow
operation of an auto body shop in an industrial
district (Section 27.2.2 (11) of the Zoning
Ordinance)
Special Use Permit (SP 2010-00011): Outdoor
storage, display and/or sales in the Entrance
Corridor (EC) Overlay District (Section 30.6.3.2 (b)
of the Zoning Ordinance)
TMP: TM 32, Parcel 5B
Location: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just
north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River
on the east side of US 29, directly opposite
the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Light Industrial (LI)
- industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no
residential use); Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to
protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural
significance from visual impacts of development along
routes of tourist access
Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
Proposal: To operate an auto body shop in an
existing building on the site; to establish outdoor
storage of rental cars in association with the
proposed auto body shop.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Development Area: Community of Piney
Mountain
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Industrial Service -
- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research,
office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre) in the Community of Piney Mountain.
Character of Property: The site is developed and
includes a one-story office fronting a larger
industrial/warehouse building with paving
surrounding the structure. There is a wooded area
sloping down to floodplain to the south and east.
The site includes limited landscaping and, as
viewed from US 29, has an open appearance. The
property is being subdivided into two parcels that
will be owned separately.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The Camelot
residential subdivision is located across US 29 to the
northwest and the UVA Research Park is across US 29
to the southwest. Industrially zoned properties including
the Clayton Homes display lot and the International Auto
Sport site are situated immediately to the north. The
NGIC/DIA facilities are further to the north. The North
Fork of the Rivanna is located to the east and south,
with residential uses beyond.
Factors Favorable (SP 2010-00006, Auto Body
Shop):
1. The auto body shop would preserve the
industrial character of the area and will enable
reuse of an industrial building.
2. The location will provide convenient service to
businesses and residents of the area.
Factors Unfavorable (SP 2010-00006, Auto Body
Shop):
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors.
Factors Favorable (SP 2010-00011, Outdoor
Storage):
1. The ARB has no objection to the proposed
Factors Unfavorable (SP 2010-00011, Outdoor
Storage):
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors.
use and, with the recommended conditions of
approval, no detrimental impacts to the
Entrance Corridor are anticipated.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of both Special Use Permits with conditions.
STAFF: Judith Wiegand, Margaret
Maliszewski
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: July 27, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: Not scheduled
SP 2010-00006 Baugh Auto Body
SP 2010-00011 Baugh Rental Car Outdoor Storage
PETITIONS
PROJECT: SP2010-00006, Baugh Auto Body
PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to renovate existing building for auto body shop; no
residential units proposed
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: LI – Light Industrial – industrial, office, and
limited
commercial uses (no residential use)
SECTION: 27.2.2 (11) Body Shops
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Community of Piney Mountain
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River
on
the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32-5B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
PROJECT: SP2010-00011, Baugh Rental Car Outdoor Storage
PROPOSAL: Special Use Permit for outdoor storage of rental cars in association with a
proposed auto body shop.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Light Industrial (LI) - industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use); Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties
of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along
routes of tourist access
SECTION: 30.6.3.2 (b) which allows for , storage, display and/or sales visible from an EC
street in the EC Entrance Corridor zoning overlay district
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and
residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Community of Piney Mountain.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River
on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32/5B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The subject parcel was developed in 1968 as Electronics Concepts, Inc., and later as the
Badger Powhatan Company. A brick-faced office fronts larger warehouse structures, and
paving extends around all sides of the building. Wooded areas and steep slopes that
descend to the North Fork of the Rivanna River exist on the east and south sides of the
property. The nearly 17-acre parcel anchors the southern end of a block of industrial land
situated along US 29 opposite Camelot Drive. To the north, a mobile home sales business
and an auto distribution warehouse facility are located on industrial property. Further north,
the NGIC/DIA facility includes large office buildings off of Boulders Road. Residential
developments of varying scale (including the Camelot subdivision on the west side of US 29
and Rivers Edge to the southeast across the North Fork of the Rivanna) are located in the
general area. (See Attachment A, Location Map)
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
SP 2010-00006, Auto Body Shop use. This proposal is to operate an auto body shop
where vehicles would be restored. There is an existing industrial building on the site that is
being divided into two separate units (condominiums). The auto body shop would be in the
front or western ―half‖ of the building closest to US 29. Repair/restoration would take place
inside the existing industrial building. Rental cars would be available for the convenience of
auto body shop customers. The rental car counter would be inside the office area and no
signs identifying the rental car company would be outside the building. (See Attachment B,
Special Use Permit Plan)
SP 2010-00011, Outdoor Storage, Display, and/or Sales in an Entrance Corridor. This
special use permit covers the proposal to park (store) rental cars on the property. A row of
18 rental car parking spaces is proposed along the north side of the parcel in an existing
paved parking area, as shown on the Special Use Permit Plan (Attachment B). The rental
cars are for the use of auto body customers who require a replacement vehicle while their
own vehicle is under repair. The rental cars are considered an accessory use to the
proposed auto body shop use.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
SDP-0000119: Electronics Concepts, Inc.: Site plan approved 7/10/1968.
SDP-000025: Sprinkler Systems Building Addition: Site plan approved 5/10/1973; service
drive approved 5/28/1974.
SDP-000026: Badger Powhatan Parking Lot: Site plan amendment for additional parking
approved 12/18/1975.
VA-1977-066: ATO Properties (Badger Powhatan): Variance for reduction in sign setback
approved 11/10/1977.
SDP-1992-82: Badger Powhatan: minor amendment for snack bar building signed
12/6/1992.
SUB-2010-13: A 2-lot subdivision for parcel 5B was approved on 4/2/2010. The action
divides the parcel along a line that runs north/south through the building. The auto body
shop is proposed for the western part of the building and the site.
CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan-
This property is located in the community of Piney Mountain and is designated Industrial
Service in the current Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Industrial Service designation is to
provide warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale
research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) uses. The proposed use as an auto
body shop is industrial in nature and is compatible with the Industrial Service designation.
The rental car parking use is considered an accessory use to the auto body shop and so
does not conflict with this purpose.
Neighborhood Model
SP 2010-00006. Staff notes that this proposed use would be located in an existing building
on an already developed site. No major changes are proposed in the building or paved
parking areas, which take up most of the site. Since so few changes are being made to the
site, a full Neighborhood Model analysis is not necessary. This proposed use does advance
the Neighborhood Model principle of Redevelopment; the auto body shop will reuse an
existing industrial building.
STAFF COMMENT
SP 2010-00006. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff
notes the following
31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
Parcel 5B is an approximately 17-acre piece of land that anchors the southern half of an
industrially zoned area on the east side of US 29, just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna
River (See Attachment A, Location Map). To the north of the subject property, the uses are
also industrial, including a mobile homes sales business and an automobile distribution
facility. The NGIC facility is further north. The proposed auto body shop will restore vehicles,
a use whose characteristics are similar to other by-right industrial uses like fabrication and
assembly of light machinery and machine parts. Furthermore, the traffic and by-products of
this use are subject to the Zoning Ordinance’s performance standards and should not
adversely impact adjacent properties. Thus, this use is similar to and compatible with other
industrial uses, it will not be detrimental to adjacent uses and will not change the character
of the district.
The nearest non-industrial districts are residential ones on the opposite (west) side of US 29
and on the other side of the North Fork of the Rivanna (to the south and east). Because US
29 and the North Fork serve as significant buffers between the residential districts and the
proposed auto body shop use, the auto body shop should not have a detrimental impact on
these residential districts.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Auto body shops are allowed by special use permit in Light Industrial districts. The special
use permit requirement is to ensure that the use fulfills the purpose and intent of the district.
Light Industrial districts are intended to ―permit industries, offices and limited commercial
uses which are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts.‖ As noted
above, the auto body shop is similar in character to other industrial facilities and is
compatible with other uses in the district.
The existing building on the site was designed in the 1960s as an industrial facility. When
the previous industrial user left the building, concern was expressed that it might be difficult
to find another industrial user for whom the building would be suitable. At the present time,
the building is vacant and the property has been subdivided into two separate properties.
The auto body shop would reuse the western half of the building—a form of
redevelopment—and preserve the industrial nature of the site and surrounding area.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
By-right uses in a Light Industrial district include various types of manufacturing, printing,
research and development, assembly and fabrication, engineering, warehousing, and similar
uses. An auto body shop use involves some of the same fabrication, assembly, repair, and
related activities, so it will be compatible with by-right uses in the district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5,
Section 5.1.31 Body Shop lists three regulations that apply to the proposed auto body shop:
a. There shall be no storage of parts, materials, or equipment except within an
enclosed building.
The applicant has indicated that all parts and materials shall be stored within the
building.
b. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of such property so as to
be visible from any public road or any residential property, and shall be limited to
locations designed [designated] on the approved site plan.
The applicant has indicated that vehicles awaiting repair shall be screened and has
stated further that all vehicles awaiting repair shall be kept inside the building,
except for those dropped off during non-business hours.
c. Nothing herein shall be construed to limit the authority of the governing body in the
review of any special use permit, including but not limited to, the regulation of
hours of operation, location of door and/or windows and the like.
The applicant has indicated that the proposed hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m.
Monday through 6:00 p.m. Saturday.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Staff believes that the proposed auto body shop will serve the auto repair needs of
employees of businesses in the area, as well as residents. It is reusing part of a vacant
industrial building and maintaining the industrial character of the area consistent with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan.
The Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, a representative of Fire/Rescue, VDOT
staff, and the Albemarle County Service Authority have reviewed this proposal, have
indicated no objection to the proposed auto body shop use, and have made no
recommendations for additional improvements to address health and safety considerations.
(See Attachments C and D)
SP 2010-00011. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff
notes the following:
31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed
thereby,
The subject parcel is already developed with a building and paved parking areas and
travelways. The rental car parking area is proposed to be located within the existing paved
parking lot. The use of the existing parking area for rental car parking is not expected to be
detrimental to adjacent property, and the character of the Enrance Corridor district will be
maintained, if certain standards are met regarding the method of parking and landscaping.
The ARB has reviewed the proposal and has addressed these issues with conditions of
approval. (See Attachment E)
The rental car use is considered an accessory use to the auto body shop. Consequently, it
is not permissible for signage for the rental car use to be visible from offsite locations.
And that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The special use permit requirement for outdoor storage, display and/or sales parking is to
allow for review of the potential impacts of this activity on the Entrance Corridor. As outlined
in section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, the intent of the EC Overlay District is, in part, to
ensure a quality of development that is compatible with the County’s important scenic,
architectural and cultural resources through the architectural control of development. The
ARB has applied the County’s adopted guidelines for development within the EC to the
review of this request and had no objection to the request for the Special Use Permit with
conditions related to landscaping and method of parking. (See Attachment E for the ARB’s
action.)
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
A row of 18 rental car parking spaces is not expected to adversely affect any permitted by-
right uses in the district.
with additional regulations provided in section 5,
There are no additional regulations for outdoor storage, display and/or sales specific to
parking for rental cars.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The ARB has addressed those aspects relevant to this type of special permit with its
recommended conditions of approval.
SUMMARY
SP 2010-00006. Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this
application for an auto body shop:
1. The auto body shop would preserve the industrial character of the area and will enable
reuse of an industrial building.
2. The location will provide convenient service to businesses and residents of the area.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
SP 2010-00011. Staff has identified the following factor that is favorable to this request for
outdoor storage, display, and/or sales:
3. The Architectural Review Board has no objection to the request and, with the
recommended conditions of approval, no detrimental impacts to the Entrance Corridor
are anticipated.
Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of these two special use permits with the following conditions
applied to both SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled,
―Baugh Auto Body II, Special Use Permit Plan,‖ prepared by Engineering Design
Associates, and dated May 25, 2010 (hereinafter, the ―Special Use Permit Plan‖), as
determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity
with the plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the
development essential to the design of the development:
a. location of parking areas
b. relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the Special Use Permit Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing
location and design may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural
Review Board (ARB). Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The rental of passenger vehicles under SP 2010-00011 is permitted as an accessory
use associated with SP 2010-00006, Baugh Auto Body Shop.
3. Rental cars available on the site may only be rented to customers of the auto body shop.
4. The hours of operation for the auto body shop and accessory rental car use shall not
begin before 6:00 a.m. on Monday and shall not end later than 6:00 p.m. on the next
Saturday.
5. The US 29 frontage and the perimeters of parking areas shall be improved with
landscaping to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The landscaping shall be shown
on a plan, to be approved with the site plan amendment. The plan shall include
identification of existing trees and shrubs on the site, although trees and shrubs in the
heavily wooded area on the south side of the parcel need not be individually identified.
6. The design of the screening fence shall be subject to ARB approval. The fence shall be
supplemented with landscaping, which shall be subject to ARB approval. Sufficient area
for planting shall be provided, as determined by the ARB.
7. A planting island shall be added at the west end of the rental car parking row with plants
as determined by the ARB. The island and planting shall be shown on a plan, to be
approved with the site plan amendment.
8. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on the parcel outside of the building.
9. Rental vehicles shall be parked only in the area indicated for rental car parking shown on
the Special Use Permit Plan. Rental car parking shall be only in designated striped
parking spaces, as identified on this plan. No parking shall occur in travelways. No sign
identifying the rental car use shall be visible from offsite locations.
10. No chain link, barbed wire, razor wire, or other similar fencing or attachments other than
that existing on the site on [date of Board of Supervisors approval] shall be installed on
this parcel.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Special Use Permit Plan, prepared by Engineering Design Associates, and dated May
25, 2010
C. Comment Letter from VDOT, dated April 16, 2010
D. Comment Letter from ACSA, dated April 6, 2010
E. ARB Action letter with recommended conditions of approval, dated May 24, 2010
Return to actions letter
SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 9
ATTACHMENT A
SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 10
From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.
[Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 12:12 PM
To: Judith Wiegand
Subject: RE: SP2010-00006 Baugh Auto Body
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Judy, I don’t have any comments on this SP. I had recently been working with the applicant on the entrance and determined that it is adequate for the proposed use and I required them to remove the additional entrance that was located on the taper of the right turn lane. They have adequately removed the entrance and everything looks fine. Thanks Joel
Joel DeNunzio, P.E.
Staff Engineer
434-293-0011 Ext. 120
joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov
ATTACHMENT C
SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 11
ALBEMARLE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT – Information from
Service Providers
SP201000006
Baugh Auto Body
To be filled out by ACSA for ZMAs and SPs
1. Site is in jurisdictional area for water and sewer
service.
2. Distance to the closest water line if in the development
area is on site.
Water pressure is with ______________________ gallons per
minute at _______________________ psi.
3. Distance to the closest sewer line if in the development
area is on site.
4. Capacity issues for sewer that may affect this proposal:
none known
5. Requires Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority capacity
certification __√__Yes ____No
6. Water flow or pressure issues that may affect this
proposal: none known
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
7. Red flags” regarding service provision (Use attachments if
necessary): Existing fire hydrants around structure are
private. Supply line size for these hydrants is unknown.
Oil/water separator will be required. Backflow prevention is
required. Separate water meters may require easements.
ATTACHMENT D
SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 12
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 May 24, 2010 Engineering Design and Associates C/O Randy Hooker P.O. Box 50067 Richmond, VA 23250
RE: ARB201000039 Baugh Auto Body Rental Cars
Tax Map 32, Parcel 5B Dear Mr. Hooker: The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on May 17, 2010, completed a preliminary review of the above-noted request. The Board took the following actions.
Regarding the request for the Special Use Permit: The ARB has no objection to the request for the special use permits for Baugh auto body and rental car storage, with the following conditions: 1. The Route 29 frontage shall be improved with landscaping to meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The landscaping shall be shown on a plan, to be approved with the site plan amendment. The plan shall include identification of existing trees and shrubs on site, although trees and shrubs in the heavily wooded area on the south side of the parcel need not be individually identified. 2. The design of the screening fence shall be subject to ARB approval. The fence shall be supplemented with landscaping, which shall be subject to ARB approval. Sufficient area for planting shall be provided, as determined by the ARB. 3. A planting island shall be added at the west end of the rental car parking row with plants as determined by the ARB. The island and planting shall be shown on a plan, to be approved with the site plan amendment. 4. Rental car spaces shall be striped. 5. Vehicles shall not be elevated. 6. No new chain link, barbed wire, razor wire or other similar fencing or attachments shall be added to this site.
Regarding the preliminary proposal, the ARB offered the following comments: 1. Revise the plan to include identification of the existing trees and shrubs on-site. (Trees and shrubs in the heavily wooded area south of the site need not be individually identified.) 2. Provide planting along the EC frontage to meet the EC guidelines, in particular 3½” caliper shade trees at 35’ on center along the full frontage of the corridor, ornamental trees interspersed among the shade trees, and shrubs, 24” high at planting, to form a hedge along the parking lot. 3. Provide an alternate screening fence design with the site plan amendment. Include identification of proposed materials, finishes, colors, method of construction, planting, etc.
ATTACHMENT E
SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 13
4. Provide a planting island, and tall shrubs in the island, at the west end of the rental car parking row. 5. Supplement the screening fence with planting. The species, size, quantity and interval depend on the fence design. 6. No new chain link, no barbed wire, razor wire or other similar fencing or attachments shall be used. 7. Rental car spaces shall be striped. 8. Vehicles shall not be elevated. 9. Note that a sign permit application must be submitted, reviewed and approved prior to installing a new sign or refacing the existing one. Consult the EC Sign Guidelines.
Regarding the fence design, the ARB provided the following direction: 1. A white fence is not recommended. A neutral tone with a flat finish is recommended. 2. A metal panel fence could be appropriate if it is sufficiently mitigated with planting. 3. Piers or planting are required to break up the length of the fence, but not necessarily both. 4. Planting along the EC and planting along the south and southwest faces of the fence would be appropriate. You may submit your application for continued ARB review at your earliest convenience. Application forms, checklists and schedules are available on-line at www.albemarle.org/planning. Revised drawings addressing the comments listed above are required. Include updated ARB revision dates on each drawing and an ARB approval signature panel. Please provide a memo including detailed responses indicating how each comment has been addressed. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with “clouding” or by other means will facilitate review and approval. If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner Cc: HMC Holdings LLC 995 Windsor Rd Charlottesville Va 22901 File
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 27, 2009
SP-2010-00006 Baugh Auto Body. PROPOSED: Special Use Permit to renovate existing building for
auto body shop; no residential units proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: LI - Light
Industrial - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use). SECTION: 27.2.2 (11)
Body Shops. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing, light
industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limit ed production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre) in
the Community of Piney Mountain. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US
29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the
intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 32-5B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rivanna
AND
SP-2010-00011 Baugh Auto Body – Outdoor Storage. PROPOSED: Special Use Permit for outdoor
storage of rental cars in association with a proposed auto body shop. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL
USAGE: Light Industrial (LI) - industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use);
Entrance Corridor (EC) - overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from
visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 30.6.3.2.b Outdoor storage,
display and/or sales in the Entrance Corridors. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY:
Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale
research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference
facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in the Community of Piney Mountain. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: Yes, LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna
River on the east side of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29. TAX
MAP/PARCEL: 32-5B. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report two special use
permits, SP-2010-006 and SP-2010-011, for Baugh Auto Body.
Purpose of Special Use Permits SP 2010-00006 and SP 2010-00011:
1. To allow the redevelopment of a portion of this site into an auto body shop with rental cars as an
accessory use.
2. To permit outdoor storage of the rental cars in an Entrance Corridor
Tonight a copy of a letter from Mr. Larry McElwain has been distributed to the Commission along with a
packet of material from the applicant, Mr. Baugh, that details information on how he conducts his
business. Mr. Baugh has been the owner and operator of an auto body shop in Richmond since 1982.
(Attachment – Letter dated July 20, 2010 to Judy Wiegand regarding Baugh Auto Body from Larry
McElwain)
Location: The former Badger-Powhatan Building on Route 29 North
Subdivision of the parcel has been approved. It‘s now two properties with a boundary running north -south
through the building. The proposed auto body shop would be in the front or western half closest to US 29.
The actual boundary line is shown on the layout plan.
The proposed auto body shop use is a place where a car that has been damaged is restored. Th ey work
on the exterior of the car, the upholstery inside and things like that. This is not a place where they do
engine, transmission and other repairs to the working parts of the car. The majority of the cars that are
handled at an auto body shop like this one are drivable; only a small percentage must be towed in.
Drivable vehicles are brought in for an estimate; then brought back at a scheduled time for restoration.
Most vehicles are not parked on the site waiting to be worked on. There are occasions when the car has
to be towed in and there are spaces designated on the site plan for those cars to be parked.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel as Industrial Service. The auto body shop property is at
the southern end of an area designated Industrial Service. The designation runs north up to and including
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
2
the Rivanna Station military facility—NGIC/GIC. An auto body shop is compatible with the Comprehensive
Plan designation.
ZONING
This parcel is zoned Light Industrial and located at the southern end of an industrially zoned area that
continues north to the NGIC facility area. An auto body shop is compatible with a light industrial district
and is expected to serve employees of area businesses and residents. The proposed aut o body shop is
effectively buffered from surrounding residential uses by US 29 North and by the North Fork of the
Rivanna River.
Staff explained the application plan and noted that the parking lot would be like the one at the mall. There
simply would be cars that are parked there. This is not a place for cars to be parked that are not drivable
except in the case of an occasional one sitting while waiting to be fixed.
This was an industrial facility in the past. So reuse of the site and the building will be a benefit to the
county as well as to potential customers. It also preserves the site as a continuing industrial property.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has indicated they are not expecting any traffic impacts
beyond what was there when it was the Badger-Powhatan facility.
The applicant has indicated he does not intend to do any site work over in the ravine area or work on that
at all. The applicant is not planning on making any changes to the building or to the parking area except
for restriping some of the areas. He is not required by county ordinance to do anything with the storm
water. So basically the facilities that are there will continue.
Factors Favorable (SP 2010-00006):
1. The auto body shop would preserve the industrial character of the area and would enable reuse
of an industrial building.
2. The location will provide convenient service to businesses and residents of the area.
Factors Favorable (SP 2010-00011):
1. The ARB has no objection to the proposed use and, with the recommended conditions of
approval; no detrimental impacts to the Entrance Corridor are anticipated from allowing the
outdoor storage at the rental cars.
Factors Unfavorable (both SPs):
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to these applications.
Staff considered proximity to other industrial and residential uses. They considered the possibility of
traffic concerns. They also considered the site and the way the business is operated.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permits su bject to the ten conditions outlined in the staff
report.
The first condition is the standard development is to be in general accord with the conceptual
plan.
The second condition ties the outdoor storage SP to the auto body shop SP. If the auto body
shop use ceases, then the outdoor storage SP would end—unless another auto body shop came
in. The rental cars may be rented only to customers at the body shop because it is an accessory
use.
The fourth condition concerns the hours of operation. In the event of inclement weather the
applicant has explained to staff that he would like the option of remaining open 24 hours per day
from 6:00 a.m. on Monday morning through 6:00 p.m. the following Saturday. Under normal
circumstances the auto body shop would not be open 24 hours per day. Because in extreme
weather when tow trucks are bringing in cars they just hauled out of ditches and things like that
the applicant may wish to be open longer hours so that he can keep up with the flow of vehicles
and work on them. It is not a frequent thing, but he wanted people to be aware that it may be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
3
open more than normal business hours. That is the reason for this condition.
The remaining conditions have been recommended by the Architectural Review Board and will be
taken care of at the time the project is reviewed by the ARB. The last condition about the fencing
the date of the Board of Supervisor approval will be inserted in that condition.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. He asked why they are not requiring a certificate of
appropriateness as part of the conditions.
Mr. Cilimberg replied they don‘t need to have the condition because it is automatic since the site plan
requires the certificate of appropriateness.
Mr. Porterfield asked if they are going to be doing any lighting if they are going to be open 24 hours a day.
Ms. Wiegand replied that they will use the existing parking lot lights, which would be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the lights meet current lighting requirements.
Margaret Maliszewski, Principal Planner, replied that there is no new lighting proposed. The existing
lighting will continue on.
Mr. Zobrist said that unless they make a change to the lighting it is grandfathered.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that was correct in that what is there is meant to stay and not be changed. So
the lighting stays as is.
Mr. Lafferty said as he remembered that lighting was terrible coming down 29. The lights were very
bright.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Commission has the ability to condition this.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the Commission could address an impact from the use under the special use
permit.
Ms. Porterfield said it seemed that if they want to be opened 24 hours a day they ought to meet today‘s
lighting requirements because that is going to make it different from the previous use.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that would be an improvement.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could do that.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Commission can address it in their action.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff could draft the condition. She had another question regarding the letter the
Commission just received from Mr. Larry McElwain. Staff was saying that everything was staying the
same, but Mr. McElwain‘s letter indicates there is definitely a storm water problem.
Ms. Wiegand said that staff had received the letter on Friday. Basically the county regulates storm water,
but since the applicant is not changing the site they don‘t have the authority to ask him to change that .
She asked Mark Graham who was acting for the county engineer to answer that question further.
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the county already under its W ater
Protection Ordinance in section 5 regulates discharge of any chemicals or anything into the storm water.
That is clearly prohibited. From his perspective there is no difference in this use versus any other use.
The fact a use is a quarter mile or a half mile away from a river makes no difference when they have
storm sewers involved. It clearly transports whatever is there. They do not permit discharge into streams
or rivers. The state clearly reserves that authority unto itself. They have Virginia Pollutant Discharge
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
4
Elimination System Permits, which are administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. So it is
pretty clear that they have no authority to regulate discharge into streams, but they can prohibit those
chemicals from entering into storm water.
Ms. Porterfield asked if he feels comfortable that since there were parking lots before and parking lots
now that will be the same.
Mr. Graham replied that he did not see an appreciable difference in impact, if any.
Mr. Morris requested to ask Ms. Maliszewski a question. Recalling when this particular site was owned
by Badger-Powhatan they had some hazmat situations there that they contained. He asked would it be
any greater with an auto body shop.
Mr. Graham suggested that the applicant speak to his particular methods of operation. He would say that
staff has seen a tendency for auto repair and body painting shops to find much greener ways of doing
business primarily because of costs. It just got to the point where the environmental regulations were so
strict it was cheaper to find a more environmental way to do it than to try to comply with the regulations.
Mr. Morris noted his point in asking that is that the previous occupant had concerns as far as waste and
they handled it very well. He would imagine that the auto body shop will have no greater waste.
Mr. Graham said with respect to that they will not be allowed to store the waste outside. That is already
clearly covered. For the materials stored within the facility our Fire Rescue Department already inspects
those facilities to assure safety with them. Then if it is truly a hazardous material that is going to be
regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality and there is a chain of custody that goes with
those materials, a quantal to grave approach, to make sure that everybody knows where those hazardous
materials are at all points in their life.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Zobrist opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to address the Commission.
Gerry Baugh said that he had been operating an auto body shop since 1982. Their philosophy is reflected
in the values that the Baugh family has put their name on for over 36 years. These values include the
integrity and the quality and their responsibility to take care of the environment in which they live, play and
work. They strive to provide high-quality seamless auto body service to their customers while constantly
seeking ways and opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint. He noted the following:
To be successful in this endeavor, they must meet the needs of their customers without
sacrificing the well-being of future generations. They take their responsibility to care for the
environment seriously. With that being said he had been in this business since he was 15 years
old and had seen a tremendous improvement in the way their business is operated. They now
take a tremendous effort to reduce the waste from the start. I n the materials he passed out there
was a commendation from the Department of Environmental Quality that his business had
received. It is a green stamp approved and signed by the EPA for the strides that they have
already made in their industry. They have paint recycle equipment and equipment to clean their
paint guns in. From that standpoint when this material is cooked, it has tremendously reduced
their waste. Now when they paint a car if there is any products left in their paint guns they pour it
into the recycle machine along with any solvent that is left over.
This material is cooked in this machine to a high temperature. It is the solvents that come out of
the paint and the solvents in there evaporates and comes back as a recyclable solvent in another
part of this machine. The paint is cooked down to a dried powder and dropped down into another
separate part of the machine that is stored in a plastic bag. When they are finished with that they
refer to it as a biscuit. It is about the size of a pizza. They s tore this material in a 15-gallon drum,
which is picked up once a month. This drum is only about one-half full on a m onthly basis. So
theoretically it would take two months to fill up a 15-gallon drum. Consequently, their waste has
been reduced to about 7½ gallons of material a month, which was less than 100 gallons a year.
Back in the old days a lot of shops would very easily have several hundred gallons of waste in a
month‘s time. They realized in an early stage that they could no longer continue to do this not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
5
only for the costs but for the environment. At that point in time this material is picked up by a
hazardous waste vendor. In his case it is safety clean ed. That material is labeled and as they
can see he has given them an indication of the manifest that they give them when they pick this
material up to dispose of it and take it off the property. All of this material is stored and properly
labeled in drums with waste labels on it. They do not purchase large quantities of any of this
material. In the old days they would buy them in 55 -gallon drums or whatever, but that same
solvent they use today they only purchase them in 5-gallon drums. The drums are stored in an
area that has to be fire proof and approved not only by the fire department, but also by OSHA.
The second part of this, which was the stride of their industry, is that when they mix the paint for
each one of these cars it is mixed on what they refer to as a smart scale. The smart scale is just
simply a computer that is hooked into a scale to measure the amount of paint that they mix per
car. When it comes up on the computer screen it actually has a picture of the car on it. All the
paint technician has to do at that point if he is going to paint a door is to touch the screen for the
door. If he is going to paint a door and a fender he touches the screen for the door and the
fender. That scale would then calculate to the ounce how much he has to mix for that particular
car. Back years ago they would mix a half a pint or pint , or a quart or a half quart of material to
do whatever they needed to fix a car with. Now they are mixing these materials by the ounce.
They are tremendously costly. They have reduced their carbon footprint with that tremendously.
There is a lot of training they have one on one along with continuous training with him, the
painters and the paint manufacturers, which in his case is DuPont. This is not only a requirement
of the EPA and the DEQ, but all of their partners require this as well as the insurance industries
and the people they do work for. Obviously these people do not want any spill over or any
problems as well. They have a lot of checks and balances in that system. He was very proud of
where they are today in their industry.
The packet provides a good background and information regarding training they have already had
with regards to going green. The CR40-40crf-63 rule, which was put out for them to follow, is not
scheduled to take place until 2012. The state of Virginia has asked for an extension for that. He
added that his staff and he had already completed this two years earlier than what he had to be,
which is just the way that they conduct their business. They want t o be a good business and
community partner and a good steward of the environment.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Morris asked if he could see any problems with the portion of the existing building towards the rear of
the property that he was not going to be using since they would be going through his parking lot and so
on to get access to it.
Mr. Baugh replied that he did not anticipate any problems with that. Un der that subdivision they have a
deeded 30‘ easement on the northern portion of the property. That is an exclusive right of ingress and
egress for them. That is the only part that is in combination with anything on the frontage on 29.
Mr. Zobrist asked if he had bought or leased the property.
Mr. Baugh replied that they were going to purchase the front portion of the property. He would have
nothing to do with the back parcel, which had been recently subdivided.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the part staff showed behind was part of the same building and they have just made a
common wall.
Mr. Baugh replied yes, but it was two separate properties. This entire property was 16 acres. The front
parcel is 4.75 acres.
Mr. Smith asked if he would be using his own wrecker.
Mr. Baugh replied that he did not have a wrecker at this time.
Mr. Smith assumed that they were talking about a secure lot on the south side of the building for cars
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
6
coming in.
Mr. Baugh replied that is correct.
Mr. Smith asked how many rental cars he would have.
Mr. Baugh replied that it was about 23 parking spaces for rental cars.
Ms. Wiegand noted that along the northern border of the site was a fenced area for 18 parking spaces.
Mr. Smith asked how many employees he would have.
Mr. Baugh replied there would be somewhere in the neighborhood of about 25.
Mr. Smith asked if he would have 10 or 15 repair bays.
Mr. Baugh replied that inside there would probably be more than that. This building is 352‘ long. There is
plenty of room inside to do what they need to do.
Ms. Porterfield noted that she did not have history of when it was the Badger Powhatan building. From
what was said it sounds like the current lighting is not very good.
Mr. Baugh said to address her concerns when he was not there at night the dome lights in the parking lot
will be for security. He certainly did not want to pay a utility bill for lights that he has no need for. The
reason they did that for the hours was from year to year they get some extremely inclement weather,
heavy snows and so forth. It gets to be an extremely hectic time in his business. To accommodate
everybody normally in those times he usually stays late or as late as he needs to try to get all of these
cars in and out. The traffic gets a lot heavier than what it normally is under normal conditions. That is why
he did that. He does not want to be in any violation. He is not going to work 24 hours a day if he did not
have to. But he would like the ability to accommodate in these inclement conditions when times come to
past for that.
Ms. Porterfield said with that ability to accommodate was he willing to upgrade the lighting for their
parking lots to the current standard.
Mr. Baugh replied that he would but frankly he did not see that is necessary. If he leaves at night under
normal conditions and the lights are cut back for security reasons there certainly would not be six, seven
or eight lights on out there at night. He would not want to pay a light bill at a period of time that he did not
need that.
Ms. Porterfield replied that she understood that, but was guessing that the problem with the lights is that
they are unshielded.
Mr. Lafferty noted that the lights that he recalled on Badger Powhatan coming south down 29 North was
that almost blinding. The lights had no shielding at all and were right on the edge of the building. It was
not what he would have called parking lot lighting. It was vicinity light to light up the whole place.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could cure some of that evil by the ones that were a problem being replaced.
Mr. Baugh replied yes that he would be happy to replace the problem lighting.
Mr. Zobrist said that the question is if he was willing to replace those six or seven fixtures with light ing that
is currently up to the standard of the Lighting Ordinance.
Mr. Baugh pointed out that he had no problem with adjusting the lighting.
Mr. Franco asked if the ARB staff had any comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
7
Ms. Maliszewski noted in the photographs pulled from the file there were pole li ghts and building mounted
lights. Unfortunately, the photos are small. It may be simply that the fixtures just need to be tilted down
to be horizontal. But since she could not see the fixture she did not know if that would make it meet the
ordinance. .
Mr. Zobrist said since the applicant said that he would be happy to make the lighting conform to current
lighting standards he was all for it. It was good enough for him.
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment.
Larry J. McElwain, writer of the letter, said that he was a real estate lawyer who has appeared in front of
the Commission many times as an advocate for his clients. He was appearing here this evening as a
private citizen. He moved into Rivers Edge in the mid-‗60‘s. That parcel of land is intermediately on the
other side of the bank of the river. He has spent many years on that river. The owner was a very near
and dear close friend. As his family has grown up they continue to use that stretch of the river on a
frequent basis to fish and wade the stream. It is amazing how quiet and scenic the river is regardless of
how close to the combustion and all of the noise and activity that they have in this area. While it is not a
spiritual area it is a special place. It is extremely attractive back there. While he commends the applicant
for all of the efforts he has done to construct a green business there is enviably in the site plan that has
been afforded to them some gaps in that coverage. He noted his concerns, as follows.
He has two particular concerns. One is the storage area shown in the upper left hand corner of
the sketch. While it is fenced off, which is good, the applicant has said that he does not have a
tow truck. What is going to be happening is that there are going to be wr ecks in the middle of the
night and the cars are going to be towed in there. In wrecks there are going to be disruption in
the systems of cars. So they will have spillage of oil, gasoline, and transmission fluid. All sort of
nasty stuff is going to come out of those cars. The cars are going to be outside for a while. Rain
is going to happen. If they look at the way this is constructed t hat water runoff is going to go
straight down into the river. It is unabated, untreated and will foul the river. That is as sure as
they are sitting here today.
The second problem, having represented people in the same business, is that once the work is
done on the auto bodies they clean the cars. They take the cars and wash them generally
speaking. What comes off from that wash is going to be the paint and all kinds of other stuff that
is nasty to the environment. The way that he understands this is set up there is one drainage
area, which is to the right of the building itself. He presumed that is where the washing is going to
be done. Having walked that river and being very familiar with it, it is his understanding that
runoff will go unabated, untreated and directly into that drain area through a pipe, which will come
directly out into the river. It is going to have all sorts of toxic substance in it. Right now there are
two different sites that are going to dump toxic substances into that river. They are going to have
a problem with it.
He understands that they have to get a permit by the DEQ. That is fine. What his understanding
is for the proposal today is that they give a conditional approval subject to the DEQ‘s
recommendations. It seems that they ought to delay the Commission‘s approval today until they
see what DEQ has to say with respect to the trea tment. Those are two rather significant
conditions that he has not heard a word nor has he seen it addressed in any of the work. He
commends staff for their work. But staff‘s expertise in this area is naturally limited. That is why
they have the DEQ. Special use permits are just that and are special. There is no particular
reason that one has to rush to judgment in this particular matter. He would urge them to reframe
from giving conditional approval until after they have had an opportunity to see wha t the DEQ has
to say with respect to the operation of this particular facility.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was anyone else present to comment on this matter. There being none, he
asked Mr. Baugh if he had anything else.
Mr. Baugh said that in all due respect he will not be washing any cars on this facility. There is no chance
of anything washing into the river from this car. They try to utilize car washes. He can pay $7 for a wash,
which is cheaper than he can pay someone to clean the car. Then he would not have to fool with that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
8
element. In regards to cars being towed in at night it is customary where he works now in Richmond and
would be customary at this site that no cars will show up in the middle of night when nobody is there.
This lot will be locked and they cannot get into it. They do that f or security reasons so somebody can‘t
walk in and fool with any of the cars. In regards to the parking lots and water runoff he asked where the
water is going now coming off of 29. It is running right down into the river. They are not going to put
anything on this parking lot to allow that. They don‘t take cars that have been in a train wreck that has
been torn apart and so forth. That operation and that gate will be locked when he leaves at night.
Anytime something comes in that is suspected of having fluids or whatever that is leaking they come
inside the building. This building is 352‘ long. They don‘t do these things on the outside of the property.
As far as the storm water coming across this park ing lot that same storm water is running down 29. It is
no more. In fact, he thought the traffic count on this property is in the neighborhood of 3,800 cars a day.
There are 3,800 cars riding down 29 potentially just dripping something. He generates no more than that
on his parking lot and he has control over it. He does not have any control over these 3,800 cars that are
crossing in front of his building day and night.
Mr. Zobrist noted that is not the issue they were talking about. The issue he was hearing was that he
does not want to put any wrecks on the outside and they will all go inside the building.
Mr. Baugh replied that the way they operate is to bring those cars inside the building to do what they call
a tear down. From an efficiency and production standpoint they don‘t like tearing these cars down and
moving them twice. These cars come in on a rollback. It is easier to bring the cars inside the building to
do that tear down.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that he was trying to respond to Mr. McElwain‘s comment. He said that if wrecks
are brought in and put on that outside lot there will inevitably be spill from that.
Mr. Baugh said that is not necessarily true. All cars that come into his facility are not leaking something.
Mr. Zobrist asked how he would respond to Mr. McElwain.
Mr. Baugh relied that if they have a car that comes into this facility and it is in a condition leaking
something they will bring it inside so they can control that situation. They have different mats that th ey
put down for spill. They have pans that they put under the cars to catch this. It is not something that they
leave on the outside of the building.
Mr. Zobrist reiterated that he would not allow any car that is leaking to be parked outside.
Mr. Baugh agreed.
Mr. Smith asked if he does not do any mechanical work.
Mr. Baugh replied no, they do not do any mechanical work other than if a car is hit in the rear they might
have to put a bearing or hub in it or something of that nature. He does not do any engine or transmission
work. They just fix the cars and paint them. He pointed out that about 90 percent of his business drive in,
get an estimate and either leave the car or come back another day.
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Ms. Monteith asked Mr. Kamptner what is the process if they were going to go through some kind of
review with the DEQ.
Mr. Kamptner deferred the question to Mark Graham since he did not deal with the state agencies.
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said first off he was not sure there was any storm
water or industrial discharge permit required here. The applicant is containing his material so there would
be no VPDESP, Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit required. An auto body shop
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
9
was one of the things specifically excluded from that industrial permit requirement by DEQ. Auto salvage
yards are not, which is where they saw the risks as far as storm water. But they did not really see a
significant risk with auto body shops, which are not even required to get a permit from DEQ.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Ms. Wiegand has provided a new condition if the Commission wants to use that
as part of the recommendation.
Mr. Zobrist asked to make some comments. As he understands the applicant, wrecks are going to be
very temporarily stored outside. He thought that they should make that a condition since they don‘t want
wrecks accumulating outside. He asked if wrecks would be stored outside for more than 24 hours. He
asked if they move the wrecks inside within 24 hours, which would be permanently store. He asked to
add another condition that no wrecks shall be stored outside if leaking materials.
Ms. W iegand suggested that there would be no damaged or unrepaired vehicles to be stored outside if
leaking.
Mr. Franco noted that he thought that was changing what he heard. He suggested that the better term
would be that all vehicles stored outside need to be operational. He asked if that goes far enough to
address it.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he had two issues. The leaking cars are not going to be stored outside, which
addressed Mr. McElwain‘s concern about the outside storage. His concern was that he did not want the
cars outside the building at all except for a very, very temporary nature. He thought that the cars could be
unsightly and he did not know what the view shed was out there. It is not the applicant‘s intent anyway.
He would like to clarify the condition that damaged vehicles will not be stored outside of the building for
more than 24 hours and not at all if they are leaking any fluids from the car.
Mr. Morris pointed out that was the mode of his operation anyway.
Ms. Porterfield said she was concerned that they were going to back him into a corner. The biggest thing
is to make sure that they don‘t have anything outside that is damage d to the point that it is leaking oils,
gasoline or something like that. But somebody who has a crumbled fender and they are not ready to take
the car inside to do that fender it does not seem that is a problem in putting that car in his lot.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out what Mr. Baugh was saying was he does not store anything there for more than
24 hours. He wanted to make a limitation that nothing is stored on the premises for more than 24 hours.
Ms. Porterfield asked Mr. Baugh if that is really what he does or was he just talking about the damaged
vehicles that are leaking.
Mr. Baugh replied that they constantly are moving these vehicles inside. He alluded to this building as
being 352‘ long. So they can get the majority of these cars inside. He can‘t say sit here and tell them that
every single day in a snow storm or whatever that he would not have the ne ed for storage capacity
outside.
Mr. Zobrist asked if 24 hours for temporary storage outside was long enough.
Mr. Baugh requested 48 hours.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that no vehicles will be stored over 48 hours except inside and none will be stored
outside if leaking any liquids from the vehicles.
Mr. Franco asked if staff was comfortable with that as something that could be enforced.
Ms. Wiegand replied that staff will need to write it down and make sure to have what they said.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
10
Ms. Porterfield noted that they were talking about an individual vehicle. Therefore, they could have
numerous cars stored outside since each car has a 48 hour limitation, which will rotate.
Mr. Zobrist said that he did not have any objection to the cars being stored outside fo r up to 48 hours in
that lot. As long as there are no leaking vehicles out there that would address Mr. McElwain‘s concerns.
Since no car can stay outside more than 48 hours they may have cars in and out, but they were not going
to have a junk yard out there.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated his intent for the two conditions was that any vehicle awaiting repair s should be
outside no more than 48 hours and that any vehicle awaiting repair with any leaking fluid should be
intermediately put indoors.
Mr. Zobrist replied that was correct.
Mr. Morris noted that this is what he heard the applicant saying was the normal mode of his operation
anyway. He asked if that is correct.
Mr. Baugh replied yes that is correct. But they will still have some rental cars there.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they were not referring to rental cars, but just cars that have been damaged that
are brought in for repair in a secure lot.
Mr. Franco asked if staff is comfortable with their ability to enforce this provision as written.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that Sarah Baldwin was here for the enforcement staff and could answer the
question.
Ms. Wiegand noted that Sarah Baldwin with zoning was present. There are several options. One
condition was that no vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of such property so as to be
visible from any public road or any residential property and shall be limited to locations designated on the
site plan. In this case it would be inside. She asked what the Commission‘s pleasure was on this
proposed condition 12.
Mr. Zobrist said that proposed condition 12 covers what they were looking for and both conditions take
care of the problem.
Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner with Zoning, pointed out that in the staff report as an existing condition in
the ordinance on page 6 the Commission already has that condition in front of them in some form that
might be acceptable to them.
Mr. Morris noted that b) says no vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion.
Ms. Baldwin replied yes.
Mr. Zobrist noted that they need to add the other limitations. As a condition of the condition the applicant
has to comply with all the regulations and then they are going to add to condition #12.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that letter b) applies, which was a suppleme ntary regulation of the zoning ordinance.
So condition #12 needs to cover whatever the Commission thinks is not covered.
Mr. Zobrist noted that condition #12 should contain the 48 hours and the leaking fluids.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they don‘t have something where the cars can‘t be visible from the road.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was already in the ordinance under b).
Ms. Porterfield asked if the site is adequately screened.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
11
Ms. Wiegand replied yes, that the applicant is working with the Architectural Review Board on the fencing
for that area.
Mr. Kamptner noted that if there was consensus for both special use permits the Commission can take
them in one motion since the conditions are the same. He suggested that condition #11 be revised so
that the reference is in the second line ―into conformance with section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance‖,
which was the lighting regulations.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of SP -2010-00006 Baugh Auto Body
and SP-2010-00011 Baugh Auto Body – Outdoor Storage subject to staff‘s recommended conditions as
amended.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled, ―Baugh
Auto Body II, Special Use Permit Plan,‖ prepared by Engineering Design Assoc iates, and dated
May 25, 2010 (hereinafter, the ―Special Use Permit Plan‖), as determined by the Director of
Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
– location of parking areas
– relation of buildings and parking to the street
as shown on the Special Use Permit Plan, except that the landscaping and fencing location and
design may be modified to meet the requirements of the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Minor modifications to the plan that do not conflict with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The rental of passenger vehicles under SP-2010-00011 is permitted as an accessory use
associated with SP-2010-00006, Baugh Auto Body Shop.
3. Rental cars available on the site may only be rented to customers of the auto body shop.
4. The hours of operation for the auto body shop and accessory rental car use shall not begin
before 6:00 a.m. on Monday and shall not end later than 6:00 p.m. on the next Saturday.
5. The US 29 frontage and the perimeters of parking areas shall be improved with landscaping to
meet the Entrance Corridor guidelines. The landscaping shall be shown on a plan, to be
approved with the site plan amendment. The plan shall include identification of existing trees and
shrubs on the site, although trees and shrubs in the heavily wooded area on the south side of
the parcel need not be individually identified.
6. The design of the screening fence shall be subject to ARB approval. The fence shall be
supplemented with landscaping, which shall be subject to ARB approval. Sufficient area for
planting shall be provided, as determined by the ARB.
7. A planting island shall be added at the west end of the rental car parking row with plants as
determined by the ARB. The island and planting shall be shown on a plan, to be approved with
the site plan amendment.
8. Vehicles shall not be elevated anywhere on the parcel outside of the build ing.
9. Rental vehicles shall be parked only in the area indicated for rental car parking shown on the
Special Use Permit Plan. Rental car parking shall be only in designated striped parking spaces,
as identified on this plan. No parking shall occur in travelways. No sign identifying the rental car
use shall be visible from offsite locations.
10. No chain link, barbed wire, razor wire, or other similar fencing or attachments other than that
existing on the site on [date of Board of Supervisors approval] shall be installed on this parcel.
11. Existing site and exterior building lighting shall be brought into conformance with Section 4.17 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
12. No damaged vehicle awaiting repair shall be outside the building for longer than 48 hours, and
no damaged vehicle leaking fluids shall be stored outside.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
12
Mr. Zobrist noted that SP-2010-00006 Baugh Auto Body and SP-2010-00011 Baugh Auto Body –
Outdoor Storage would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
13
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
14
Return to PC actions letter
ZMA 2007-013, SP2007-055, SP2009-010, SP2009-011, SP2009-013, and SP2009-014
BOS September 8, 2010
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA2007-13 Fontaine Research Park ; SP2007-055;
SP2009-010; SP2009-011; SP2009-013; and SP2009-
014.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 54 acres from Commercial
Office (CO) zoning district to Planned Development
Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) to allow for an increase
from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of
office, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical,
research & development activities, hospitals, and
supporting commercial space permitted in the
research park. Three parking garages are
proposed. The rezoning request is concurrent with
SP2007-055; SP2009-010; SP2009-011; SP2009-
013; and SP2009-014. No residential units are
proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
September 8, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Fontaine Research Park rezoning and special use
permit requests. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA2007-13 with amendments to the
proffers. The Commission, by a vote of 6:0 also, recommended approval of five (5) Special use permits, SP2007-55,
SP2009-10, SP2009-11, SP2009-13, and SP2009-14, with the conditions as recommended by staff. Further, the
Commission recommended approval of the modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height
regulations with changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition. (See Action Letter)
Subsequently, on August 24, 2010, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing in order to include Tax Map 76,
Parcel 17B9 which was not originally included in the legal ad for the July 27th public hearing. As there were no changes to
the rezoning and special use permit requests that were originally heard by the Commission on July 27th other than the
inclusion of this new parcel, the Commission, by a vote of 7:0, again recommended approval of the entire package as
described above. (See Action Letter)
DISCUSSION:
The key amendments to the proposed proffers in response to the Commission’s recommendations are as follows: (1) The
supporting commercial use limitation taken out of Proffer 5 and added as a special use permit condition; (2) Proffer 6
revised to address and maintain the existing landscaped planting area along Fontaine Avenue; (3) Proffer 14 commits the
applicant to provide a second entrance on Fontaine Avenue, if needed, as shown on the Application Plan as “Area
Reserved for Future Secondary Entrance/Future Connector Road Alignment”, and also commits the applicant to either
build the Connector Road in this location if the entire Connector Road is constructed in the Southern Urban Area B
Alternative 4 alignment or contribute funds toward the design and construction of the Connector Road if it is determined
that the Connector Road is to be constructed in an off-site location.
The proffers have been revised as necessary and are technically and legally acceptable. (Attachment I)
The modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations with corrected references to roads
ZMA 2007-013, SP2007-055, SP2009-010, SP2009-011, SP2009-013, and SP2009-014
BOS September 8, 2010
Executive Summary Page 2
should read as follows: “Modification of Section 21.4 – Height Regulations shall allow buildings up to 90 feet in height.
Buildings located on Natural Resources Dr. that are over 35 feet in height shall have (1) one 10 foot step back. This
modification shall apply to buildings as shown on the application plan prepared by the University of Virginia Foundation and
Dewberry & Davis LLC, dated May 3, 2010. The set back shown on the application plan, prepared by the University of
Virginia Foundation and Dewberry & Davis LLC, dated May 3, 2010 shall apply regardless of the building heights. (If the
building is located in the entrance corridor or can be seen from the entrance corridor it will be subject to the approval of the
ARB or the Design Planner.)”
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval of ZMA 2007-0013 with the attached proffers (Attachment I); approval of the five (5) special use permits, SP-
2007-055; SP-2009-010; SP-2009-011; SP-2009-013; and SP-2009-014, as reflected in the staff report, with the following
conditions as recommended by staff:
SP-2009-013 Hospital conditions:
1. The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
2. The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals have been obtained;
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
4. The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency services.
SP-2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses condition:
1. The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) percent of the square footage allowed in
the park. There is no minimum amount required.
and approval of the modification to Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations as noted above.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment I: Proffers, dated August 25, 2010
Attachment II: July 27, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report
View August 24, 2010 exec summary with attachments
View PC minutes: July 27 and August 24, 2010
Return to regular agenda
1 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2007-013 Fontaine
Research Park, SP2007-055 Parking
Structure, SP2009-010 Research &
Development, SP2009-011 Laboratories,
Medical or Pharmaceutical, SP2009-013
Hospitals, SP2009-014 Supporting
Commercial Uses
Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 27, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To
Be Determined
Owner(s):University of Virginia Foundation,
University of Virginia Health Services
Foundation, The Rector and Visitors of the
University of Virginia
Applicant: Fred Missel representing the
University of Virginia Foundation
Acreage: 53.52 acres Rezone from: Commercial Office (CO) to
Planned Development Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC)
TMP: Tax Map Parcel(s) 07600-00-00-
017B0, 07600-00-00-017BW, 07600-00-00-
017BX, 07600-00-00-017B1, 07600-00-00-
017B2, 07600-00-00-017B3, 07600-00-00-
017B4, 07600-00-00-017B5, 07600-00-00-
017B6, 07600-00-00-017B7, 07600-00-00-
017BB, 07600-00-00-017BA, 07600-00-00-
017B8
Location: Adjacent to the intersection of
Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue.
(See Attachments A and B)
By-right use: Offices, supporting
commercial and service uses; and
residential use by special use permit (15
units/ acre). Maximum approved square
feet of development is 565,000.
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Rezone approximately 54 acres
from Commercial Office (CO) zoning district
to Planned Development Mixed Commercial
(PD-MC) to allow for an increase from
565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet
of office, laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical, research & development
activities, hospitals, and supporting
commercial space permitted in the research
park. Three parking garages are proposed.
No residential units are proposed.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood Six
Comp. Plan Designation: Plan - Office
Service
Character of Property: The property is Use of Surrounding Properties: The
2 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
developed with existing buildings and
related parking.
surrounding properties primarily include
residential and office uses along with some
vacant parcels of land. The 29 Bypass
highway is located to the northwest of the
research park and the Norfolk Southern
railroad tracks are located to the southeast
of the subject site.
Factors Favorable:
1. The rezoning and special use
permits are consistent with the Land
Use Plan.
2. The rezoning and special use
permits will provide the research
park an opportunity to expand which
will provide health services and jobs
for the community.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Feasibility of the Sunset-Fontaine
Connector needs to be determined
and location resolved.
2. The proffers need to be technically
accurate.
3. Minimal square footage of supporting
commercial uses is proffered.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot recommend approval of this rezoning until the
following issues are addressed:
1. Reservation of area for a potential Sunset-Fontaine Connector through the Park is
made so as to not preclude a future viable alternative.
2. Commitment is provided by the applicant for the study by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission on the Sunset-Fontaine Connector.
3. Acceptance of an adequate ceiling for supporting commercial use.
4. The proffers (See Attachment G) are revised to be technically and legally
acceptable.
Staff recommends approval for modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding height regulations with conditions.
Staff also recommends approval for SP2007-055 Parking Structure, SP2009-010
Research & Development, SP2009-011 Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical,
SP2009-013 Hospitals with conditions, and SP2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses
once the rezoning is approved.
3 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 27, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA 2007-013 Fontaine Research Park
With modification of Section 21.4 of Zoning Ordinance
SP2007-055 Parking Structure
SP2009-010 Research & Development
SP2009-011 Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical
SP2009-013 Hospitals
SP2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses
PETITIONS
PROJECT: ZMA 2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion
PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial Office - offices,
supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15
units/ acre) to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial - large-scale commercial
uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow for an increase from
565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical, research & development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial
space permitted in the research park. Three parking garages are proposed. No residential
units are proposed. The following Special Use Permits are in conjunction with this rezoning:
SP200700055, SP200900010, SP200900011, SP200900013, and SP200900014
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses,
regional scale research, limited production and marketing activities, supporting commercial,
lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34 units/acre).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue in
Neighborhood Six.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX, 17B1,17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5,
17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA, and 17B8
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
PROJECT: SP2007-0055
PROPOSED: Parking Structures in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning
District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
SECTION: 23.2.2.4 Parking Structures
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
PROJECT: SP2009-00010
PROPOSED: Research and development activities in Planned Development - Mixed
Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
SECTION: 23.2.2.12 Research and development activities
PROJECT: SP2009-00011
PROPOSED: Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical in Planned Development - Mixed
Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
4 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
SECTION: 23.2.2.13 Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
PROJECT: SP2009-00013
PROPOSED: Hospitals in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This
SP is in conjunction with ZMA200700013.
SECTION: 23.2.2.1 Hospitals
PROJECT: SP2009-00014
PROPOSED: Supporting commercial uses in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial
Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA200700013.
SECTION: 23.2.2.11 Supporting commercial uses
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
Fontaine Research Park has eight existing buildings (See Exhibit C1 of Attachment C) in
which medical services or health-related research are provided. Off site from the research
park boundaries, but accessed via Ray C. Hunt Drive which turns into Natural Resources
Drive, are the Virginia Department of Forestry Building and associated warehouse. Nearby
residential neighborhoods located in the County are Buckingham Circle and University of
Virginia student housing. The research park is adjacent to the City of Charlottesville
boundary and the Fry’s Spring and Jefferson Park Avenue neighborhoods located in the
City.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a zoning amendment for additional developable square footage
in the existing Fontaine Research Park in order to continue providing health related
services and research and office space within the research park.
The applicant originally requested to rezone approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial
Office to CO Commercial Office, to allow an increase in square footage from 565,000
square feet to 1,290,000 square feet of office and supporting commercial space. The
original intent was to create a campus like setting with collaboration between buildings and
disciplines. During a Planning Commission work session, which is detailed later in this
report, several pertinent issues were discussed and additional information requested of the
applicant. One major request was for a traffic study, since this area of the County involved
a large amount of traffic commuting into the University. The traffic study revealed several
issues that needed to be addressed which are discussed in more detail further within this
report. One of the most revealing issues of the traffic study was that the maximum
additional square footage the applicant could pursue before very intensive traffic mitigation
would need to occur is 310,000 square feet. As a result the applicant lowered the amount
of additional square feet requested for development within the research park to 310,000
square feet instead of the originally requested 725,000 square feet. Generally, the applicant
is proposing several transportation improvements to the Fontaine Ave. and Route 29 ramp
corridor in order to mitigate traffic impacts revealed in the traffic study. Along with additional
development space, surface parking will be connected into structured parking and/or
shared parking arrangements and transit service options will be implemented to meet
parking needs.
5 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicant sees a demand for the services they provide and as a result have decided to
expand state-of-the-art patient, research and office uses within the Park to best serve the
community.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
The subject property has been rezoned several times over the last 28 years. In 1979 (ZMA
79-43), the property was rezoned from A-1 to R-3 (10 units/ac) for the South 29 Land Trust.
In 1985 (ZMA 85-01), the property was rezoned from to Planned Development Shopping
Center (PD-SC) for an inn and shopping center. In 1990, (ZMA 1990-21) the existing
owner requested a rezoning of 87 acres (31 more acres than currently under review) from
PD-SC to (PD-IP), which was ultimately withdrawn. The property was rezoned from PD-SC
to (CO) with proffers and a proffered plan for development to create the Fontaine Research
Park in June of 1992 (ZMA 92-03).
Amendments to the zoning for the research park have occurred three times since the initial
rezoning. ZMA 00-04 increased the square footage from 391,000 square feet to 495,000
square feet and modified the proffered plan. ZMA 04 -10 increased the square footage by
40,000 square feet to 535,000 square feet. ZMA 06-12 added 30,000 additional square feet
to the park for a total of 565,000 square feet. Multiple site plans and subdivision plats have
been approved since 1992.
Several special use permits have also been approved. SP 92 -13 authorized supporting
commercial uses, research & development activities including experimental testing, and
medical and pharmaceutical laboratories. Proffers rather than conditions provided
limitations on the amount of supporting commercial use. The applicant originally wanted
approval for up to 10% of the proposed square footage in 1992 to be available for
supporting commercial use. The Planning Commission recommended only 5%, which
ended up being a proffer for no more than 19,450 square feet of supporting commercial
use. Although the square footage of the park increased, the maximum square footage of
supporting commercial has not increased and is approximately 3.5% of the maximum
square footage of the park.
Two other special uses were approved over the years. SP 93-05 authorized a telephone
substation and SP 95-17 allowed a hospital with up to 60 beds.
PLANNING COMMISSION BACKGROUND AND CHANGES TO PLAN
On November 27, 2007 a work session was held to familiarize the Commission with the
proposal to expand the existing research pa rk and to discuss issues such as transportation,
supporting commercial uses, and environmental features. (See Attachments D and E) The
Commission suggested a wetlands study be completed in order to address some of the
environmental feature concerns. The Commission asked the applicant to propose a level of
supporting commercial use that would be suitable for the research park. The completion of
a traffic analysis was also requested.
As a result of the November Planning Commission Work Session, the applicant
resubmitted a traffic analysis, wetlands study and a request to change the zoning request
6 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
from CO Commercial Office to PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial. The
reason for the switch to the PD-MC zoning district was to provide a level of flexibility
regarding building heights and setbacks for proposed buildings beyond what the CO zoning
district allows. In response to the issue concerning a proposed level of supporting
commercial use, the applicant has proposed a proffer limiting the amount of sup porting
commercial uses to 20,000 square feet which is approximately the same as is currently
proffered. After significant review and discussion of the traffic impact analysis, it was
agreed that the proposed additional square footage for the research park would be 310,000
square feet instead of 725,000 square feet, increasing the build-out of the development to
875,000 square feet to mitigate some of the traffic impacts.
The revised proposal now depicts three (3) building envelopes where expansion is
proposed to occur and three (3) parking envelopes where surface or structured parking
expansion could also occur. The applicant has also revised the plan to preserve the natural
resources discussed during the Planning Commission’s work session.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Land Use Plan shows this area as Office Service. The purpose and intent of the Office
Service designation is to allow for office parks and mixed-use planned development
emphasizing office uses, residential uses and regional-scale research and office uses
providing information and professional services to the County and the larger region.
The proposal was analyzed in relation to the relevant portions of the Land Use Plan in the
Work Session staff report (See page 4 of Attachment D):
The proposed expansion of square footage is now 310,000 square feet instead of
725,000 square feet to help mitigate traffic impacts.
Furthermore, the transportation study determined that using Stribling Ave. as a
second entrance to the Park and/or as a separate connector road would be a
problem because this entrance will require a signal and there is not sufficient
spacing for two signals on Fontaine Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan
recommendation states that the proposed Sunset-Fontaine connector shall be
accommodated on-site. Provision of the road will be an expectation for any rezoning
request in this portion of the study area. The applicant believes Stribling Ave. could
be used as the connector road. However, there has been no information provided by
the applicant that verifies the feasibility of this alignment and there is at least one
other location within the research park that may be a better option.
Off- site traffic mitigation includes adding improvements to the ramps of the Route
250 Bypass, lanes under the bridge and a signal at the southbound interchange
ramp.
In reference to the additional support commercial uses of 20,000 square feet, when
the original special use permit was approved for supporting commercial uses on this
property, the concurrent rezoning proffer limited the square feet of supporting
commercial use to no more than 19,450 square feet, which at that time ended up
being approximately 5% of the proposed square footage. The square footage of the
park has continued to increase; however, the percentage of the maximum square
footage of supporting commercial has not increased and in fact has decreased. At
the current build-out of approximately 565,000 square feet, the percentage of
7 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
allowed supporting commercial uses is approximately 3.5% of the maximum square
footage of the park. Staff has requested that the applicant address this unresolved
issue. The applicant has explained that the research park currently includes a
cafeteria-style restaurant that is approximately 2,500 square feet in the
Rehabilitation Hospital building that is open to all park employees, patients, and the
public. They further explain that they are working to expand the level of support
commercial services on a schedule that the park’s demand warrants, and that
balances the goal of providing such services with the desire to not bring the general
public into the Park which would generate additional traffic. With a proposed build-
out of 875,000 square feet, 20,000 square feet of supporting commercial uses is
equivalent to approximately 2.2 %. The applicant has provided a minimal response
to this issue. It is possible that providing an increase in the amount of square feet of
supporting commercial uses and generating some commercial uses that people
using the research park could walk to could eliminate some of the additional traffic
generated. Although staff is not recommending a minimum commercial square
footage, the ceiling should be higher than 20,000 square feet in the event future
supporting commercial uses are deemed appropriate by the Foundation.
Impacts to the environmental features on the site have been mitigated. The
southwest portion of the site has many important natural features that where
originally going to be impacted with the additional development of the site. The
applicant has since made revisions to the plans that shows a smaller building
envelope in this portion of the site. This would relieve any massive impacts to the
natural resources located in this portion of the property.
Analysis of the County’s Open Space Plan was included in the Work Session
staff report. (See page 8 of Attachment D) As previously noted in this staff report,
a wetlands study was completed, and as shown on Exhibit D3-Preliminary
Grading Plan (See Attachment C) the applicant has revised the building envelope
in order to minimize impacts to the important environmental features which need
to be protected.
The Neighborhood Model: A full Neighborhood Model Analysis was completed with
ZMA2004-010. The physical aspects of this project are going to remain very similar to the
original project. Therefore the original Neighborhood Model Analysis still applies to this
project. (See Attachment F)This research park was originally built prior to the County’s
current policy on the Neighborhood Model and reflects a more suburban character in terms
of design and layout.
Although this project does not strongly reflect the Neighborhood Model principles, the
applicant has made some effort to address pedestrian systems in and out of the research
park by providing proffers 4, 10, and 13. (See Attachment G) The applicant proposes
building heights that could reach 90 feet and have requested a modification of the building
height and setback requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. As detailed later in the report,
staff has provided suggestions regarding this modification request that will help provide
buildings and spaces of human scale.
8 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district:
PD-MC Planned Development Mixed Commercial districts allow for the development of
large-scale commercial areas with a broad range of commercial uses under a unified
planned approach. The PD-MC district is intended to be established on major highways in
the urban area and communities in the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting
an amendment to the existing proffers and plan to allow additional office use in the PD-MC
district. Although the commercial aspect of this district is minimal, the district does allow for
offices and is the only suitable “planned” district for the use (A “planned district” provides
design flexibility which is desired by the applicant). The proposal meets the intent of the
PD-MC Zoning District.
Public need and justification for the change:
The University sees a demand and need for additional state of the art research and office
uses. Since this type of activity already exists within the research park, and its close
proximity to the University Medical Center, expanding this existing location will best serve
the public and University community.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources:
As noted earlier in this report, there was a concern with this rezoning request when first
submitted relating to impacts on the natural resources as a result of the proposed
development. The applicant has revised the current application plan and is avoiding
development in areas with environmental resources. If the Sunset-Fontaine Connector
were to be developed in the area of Stribling Ave., there would be impacts on the
environmental resources that need to be protected. However, a s noted earlier, this location
for a Sunset-Fontaine Connector is considered problematic and, if not located here, staff
believes impacts on the environment are otherwise minimal.
No impact is expected on cultural or historic resources.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: The largest impact expected from the expansion of the research park is to traffic.
As noted previously, the applicant originally requested an expansion of 725,000 square
feet, but was subsequently reduced to 310,000 square feet to address traffic impacts that
could otherwise not be mitigated through proposed improvements.
Specifically, the applicant has proffered the following (See Attachment G for proffers and
figures showing improvements):
1) The total square footage of development allowed in the research park to be 875,000,
which is the existing 565,000 square feet plus the proposed 310,000 square feet.
2) Once the project exceeds the current 565,000 square foot limitation, the applicant will
install a traffic signal at the Fontaine Avenue/U.S. Route 29 Bypass Southbound Ramps
intersection (west side of interchange), and install through and left turn lanes on Fontaine
Ave. at the intersection and construct additional southbound lanes from Fontaine Ave. onto
9 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
U.S. 29 South. Also, at this point an extension of the outside through lane heading west on
Fontaine Ave. from the City boundary to Ray C. Hunt Dr. and an extension of the right turn
lane on Ray C. Hunt Drive heading north to Fontaine Ave. will be provided.
At present, staff is supportive of these proffers and believes they will help mitigate many of
the concerns addressed from the traffic study.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends that the proposed Sunset-Fontaine connector be
accommodated on-site and that provision of this road will be an expectation for any
rezoning request in this portion of the study area. The proposed Sunset-Fontaine connector
is shown on the application plan in an area east on the site that comes off of Fontaine Ave.
and runs along the existing Stribling Ave. alignment, noted on the plan as “area reserved
for future secondary entrance/future connector road alignment”. As noted earlier,
information has not been provided that verifies this location is feasible. Outside of showing
this area on the application plan, the applicant has made no commitment elsewhere to
address this comprehensive plan recommendation.
Staff believes an alternative location would be to utilize parts of Natural Resources Drive
which accesses the Department of Forestry building. This would necessitate relocation of a
part of this road which the applicant has indicated they are not supportive of because this
would generate too much traffic through the park. The proposed application plan also
shows building and parking envelopes located in areas where natural Resources Drive
could be relocated. While this complex issue remains unresolved, staff has recommended
that the applicant reserve this area for this possible relocation and participate in a Fontaine-
Sunset connector alignment study that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(TJPDC) will be under taking. The TJPDC estimates the cost of the first phase of this study
to be approximately $20,000. Although the work would be primarily done by the TJPDC,
input from the County, City, UVa Foundation, VDOT and consultant would be expected.
With the completion of this study, a better determination of the final lo cation for the Sunset-
Fontaine Connector could be made.
In addition, VDOT has a safety concern regarding eastbound Fontaine Ave. traffic making a
left turn onto the northbound ramp at the Route 29 and Fontaine Ave. intersection being
impacted by the traffic traveling westbound through the intersection on Fontaine Ave. The
County Engineer, however, does not believe that the volume of these left-turning
movements is sufficient to warrant a signal. Staff believes that this matter would be best
addressed in association with future development west of the 29 Bypass that would
increase the eastbound left turns from Fontaine onto the Bypass.
Schools – The expansion of building area will not impact schools.
Fire and Rescue – The closest station is located in the City of Charlottesville, which serves
the research park.
Utilities – Water and sewer are available to the site, however, there are capacity issues.
The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) believes these issues can be worked out
during the site plan process, provided the applicant completes a study which they began to
identify all improvements needed to the wasterwater system to provide additional service to
10 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
the Park. This study needs to be completed prior to the applicant’s submittal of the first site
plan. (See Attachment I)
Stormwater Management – In reviewing the revised stormwater management narrative and
concept plan (exhibit D3) staff believes it is unlikely that potential facilities B, F, and G can
be built as shown on the concept plan which may require stormwater facilities that vary
significantly from what is currently shown. Staff notes that any design necessary to meet
the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance that significantly impacts the location
of improvements shown on the application plan may require amendment of this zoning.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: No impacts to nearby and
surrounding properties are anticipated since this is an expansion of similar uses that
currently exist in the research park.
Additional Staff Concerns:
A critical slopes waiver will be required for the development proposed. Typically staff
recommends that this waiver be processed with the rezoning application. The applicant has
indicated that they are not currently prepared to provide the level of detailed information
necessary to complete the waiver request. Since the waiver will be needed it is important to
know that if the waiver is denied, it will affect the development of the site and may result in
a layout other than what is shown on the applicant plan. The waiver can be requested
during the site plan stage.
The layout proposed may require complex phasing regarding the proposed buildings and
parking structures that will require existing parking be removed. The applicant is aware that
they will have to work closely with staff during the site plan stage to resolve any issues that
may come up relating to insufficient parking available on site during the development stage.
PROFFERS
Attachment G contains the current proffers. Wording changes are expected prior to the
Board of Supervisor’s hearing to address non-substantive issues. Individual proffers are
described below:
Tax map 76, Parcel 17B has been subdivided. The two new parcels (76 -17BA and 76-
17BB) will need to be added to the proffers.
Proffer 1: This is a proffer from ZMA 2000-04 that has been satisfied.
Proffer 2: Proffers the Application Plan. This is no longer necessary.
Proffer 3: This is a proffer from ZMA 2000-04 that has been satisfied.
Proffer 4: Provides a commitment to a pedestrian system within the research park.
Proffer 5: Proffers the total square feet of development allowed in the research park. This
proffer also addresses a square foot limitation for supporting commercial uses. Staff
believes the square foot limitation for supporting commercial uses should be
addressed as a condition instead of a proffer and that a higher cap of up to 5% of the
total allowable square footage should be allowed.
Proffer 6: Commits the University of Virginia Foundation to maintain a landscaped buffer
along Fontaine Avenue. This proffer needs to be reworded and clarified in order to
address what is meant by the “visual buffer” language.
11 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Proffer 7: This proffer provides architectural and landscape architectural guidelines for the
development.
Proffer 8: Is intentionally omitted. This proffer referenced stormwater management system,
but staff felt it did not proffer anything. The applicant decided to omit the proffer, which staff
finds acceptable.
Proffer 9: This is a proffer from ZMA 2000-04 that has been satisfied.
Proffer 10: Commits the University of Virginia Foundation to their adopted, updated
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) for the Fontaine Research Park.
Proffer 11: This is a proffer from ZMA 2000-04 that has been satisfied.
Proffer 12: This commits the applicant to transportation improvements once the project
exceeds the current 565,000 square foot limitation:
Upon approval from VDOT and the Albemarle County Department of Community
Development, the applicant will install a traffic signal and construct additional lanes at the
Fontaine Avenue/U.S. Route 29 Bypass Southbound Ramps intersection. Exhibits attached
to the proffers show two options for the construction of additional southbound lanes. Figure
1A provides the construction of a new shared through and left-turn lane, along with the
restriping of the existing lane as an exclusive second left-turn lane for the southbound
ramps. Figure 1B provides two exclusive left turn lanes for the southbound ramps with the
construction of one new through lane. The determination of which option is most
appropriate will take place during the site plan process.
Additional improvements would include construction of a new lane on the southbound ramp
to receive dual left turns, and the extension of the outside through lane heading west on
Fontaine Ave. from the City boundary to Ray C. Hunt Dr. In the research park, an extension
of the right turn lane on Ray C. Hunt Drive heading north is also proposed. Staff is
supportive of this proffer.
Proffer 13. Commits the Owner to design and construct a sidewalk on the south side of
Fontaine Avenue from the edge of the Owner’s property to where the sidewalk ends in the
City, once the project exceeds the 565,000 square foot limita tion.
Application Plan and Additional Proffers
The application plan meets all technical requirements; however, the issue of the Sunset -
Fontaine Connector is still unresolved. At a minimum, the Application Plan summary should
show an alternative location for the Sunset-Fontaine Connector utilizing Natural Resources
Drive. Buildings located where Natural Resources Drive could be realigned to the
Connector Road should be modified to allow for potential connection.
Generally, staff finds the proffers acceptable with the exception of proffers 5 and 6 which
need to be revised as suggested above. In addition, no funding has been provided by the
applicant for the study from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission regarding
the Sunset-Fontaine Connector and revisions to the application plan as noted above need
to be provided.
MODIFICATION OF SECTION 21.4 OF ZONING ORDINANCE
In accordance with Section 8.2 (b), the applicant requests a modification of the
requirements of Section 21.4, Height Regulations in the Albemarle County Zoning
12 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Ordinance. This requirement states that buildings may be erected up to 65 feet; however,
the building must be set back 2 feet for each foot above 35 feet. Staff has reviewed and
recommends approval of this modification. The a pplicants’ submittal addresses all the
required findings of Section 8.2 (b) (3) necessary for granting a modification. A full
description of the request and analysis follows.
The applicant requests that instead of limiting the height of structures within the Fontaine
Research Park to 65 feet per Section 21.4, that they have the flexibility of constructing
buildings up to 90 feet in height within the research park. The applicant notes that a 6-story,
typical office building with floor-to-floor heights of 10-12 feet could be accommodated within
the 65’ building height maximum. However, medical, laboratory and other research
facilities, which are planned for the Research Park, require higher floor-to-floor heights
(often 14-16) feet to accommodate utilities above the ceiling grid including ventilation,
power items and other utilities. The applicant is requesting the ability to develop useable
scientific laboratory buildings to comply with tenant requirements and to maintain
consistency of use within the research park. Infill development is supported in the County,
therefore, increasing the density within the research park by minimizing large building
footprints while maintaining some green space is encouraged. If done appropriately, the
Design Planner suggests that the increased building height can be acceptable.
Staff recommends approval of this modification subject to the following condition:
Buildings over 50 feet on Fontaine Ave. must have a setback of one (1) foot for every two
(2) feet, up to 90 feet. Buildings over 40 feet in height located on Ray C. Hunt Drive and
Natural Resources Drive must have a setback of two (2) feet for every one (1) foot. (If the
building is located in the entrance corridor or can be seen from the entrance corridor it will
be subject to the approval of the ARB or the Design Planner.) These conditions are
recommended for the buildings along Fontaine Ave., Ray C. Hunt Drive and Natural
Resources Drive. No internal building height limitations are needed.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to the rezoning:
1. The rezoning and special use permits are consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. The rezoning and special use permits will provide the research park an opportunity
to expand, which will provide health services and jobs for the community.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this request:
1. Feasibility of the Sunset-Fontaine Connector needs to be determined and location
resolved.
2. The proffers need to be technically accurate.
3. Minimal square footage of supporting commercial uses is proffered
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ZMA 2007-013
Staff cannot recommend approval of this rezoning until the following issues are addressed:
1. Reservation of area for a potential Sunset-Fontaine Connector through the Park is
made so as to not preclude a future viable alternative.
13 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
2. Commitment is provided by the applicant for the study by the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission on the Sunset-Fontaine Connector.
3. Acceptance of an adequate ceiling for supporting commercial use.
4. The proffers (See Attachment G) are revised to be technically and legally
acceptable.
Staff recommends approval for modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding height regulations with conditions.
Staff Comment on SP 2007-55-Request for Parking Structure Uses in the PD-MC
District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed
as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The applicant proposes three surface or structured parking areas. The proposed parking
structure uses are not expected to have extreme impacts on the adjacent properties since
existing surface parking is located in these areas. The parking structures will be located in
the research park towards the edges of the site. The portions of the property where the
parking structures are located are near Fontaine Ave. and Stribling Ave. The parking
structures use may create some elevated noise when in use, but probably not much more
than the existing parking and nearby highway. The only place where a parking structure
could be a problem is in the northwest corner of the site. Construction of a parking structure
here would preclude the most likely location for the Fontaine -Sunset Connector.
Section §32.7.2A PARKING STRUCTURES of the Zoning Ordinance provides information
and guidance regarding parking structures. All the supplemental regulations deal with
exhaust from vehicles.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
Considering the existing use is an office/research park that the applicant wishes to
expand and the parking areas already exist on the site, staff believes that the use of
parking structures is somewhat minimal in nature and will not change the character
of the district as an element of an approved office park. In addition the Foundation
has their own architectural requirements that will have to be met.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Uses permitted by-right are commercial, office, and service uses allowed in
commercial zoning districts. Parking structures are allowed in the PD-MC district by
special use permit (Sections 22.2.2(9); 23.2.2 (4) and 24.2.2 (11)). The research
and office uses already exist on the site. The proposed expanded development will
add additional research, medical and office opportunities for the University of
Virginia and the community at large. The parking structures are expected to be in
harmony with the uses allowed in the research park.
14 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
Section 5.1.41 PARKING LOTS AND PARKING STRUCTURES states that “A site
plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the
requirement is waived as provided in section 32.2.2.” A waiver has not been
requested. A site plan will be expected.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use
is approved?
The supplemental regulations help to protect the health and safety of the
community when parking garages are built.
Staff Comment on SP2009-010-Request for Research & Development Uses in the PD-
MC District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed
as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The applicant proposes to expand research and development uses on the site. The
proposed research and development uses are not expected to have extreme
impacts on the adjacent properties since the existing research park currently
provides these uses. All activities will be conducted inside buildings,
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
No change in the character of the zoning district is expected. The current zoning
already allows this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Uses permitted by-right are commercial, office, and service uses allowed in
commercial zoning districts. Research and Development is allowed in the PD-MC
district by special use permit (Section 23.2.2 (12)). The research and office uses
already exist on the site. The proposed expanded development will add additional
research, medical and office opportunities for the University of Virginia and the
community at large. The research and development uses are expected to be in
harmony with the uses allowed in the research park.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
There are no additional regulations relating to research and development.
15 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use
is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected
because all activities are conducted inside the building and surrounding uses are all
health care related.
Staff Comment on SP2009-011-Request for Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical
Uses in the PD-MC District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed
as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The applicant proposes to expand laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical uses on
the site. The proposed laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical uses are not
expected to have extreme impacts on the adjacent properties since all activities will
take place inside the buildings.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
No change in the character of the zoning district is expected. The current zoning
already allows this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Uses permitted by-right are commercial, office, and service uses allowed in
commercial zoning districts. Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical uses are
allowed in the PD-MC district by special use permit (Section 23.2.2 (13)). The
laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical uses already exist on the site. The
proposed expanded development will add additional research, medical and office
opportunities for the University of Virginia and the community at large. The
laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical uses are expected to be in harmony with
the uses allowed in the research park.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
There are no additional regulations relating to laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical
uses.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use
is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected with
the building code requirements. No additional impacts are expected.
Staff Comment on SP2009-013-Request for Hospital Uses in the PD-MC District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed
as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
16 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
The applicant proposes to continue providing the existing hospital use on the site.
The proposed hospital use is not expected to change or have extreme impacts on
the adjacent properties since the existing research park currently provides this use.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
No change in the character of the zoning district is expected. The current zoning
already allows this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its app roval.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Uses permitted by right are commercial, office, and service uses allowed in
commercial zoning districts. Hospitals are allowed in the PD-MC district by special
use permit (Sections 22.2.2 (3); 23.2.2 (1); and 24.2.2 (7)). The hospital, research
and office uses already exist on the site. The proposed expanded development will
add additional research, medical and office opportunities for the University of
Virginia and the community at large. The hospital is expected to be in harmony with
the uses allowed in the research park.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
There are no additional regulations relating to hospital uses.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use
is approved?
The expansion of the hospital use will support the public health and general welfare
of the community. No adverse impacts to the community are expected.
Staff Comment on SP2009-014-Request for Supporting Commercial Uses in the PD-
MC District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed
as follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent pr operty?
The applicant proposes to continue providing supporting commercial uses on the
site. The proposed supporting commercial uses are not expected to have extreme
impacts on the adjacent properties since the existing research park currently
provides some of these uses.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
No change in the character of the zoning district is expected. The current zoning
already allows this use.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zon ing ordinance?
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance, and identified no conflict that would arise as a result of its approval.
17 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
As previously discussed in this report the research park could benefit by having more than
2.2 percent of supporting commercial uses.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this
ordinance?
There are no additional regulations relating to supporting commercial uses.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use
is approved?
An expansion of the supporting commercial use will support the public health and
general welfare of the community by providing for more employee support on-site.
Staff would recommend that a ceiling of 5% be placed on the use, but no minimum
requirement for a commercial use. No adverse impacts to the community are
expected.
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends approval of SP2007-055 Parking Structure, SP2009-010
Research & Development, SP2009-011 Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical,
SP2009-013 Hospitals with conditions, and SP2009-014 Supporting Commercial
Uses.
Staff recommends the following conditions for approval for the Hospital special use
permit and the Supporting Commercial Uses special use permit, should the
rezoning be approved:
SP 2009-013- Hospital
1. The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
2. The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals
have been obtained;
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
4. The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency
services.
SP 2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses
1. The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to five (5) percent of the square
footage allowed in the park.
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Tax Map
AT TACHMENT C: Eight (8) plans and maps, dated May 3, 2010 prepared by University of
Virginia Foundation and Dewberry & Davis LLC
ATTACHMENT D: November 27, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session Staff Report
ATTACHMENT E: Minutes from November 27, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session
ATTACHMENT F: Neighborhood Model Analysis for ZMA 2004-010
ATTACHMENT G: Proffers with Figures, dated June 21, 2010
ATTACHMENT H: Electronic mail from Joel DeNunzio, dated May 21, 2010
ATTACHMENT I: Electronic mail from Gary Whelan, dated May 24, 2010 and electronic
mail from Justin Weiler, dated April 16, 2010
18 Fontaine Research Park
PC Public Hearing 7/27/10
Return to exec summary
IVY RD
AVONSTREETEXTO LDLYNCHBURGRDSCOTTSVILL E R D29BYPASSEXPW5THSTMONACANTRAILRD
}ÿ20
£¤29
£¤250
§¨¦64
Prepared byAlbemarle County
Office of Geographic Data Services (GDS).
Map created by Elise Hackett, July 2010.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and
are not to be construed or used as a legal description.
This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through
December 31, 2009
0 2,000 4,0001,000
Feet
ZMA 2007-13
SP 2007-055 , SP 2009-010 , SP2009-11 ,
SP 2009-013 , SP2009-014
Fontaine Research Park
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
City of Charlottesville
±
City of
Charlottesville
R AY C HUNT
D
R
RAYCHUNTDRRAYCHUNTDRFONTAINE AVENUE EXT
N A TU RALRESO U R CES D R
STR I B L I N G A V E N U E E X T29BYPASSEXPW£¤29
£¤29
76-17B
76-17B3
76-17B2
76-17B7
76-17B6
76-17B8
76-17B1+
76-17BA
76-17BW
76-17BB
76-17B4
76-17B5
Preparedby AlbemarleCounty
Officeof Geographic Data Services (GDS).
Map createdby Elise Hackett, July 2010.
Note: The map elements depictedaregraphic representations and
arenot tobe construedor used as a legal description.
This mapis for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia
Parcels shown reflectplats and deeds recorded through
December 31, 2009
0 100 20050
Feet
ZMA 2007-13
SP 2007-055 , SP 2009-010 , SP2009-11 ,
SP 2009-013 , SP2009-014
Fontaine Research Park
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest
±
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
November 27, 2007 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and a public hearing on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Jon Cannon, Bill Edgerton, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Eric Strucko; Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock. Mr. Craddock arrived at 6:07 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Community Development; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Susan Stimart, Business Development Facilitator and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney
Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Ms. Joseph invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: January 23, 2007, August 7, 2007 and August 21, 2007
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Strucko seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Mr. Craddock was absent.)
Work Sessions.
ZMA2007-00013 Fontaine Research Park PROPOSAL: Rezone approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow for an increase from 565,000 square feet to 1,290,000 square feet of office and supporting commercial space permitted in the research park. Three parking garages are proposed. No residential units are proposed. PROFFERS: EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and marketing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
2
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34 units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue in Neighborhood Six. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels B, BW, BX, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, and B8 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Elaine Echols) Mr. Strucko disclosed that he was the Chief Financial Officer of the Health Services Foundation, which owns the building and the surrounding parcels and has a financial involvement in this rezoning. Therefore, he disqualified himself and left the room. (See Attached Disclosure Statement)
In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2007-00013, Fontaine Research Park to familiarize the Commission with the current proposal for an expansion of the Fontaine Research Park and also for the Commission to weigh in on some important issues that relate to this. Staff noted that a recently adopted Comprehensive Plan Amendment has some bearing on this particular project. Staff and the applicant desired Commission “weigh-in” before the applicant proceeds and before staff provides any more advice on this project. Staff presented a power point presentation and discussed the specifics of the proposal. Fred Missel, representative for the applicant, made a presentation, answered questions and explained the proposal. The Commission reviewed and discussed the proposal with staff and the applicant, offered to take public comment, and then responded to the preliminary questions posed by the staff report as follows: The Planning Commission expressed concerns on the following items:
• The Comprehensive Plan language references the preferred Sunset-Fontaine Avenue Connector alternative from the Area B Study but does not spell out the recommendation as Alternative 4.
• Natural resource conservation,
• The small amount of supporting commercial uses,
• The Sunset Fontaine Avenue Connector Road which is minimally shown
• The off-ramp under consideration and how it relates to the Sunset-Fontaine Avenue Connector Road,
• The need for the Stadium Road Extension and how it relates to the proposal,
• The level of information expected at the rezoning in relation to the amount of information provided with this rezoning
• The need for a comprehensive traffic study for the Commission to review,
• The need for discussions with the Rivanna and Albemarle County Service Authority about capacities for the water and sewer need to occur.
• Widening of Fontaine Avenue
• Input from the City of Charlottesville and VDOT.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
3
• Should the area currently protected continue to be preserved through this
rezoning? The Planning Commission agreed that the applicant needs to identify the area that will be disturbed or protected. The applicant needs more information before they can designate it on the plan, but they were willing to do that.
What level of Commercial support use is expected? The current proposal is for
20,000 square feet of supporting commercial use – to be constructed at
applicant’s option.
The Commission said that support commercial uses are appropriate and asked the applicant to propose a level of commercial use that the Foundation believes can be supported and mechanisms for ensuring that the commercial support uses are actually provided in the park. The Planning Commission generally wanted more commercial space available than is currently being offered by the applicant as support use for the future, but agreed that the applicant would bring back options.
What level of resource protection is expected with the expansion of the Research
Park?
The Commission said that the applicant should continue to map the resources on the site and show them in relation to the proposed development and conceptual grading. The Commission said that resource protection should be provided unless the applicant can provide a sufficient reason for the resources to be disturbed. This issue would be revisited after identification of the resources.
What level of support commercial use is expected with the expansion of the
Research Park? The Commission said that greater opportunities for support commercial uses should be made with the rezoning. There was not a consensus on how provision for commercial uses should occur. The Commission asked the applicant to propose a level of commercial use that the Foundation believes can be supported and mechanisms for how those commercial support uses would actually be provided in the park.
When should the Sunset-Fontaine connector be built through this property and
what characteristics should it have? How should a possible off-ramp from I-64
affect commitments for the Sunset-Fontaine connector? Should Stadium Road be
expanded as a part of this rezoning? The Commission said that, until the traffic study was done, they could not provide answers to these questions. They acknowledged that, if an off-ramp from I-64 to substitute for the Sunset-Fontaine connector is viewed by the MPO PACC as most advantageous, the Land Use Plan would need to be amended. At present, the off-ramp proposal has no standing, so decisions would need to be made on the Comprehensive Plan recommendations in place at the time of the rezoning.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
4
What level of information is expected at the rezoning vs. the site planning stage? The Commission indicated that more detailed information was necessary at the rezoning stage than had been provided. The Commission acknowledged the applicant’s willingness to provide more information; however, it was agreed that providing information on scale and massing of the structures for preliminary Entrance Corridor review was premature.
The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break at 7:03 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
Mr. Strucko returned to the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ZTA-2007-00005 Crozet Downtown A fourth work session to continue review and discussion of the Crozet Downtown Zoning project, with a focus on regulations for a single Downtown Crozet Zoning District. This included a discussion of regulations the Commission recommended be modified in their last work session (10/30/07): requirement for mixed use, further reduction in parking requirements, and the requirement for an average residential maximum residential unit size. This work session will also focus on implementation of the zoning district and recommendations for boundaries, should the County comprehensively rezone portions of Downtown. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
In summary, Staff presented a power point presentation including an overview of the suggested modifications to the Downtown district regulations and implementation recommendations for a County initiated comprehensive rezoning of a portion of Downtown to the proposed zoning district. Staff made the following comments: Regarding the revised table of zoning district regulations, the changes included:
o Further reduction of the minimum number of parking spaces and recommendation that current Zoning Ordinance language (Section 4.12.8.e) be used to regulate parking agreements, rather than the informal arrangement suggested in the consultant’s recommendations.
o Additional flexibility, exemptions, and allowances for special use permits in the regulations for mixed use buildings.
o Staff recommended that the 1,000 square feet maximum average residential unit size is the appropriate size requirement to meet the affordability goals of the regulation and provide for a range of unit sizes in Crozet. This is supported by research of multifamily residential unit sizes in the Crozet/Charlottesville area and in consultation are organizations that provide for affordable housing. Regarding implementation and proposed boundaries of a rezoning to the new zoning district:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
5
o Staff recommended revised boundaries, should the County initiate a comprehensive rezoning in Downtown, for the Commission to begin discussing. The boundaries were reflected on a map, and unlike boundaries put forth by the consultant and Crozet community, did not include the J. Bruce Barnes lumberyard property or half of the block west of Carter Street. This boundary was based on information provided by the consultant, input from the Crozet Community, and the master plan and concentrated around areas of public investment by the County, including the Phase I and II Streetscape projects, library, and stormwater master plan for Downtown. In addition, the boundaries had taken into consideration the underlying zoning of parcels and impacts to adjoining residential areas, some of which are not yet ready to transition to commercial uses. Staff expressed concern’s regarding provision of infrastructure, primarily New Main Street and Carter Street, as the reason for not recommending the other areas be included in the possible rezoning boundaries.
o Staff noted that the Fiscal Impact Planner, Steven Allshouse, had just recently done a preliminary assessment of fiscal impacts using the County’s CRIM mode on the modified boundaries recommended by staff. That preliminary assessment found that under the proposed new zoning district, there was not a negative fiscal impact over a 20 year period to the County. This assessment was based on several assumptions about potential build-out under the new proposed zoning, including that about 25 percent of the total square footage in downtown would be for residential use and the potential proffers be factored into the model.
• Commission Discussion & Recommendations The Commission discussed the zoning district modifications and boundaries, made comments, and provided feedback and answered the questions posed by staff. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken with the Planning Commission recommending the following:
Parking-The Planning Commission continued to recommend that the minimum number of parking spaces should be further reduced from the recommendations of the consultant. The Commission indicated that they needed more information behind the recommendation of 1 space/1,000 square feet of net floor area for non-residential uses. The Commission agreed with staff’s recommendation that they preferred to use the current Zoning Ordinance regulations of Section 4.12.8.e for parking trading agreements.
Requirement for Mixed Use- The Planning Commission asked staff to pursue other exemptions or incentives for mixed use, such as the tiered approach as suggested by staff but did not recommend that district regulations include requirements that buildings be mixed use, which is defined as two of three uses: office, retail/services, or residential.
Maximum average residential unit size-The Commission recommended that the regulation of a 1,000 sq ft maximum average for residential units not be included in the new zoning district regulations. The Commission requested that staff work on this issue
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
6
to provide additional incentives/provisions to assure affordable housing in Downtown Crozet.
Boundaries of Possible Rezoning- The Commission recommended that the Downtown Crozet area should be as large as possible to help ensure the economic viability of Downtown Crozet and indicated a preference for including the additional properties studied and shown on previous consultant and Downtown Crozet Association maps for rezoning. Other discussion items:
• Buffer and screening regulations for parking areas and against residential uses on the edges of the District should be reviewed to ensure they are adequate, given that no Transition Zoning District is included and that the expanded boundaries were recommended by the Commission.
• It was questioned whether the proposed 10’ setback, which was measured from the back of the curb, would present problems particularly if there were road improvements.
• It was questioned if ARB feedback has been solicited. - Staff has met with the design planner, but not the ARB. This would be something that would allow closer setback and would require modifications to ARB guidelines. As suggested by staff, the Commission will set the vision for the area before taking it to the ARB. The following public comment was taken:
• Ross Stevens, resident of White Hall, said that he had not had the opportunity to look at the packets that were available. He made the following comments:
o He was concerned with the boundaries since they were trying to create Downtown Crozet so that it could compete with other commercial areas.
o Regarding the frontage on Carter Street, it is important to have commercial on both sides. He did anticipate Downtown Crozet becoming smaller. There needs to be more space to accomplish the flexibility of developing downtown in a larger space.
o He did not see the need to change the boundaries of our Comprehensive Land Plan. It appears to be a smaller area with the new recommendations of staff. He did not agree on a transition zone, but a larger Downtown zone. In order for Carter Street to provide for Downtown it is important to keep the Comprehensive Plan. It is important to work with the setbacks, the water drainage, the landscaping and buffers, but not necessarily the boundaries.
o The Downtown Crozet Association comprises of 75 percent of property owners and business people in Downtown who live, breath and work Downtown and know it very well. He asked that the Commission put more consideration into their recommendations.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
7
• Sandy Wilcox, President of the Downtown Crozet Association (DCA), addressed the following concerns of his group:
o He was upset with the process tonight. They have been working for months with the consultants in order to understand the proposal. He sees this as a third proposal. None of these items were discussed.
o The Downtown Association and others do not know where the recommendation regarding Carter Street came from. It is not consistent with anything including the consultant’s recommendation.
o Regarding the lumber yard, the idea was to have everything the same so that there would not be a wildcard out there that they don’t know what is going to happen.
o The regulations were made so to be friendly with employment everywhere in Downtown Crozet. He did not know why that should be eliminated from the process. Since no one had a chance to review tonight’s recommendations, it is a blind sided process. It is a heart of distrust because they had been working great together through months of this. It is a third opinion and not consistent with the people who live there.
• Mac Lackerty, a member of the Crozet Community Advisory Committee, said that he was upset with the process. In every meeting he has gone to they have seen a different iteration of the plan. It is imperative that they do something for Crozet. They have already lost two businesses. As a member of the Advisory Committee, he feels that whatever they do has been totally ignored. If they endorse a plan he would expect to at least be given consideration as that plan was endorsed. He felt that they have been blind sided and the process is wrong. It is imperative that they do something now to sustain Downtown Crozet. He is pushed with the desire to get something done to make it easier for people to start a business in Crozet.
• Mike Marshall, Chairman of the Crozet Advisory Council, said that he was surprised to see a new recommendation. He echoed Mr. Lackerty’s comments. He did not accept the 1,000 square foot limit on the unit size. The Downtown Crozet Association supported by the Advisory Council saw that there was no need to establish a unit size for downtown. The rational for that limitation was to create affordable housing, which he did not think was the appropriate tool to use to create affordable housing. On the exclusion of the lumber, this is now the 26th meeting that he has attended on downtown zoning and this is the first time that he has heard that there is a conflict about including the lumber yard in the downtown. The owner of the lumber yard has been at many of these meetings and so far that he knows he has never expressed the idea that he saw a conflict with this idea. The recommendation to remove Carter Street taken with the exclusion of the lumber yard shows that what the County is doing is not putting the survivability of Downtown Crozet as the cultural and commercial center of town as the Master Plan envisions it. That is not first. What is first is maintaining the opportunity to extract proffers from future developers. They are not going to get those proffers on the area that is currently zoned commercial. So if they take the areas like west Carter Street and the lumber yard that are not zoned
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
8
commercial and pull them out, then that means in the future those properties would have to be rezoned and at that time they would be asked for a proffer. So this is really about generating future income for the County. The more obstacles created for Downtown Crozet the more businesses will be drawn to Route 250. The rationale for mixed use was never explained by the consultant regarding the 7,500 square foot building. The Town wants a single district with a unified set of rules that are relatively simple. They oppose pulling the 28 acre lumber yard site. The County needs to provide an incentive for businesses to locate in Downtown Crozet. It is all about proffers and not about what is good for Downtown Crozet. They support mixed uses, but don’t want every property owner to be required to have a mixed use.
• Cliff Fox voiced concerns about the mixed use requirement. There are a lot easier and more general ways to handle the 1,000 square foot requirement. They could put a percentage of affordable housing within the developed residential element of it. If someone was developing four units, then one of them would be affordable. It needs to create flexibility and not strict regulations to allow the area to change organically and more simply. They are getting a lot of little regulations that are going to impede a more flexible form of development. They should try to relax the restrictions in a constructive way so that this is a viable thing that can occur over time. There is a need to allow flexibility and not more restrictions.
• Mary Rice, a member of the Crozet Advisory Committee, encouraged everyone to go out and walk the boundaries of Crozet, particularly on Carter Street. The points being made about Carter’s Street are really valid. It is really important that the County create a level playing field for Downtown Crozet. When Old Trail was approved at 250,000 square feet of commercial it really knocked Crozet Downtown area back. They need to do everything that they can to promote flexibility for business owners in Downtown Crozet and property owners. She was not in favor of the mixed use requirement for all of the reasons the people have already indicated here. She was not in favor of the 1,000 square foot minimum for residences. They need a mix of incomes in Downtown Crozet. It is important to create some diversity in Downtown Crozet. If someone wants a 2,000 square foot apartment, she felt that they should have them. Staff will follow up on how to approach the next steps. Follow up work sessions at which further details will be further discussed will be scheduled in the future. Ultimately, text language will be developed and a public hearing scheduled.
The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break at 8:49 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:58 p.m.
Places 29, Chapter 5
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
9
Staff will lead a discussion of the Places29 Future Land Use Framework Map, Neighborhoods 1 and 2. Staff will explain several needed changes and ask for the Commission’s advice on other possible changes. (Judy Wiegand)
In summary, a work session was held on Places29 Draft Master Plan – Future Land Use Framework Map, Neighborhoods 1 and 2. In a power point presentation, staff reviewed the following: 1. Reviewed the changes staff proposes for this map since the Commission’s first review of it, including a discussion of land use designation definitions. 2. Go over the map in detail with the Commission to give members the opportunity to suggest other revisions. 3. Address any additional comments and questions from the Commission. Ms. Wiegand and Mr. Benish reviewed numbers 1 and 2, which was an introduction. 1. Purpose: to discuss staff’s thoughts about the Future Land Use map before staff sends all the changes back to the consultants. This is the same map that staff presented during the workshops and no changes have been made yet. Staff will go through the same process for Hollymead and Piney Mountain on December 18. 2. Orientation: as always, north is to the right, the South Fork of the Rivanna River is…, City of Charlottesville…, US 29…., Rio Road…. The Commission agreed to spend 15 minutes on this item. After the introduction by staff, the Commission reviewed and agreed with staff on numbers 3, 4, 5, and 14. The others will be reviewed on December 18. The Planning Commission will pick up the remaining items on December 18 at a work session. Starting the work session earlier at 4:00 p.m. was discussed by the Commission. The Commission asked staff to discuss this issue with Mr. Cilimberg due to potential conflicts.
Old Business Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. .
New Business Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business.
• The staff report for the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for next week was passed out tonight and was on top of their packets.
• Ms. Joseph asked staff to provide maps so they know where these roads are located. With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m. to the Tuesday, October 23, 2007 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – NOVEMBER 27, 2007
10
ZMA 2007-013
PC August 24, 2010
Executive Summary Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA2007-13 Fontaine Research Park
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Rezone approximately 54 acres from Commercial
Office (CO) zoning district to Planned Development
Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) to allow for an increase
from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of
office, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical,
research & development activities, hospitals, and
supporting commercial space permitted in the
research park. Three parking garages are
proposed. The rezoning request is concurrent with
SP2007-055; SP2009-010; SP2009-011; SP2009-
013; and SP2009-014. No residential units are
proposed.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Echols, Grant
LEGAL REVIEW: NO
AGENDA DATE:
August 24, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
BACKGROUND:
On July 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Fontaine Research Park. While staff did not
recommend approval of the re-zoning for several reasons noted in the staff report provided for that public hearing, the
Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA2007-13 with the amendments to the proffers as discussed. Also,
the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of five (5) Special use permits, SP2007-55, SP2009-10, SP2009-11,
SP2009-13, and SP2009-14, as reflected in the staff report, with the conditions as recommended by staff. T he Commission
also recommended approval of the modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations with
changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition. (See Attachment A-1, Action Letter)
DISCUSSION:
This request is before the Commission because Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9 was not included in the legal ad for the July
27 public hearing. This parcel was subdivided from Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B1 (which was included in the original legal
ad) and recorded on September 9, 2009,but staff was unaware of the recordation of the new parcel until the applicant
called it to staff’s attention after the July 27th public hearing. Due to the absence of Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9 in the
legal ad for the July 27th public hearing, the rezoning and SP’s need to be re-advertised and a new public hearing held.
There are no proposed changes to the rezoning and special use permit requests that were originally heard by the
Commission other than the inclusion of this new parcel. (See Attachment B-1, Aerial Map of New Parcel) The
applicant is in the process of amending the proffers to reflect the actions of the Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As nothing of substance has changed since the Commission’s July 27th public hearing, it is recommended the Planning
Commission once again recommend approval of: 1) the rezoning request subject to the amended proffers; 2) the five
special use permits subject to the conditions recommended by staff; and 3) modification to the building height regulations
with changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A-1: Action Letter
ATTAHCMENT B-1: Aerial Tax Map and New Parcel
ZMA 2007-013
PC August 24, 2010
Executive Summary Page 2
Return to Sept 8 Exec Summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 30, 2010
Fred Missel, UVA Foundation
PO Box 400218
Charlottesville VA 22904
RE: ZMA200700013; Fontaine Research Park & SP200700055 Fontaine Research Park (Parking
Structures) & SP200900010; Fontaine Research Park (Research and Development Activities) &
SP200900011 Fontaine Research Park (Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical) &
SP200900013 Fontaine Research Park (Hospitals) & SP200900014 Fontaine Research Park
(Supporting Commercial Uses)
Dear Mr. Missel:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 24, 2010, recommended approval
of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion subject to the following:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the entire package, as follows:
1. Revisions of proffers to provide that either: 1) the owner will construct the Sunset-Fontaine Connector
in the alignment reserved on the Application Plan at such time that the remainder of the road is
constructed off of the Fontaine Research Park property or 2) the owner shall contribute cash to the
County that is equal to the value of constructing the alignment onsite if the Sunset-Fontaine
Connector is not established in a location that utilizes the alignment reserved on the Application Plan,
and the cash would be applied to the cost of the acquisition, design, engineering and construction of
the Connector in the new alignment.
2. There is no requirement for a cash contribution proffer for further study of the Fontaine -Sunset
Connector.
3. Revisions of proffers to incorporate legal and acceptable technical wording recommended by staff
shall be completed before the ZMA goes to the Board of Supervisors.
4. The Applicant commits to a five (5) percent ceiling for supporting commercial uses as a condition of
SP-2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses. There is no minimum amount required.
Action on Five (5) Special Use Permits:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the five (5) special use permits -SP-
2007-055; SP-2009-010; SP-2009-011; SP-2009-013; and SP-2009-014, as reflected in the staff report,
with the conditions as recommended by staff.
SP-2009-013 Hospital with the following conditions:
1. The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
2. The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals have been
obtained;
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
4. The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency services.
ATTACHMENT A-1
SP-2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses with the following condition:
1. The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) percent of the square
footage allowed in the park. There is no minimum amount required.
Action on Modification:
By a vote of 7:0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of modification of Section 21.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations with the expectation that the relationships of building heights to
the roads will be properly referenced.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on September 8, 2010.
Return August 24 Exec Summary
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,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
R A Y C HUNT DR
RAY C HUNT DRRAY C HUNT DR76-17B9
FONTAINE AVENUE EXT
NATURAL RESOURCES D R
STRIB L I N G A V ENUE EXT29 BYPASS EXPW£¤29
£¤29
Prepared by Albem arl e C ountyOffice of Geographi c Data Ser vices (GDS). Map created by Eli se Hackett, July 2010.
Note: The map elem ents depicted ar e gr aphic r epr esentations and are not to be construed or us ed as a legal descr iption.This map is for display pur poses onl y.
Aerial Imagery 2007 Comm onwealth of Vir ginia
Parcels shown reflec t plats and deeds recorded thr ough December 31, 2009
0 100 20050Feet
ZMA 2007-13SP 200 7-055 , S P 2009-010 , SP 2009-11 , SP 2009-01 3 , S P2009-014Fontaine Res earch Park
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcels of Interest±
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 27, 2009
ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion (Sign # 34 & 35) PROPOSAL: Rezone
approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses;
and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to PDMC Planned Development Mixed
Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow
for an increase from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical, research & development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial space permitted
in the research park. Three parking garages are proposed. No residential units are proposed. The
following Special Use Permits are in conjunction with this rezoning: SP200700055, SP200900010,
SP200900011, SP200900013, and SP200900014. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34
units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive
and Fontaine Avenue in Neighborhood Six. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX,
17B1, 17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA and 17B8. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel
Miller
AND
SP-2007-0055 Fontaine Research Park - Parking Structures (Sign # 34 & 35). PROPOSED: Parking
Structures in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with
ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00010 Fontaine Research Park - Research & Development Activities (Sign # 34 & 35)
PROPOSED: Research and development activities in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning
District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00011 Fontaine Research Park - Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical
PROPOSED: Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial
Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00013 Fontaine Research Park - Hospitals
PROPOSED: Hospitals in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in
conjunction with ZMA200700013. 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA & 17B8. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
AND
SP-2009-00014 Fontaine Research Park - Supporting Commercial Uses (Sign # 34 & 35).
PROPOSED: Supporting commercial uses in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District.
Ms. Grant presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for rezoning request
ZMA-2007-13 Fontaine Research Park, and five concurrent special use permit SP-2007-055 Parking
Structure, SP-2009-010 Research & Development, SP-2009-011 Laboratories, Medical or
Pharmaceutical, SP-2009-013 Hospitals, and SP-2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses.
The property is adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive and Fontaine Avenue.
Purpose of Hearing: The applicant requests to rezone approximately 54 acres from Commercial Office
(CO) zoning district to Planned Development Mixed Commercial (PD-MC) to allow for an increase from
565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical, research &
development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial space permitted in the research park. Three
parking garages are proposed.
There are eight existing buildings in the Research Park that provide medical services and health related
research. As shown in the slide the applicant is requesting additional developable square footage shown
in the forum of three building envelopes as shown in the application plan. The three building envelopes is
where expansion is proposed to occur and three parking envelopes are where surface or structured
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
2
parking expansion could also occur. The expansion would allow the Foundation to continue providing
health related services and research and office space within the Research Park. The applicant originally
requested an increase in square footage from 565,000 square feet to 1,290,000 square feet of office and
supporting commercial space. As detailed in the staff report a Planning Commission work session
covered several pertinent points, which included concern related to the protection of environmental
features, the need for a level of supporting commercial use that would be suitable for the Research Park
and the major issue was the need for a traffic study. The applicant responded with the following changes:
A decision to rezone from Commercial Office to Planned Development-Mixed Commercial was made in
order to provide a level of flexibility relating to building height and setbacks for proposed buildings.
Also, a proffer limiting the amount of supporting commercial uses to 20,000 square feet was provided.
The traffic study revealed that the Research Park could propose an additional 310,000 square feet
instead of 725,000 square feet in order to mitigate traffic impacts in the revised plan as now preserves the
natural resources discussed that were discussed during the Commission work session. In addition, the
traffic study determined that using Stribling Avenue as a second entrance to the Research Park and/or as
a separate connector road would be a problem because this entrance will requ ire a signal and there is not
significant space for two signals on Fontaine Avenue.
As shown in the next two slides off site mitigations include adding improvements to the ramps of the
Route 250 Bypass, lanes under the bridge, and the signal at the southbound interchange ramp.
Figure 1A provides the construction of a new shared through and left turn lane along with the restriping of
the existing lane as an exclusive second left turn lane for the southbound ramps. The areas for
improvements were highlighted in the presentation. Figure 1B provides two exclusive left turn lanes for
the southbound ramps with the construction of one new through lane. Additional improvements would
include construction of a new lane on the southbound ramp to receive dual left turns and the extension of
the outside through lane heading west on Fontaine Avenue from the city boundary to Ray C Hunt Drive.
In the Research Park an extension of the right turn lane on Racy C. Hunt Drive heading north is also
proposed.
As detailed in the staff report the percentage of supporting commercial use on the site decreases as the
total allowed square footage of the development increases. Staff believes that increasing the percentage
of supporting commercial use square footage within the site could provide employees and visitors using
the site some appropriate uses and options that could help eliminate some of the additional traffic impacts
in and out of the Research Park.
The Comprehensive Plan proposes the Sunset/Fontaine Connector to be accommodated on the site.
Proposed Sunset/Fontaine Connector is shown on the application plan in an area that is east on the site
that comes off of Fontaine Avenue and runs along the existing Stribling Avenue alignment. As noted on
the plan the area is reserved for future secondary entrance or future connector road alignment. Outside
of showing this area on the application plan the applicant has made no commitment elsewhere to address
this Comprehensive Plan recommendation. Staff believes an alternati ve location would be to utilize parts
of Natural Resources Drive, which accesses the Department of Forestry building, which area is to the
west of the site. This would necessitate relocation of a part of this road, which the applicant has indicated
they are not supportive of because this would generate too much traffic going through the Research Park.
The proposed application plan also shows building and parking envelopes located in areas where Natural
Resources Drive could be relocated. While this complex issue remains unresolved staff has
recommended that the applicant reserve this area for this possible relocation and participate in a
Fontaine/Sunset Connector alignment study that the Thomas Jefferson District Commission will be
undertaking.
Related to the proffers the applicant has been asked to change some wording to the proffers prior to the
Board of Supervisors hearing. Specifically, staff believes that the square footage limitation for supporting
commercial uses should be addressed as a condition instead of a proffer and that a higher cap of up to 5
percent of the total allowable square footage should be allowed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
3
The applicant requests a modification of the requirement of section 21.4 which relates to height
regulations. The Zoning Ordinance states that buildings may be erected up to 65’. The applicant is
requesting that instead of limiting the height of structures within the Fontaine Research Park to 65’ per
section 21.4 in the Zoning Ordinance they would like to have the flexibility of cons tructing buildings up to
90’ in height within the business park. Staff had reviewed this and recommends approval of this
modification.
Factors Favorable
• The rezoning and special use permits are consistent with the Land Use Plan.
• The rezoning and special use permits will provide the research park an opportunity to expand
which will provide health services and jobs for the community.
Factors Unfavorable
• Feasibility of the Sunset-Fontaine Connector needs to be determined and location resolved.
• The proffers need to be technically accurate.
• The minimal square footage of supporting commercial uses is proffered.
Staff’s Recommendation
Staff cannot recommend approval of this rezoning until the following issues are addressed:
1. Reservation of area for a potential Sunset-Fontaine Connector through the Park is made so as to
not preclude a future viable alternative.
2. Commitment is provided by the applicant for the study by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District
Commission on the Sunset-Fontaine Connector.
3. Acceptance of an adequate ceiling for supporting commercial use.
4. The proffers are revised to be technically and legally acceptable.
5. Staff recommends approval for modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
height regulations with conditions.
Staff also recommends approval for SP-2007-55 Parking Structure, SP-2009-010 Research &
Development, SP-2009-011 Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical, SP-2009-013 Hospitals with
conditions and SP-2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses with condition once the rezoning is approved.
Staff recommends approval of SP-2009-013 Hospital with the following conditions:
• The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
• The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals have
been obtained;
• Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
• The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency services.
and SP-2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses with the following condition:
• The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to five (5) percent of the square footage allowed
in the park.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant the University of Virginia Foundation, presented a
PowerPoint presentation. Several representatives of the University Foundation present include d Tim
Rose, Chief Executive Officer; and Fred Missel, Director of Design and Development. Also present were
Emily Moser, with the traffic engineering firm of Kimberly Horne, and Mr. Sandridge, representative for the
University. She made the following comments.
Ms. Grant covered the basics of the application pretty clearly. Everybody knows the location of
the research park fairly well since it sits on the City/County border. The existing conditions exhibit
shows what is there now. She pointed out an issue that was helpful to understand in terms of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
4
ownership of the various sections of the research park. Several people have asked questions
about that. Essentially there are three owners within the park: The University Foundation serves
essentially as the applicant on behalf of all three owners. It is the University of Virginia
Foundation, the University of Virginia itself; and also the Health Services Foundation. The
easiest one is the Health Services Foundation who owns their own building and some of the
parking. The University owns other buildings and all the land around it. One is actually a building
underneath a parking lot. The Foundation owns the other buildings and all of the other land
around it. That is why there are three owners listed on the proffers.
She noted the proposed application plan. The research park has been rezoned several times
over the past few years with small incremental increases in the permitted density of the park. The
current limit is 565,000 square feet. The park is essentially at full build-out right now. They have
requested an increase for an additional 310,000 square feet. As shown on the prior plan they do
have three separate building envelopes and a number of parking envelopes. Those could use
either structured parking or service parking or perhaps a combination thereof. The proposal is to
essentially try to redevelop the park and add density to it in a way that does not involve
expanding the envelope of the research park essentially making it even more compact and urban
to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As the park has developed over the years there
has been a very consistent and conscientious focus on making sure that it is consistent with all of
the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan particularly with regard to the pedestrian
orientation of it and the incorporation of supporting commercial uses , new elements involving
shuttle buses and traffic demand management plans and so forth to ensure that the park can
function well and be a good place for people to work, for patients to come for their medical c are,
for administrative tasks to take place, and essentially a combination of three types of uses in the
Park. It would be clinical and medical uses; research and development; and administrative uses.
As Ms. Grant indicated they are reserving an area on the application plan for the future
Sunset/Fontaine Avenue Connector. This is the so called alternative 4 alignment that was the
recommendation of the Area B Study that was approved in 2004 and was adopted by the
Planning and Coordination Committee also known as PACT. Some may not be as family with
PACT. It is a tri-party organization - the City, County and University - that meet quarterly to
discuss issues of particular importance to all three entities. So at the PACT meeting several
years ago there was discussion of the Area B Study, which took a look at a number of different
alignments for the research park recommended and the alternative 4 alignment was selected. So
ever since then the University is committed to do two things. One is to accommodat e the Sunset
Avenue/Sunset Fontaine Avenue Connector Road on its property and also to actually fund the
construction at its expense of the portion of the road on its property. So they have committed
over the years to build the road essentially from where it would intersect with Fontaine Avenue
down to the edge of its property line right before the railroad or to the base of any bridge or
underpass that would be part of the complete road.
Again, there has been a strong emphasis on developing the park in a fashion that is consistent
with the Comprehensive Plan for a place that people want to work, and where they want to come
for their health care services. They are concerned with some of the proposed other alternatives
that were originally considered as part of the Area B Study, but were not selected as the preferred
alternative. In particular there are alternatives that would come through the middle of the park
where there is open space, and preservation/conservation area on the application plan. Another
alternative, as Ms. Grant suggested, would utilize natural resources and bifurcate the park. There
are some strong concerns about the impact that bifurcation would have on the pedestrian nature
of the Park, on the ability to maintain appropriate levels of service at the intersections and the all
around functioning of the park in terms of both pedestrian orientation, the delivery of health care
services, the conducting of research activities and just the management of traffic. The idea of
combining the connector road traffic with the research park traffic is not something that their traffic
engineers or anyone at the University has been able to figure out how that would actually work
without significantly degrading the quality of life within the park and the actual functioning of the
park.
To reiterate, the Foundation is continuing its long commitment to accommodate the Connector
Road in the Alternative 4 location. They want to reiterate commitment of the University and the
Foundation to actually fund the portion of the Connector Road on its side of the line. Ms. Grant is
correct that they have not actually proffered the funding element of that, but they are more than
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
5
happy to do so prior to the Board of Supervisors hearing. If the Commission thinks that i s
appropriate to do so, then they are willing to do so. The timing for building the road would be at
the time that the rest of the road and the bridge or underpass was ready to be built as well. They
would work in concert with the other owners and anyone else who was participating in funding.
Regarding the traffic improvements it did not seem that the Commission had any questions or
confusion. She was happy to walk through the proffers they were making. Essentially there were
spot improvements in several areas to help keep the traffic moving by adding a turn lane in one
area, an additional turn lane under the bridge, the second turn lane, a signal on the Southbound
lanes, and an extra lane to accommodate what will now be dual left turn lanes. They hav e Figure
A and Figure B. They are still working with VDOT on the exact design of the striping and turn
lanes of the intersection. VDOT says they are agreeable to whichever option. They will figure out
which option at the site plan stage actually works best. There is a slight variation in the striping.
It is about whether it is called a split phased signal or a standard signal.
They have worked out all of the other issues with Ms. Grant and the other members of the staff.
They are agreeable to the cap on the supporting commercial uses. They are working hard to
increase the amount of supporting commercial uses in the park at an appropriate pace. They are
comfortable with the building height waiver and want to work with the staff to just tweak the
standards a little bit. The intent on the building height waiver standards involves some additional
setbacks for buildings that are taller, which they are generally fine with. The intent is that they did
not intend the new setbacks to apply to buildings that are internal, but only those that are sort of
on the edges of the park. It refers to Ray C. Hunt Drive, which actually goes all the way through
the park. The way it is written now it would actually apply that setback to all of the buildings in the
park. They want to work with the staff to phrase that technically so that it does not have that
unintentional impact. Otherwise, they are comfortable with the concept of setbacks from Fontaine
Avenue and other primary roads. Other than that they would request t he Commission’s support
all of the special use permits. They are comfortable with the conditions of approval recommended
by the staff. They do have some proffers. There are a couple of minor technicalities they are
working through, but nothing substantive. She would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Zobrist invited questions for the applicant. There being none, he invited other public comment.
Jeanne Chase, a member of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood and a resident at 223 Old Lynchburg Road,
said that she was present to speak on behalf of the Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association Board of
Directors, which she was the corresponding Secretary. She was here on behalf of Peter Headland who is
their President and the rest of the Board. A representative from the University of Virginia Foundation
spoke at the July Fry’s Spring Neighborhood Association meeting in an effort to explain the details and
motivation for this rezoning. The aspect of this project that is of the most concern to the FSNA i s how this
will affect the long proposed Sunset/Fontaine connector. Approval of this rezoning will lock the
University’s portion of the Connector Road into one alignment, Alignment Alternative 4. Because the
county is on record supporting this connector road by approving this rezoning they are also approving and
committing to that eventual realignment of the Sunset/Fontaine connector. The need for this connector
road was recognized by the Southern Urban Area B Study jointly sponsored by the County, City and
University as early as the late 1980’s. Any argument that uses the logic that because the Biscuit Run
housing development is no longer built this connector road is no longer necessary is ignoring the fact that
its need was recognized before the Biscuit Run project was ever conceived. Traffic traveling from the
County to the University is only going to increase as the hospital complex continues to grow denser and
the student enrollment increases. Relying on neighborhood roads as a convenient cut through t o the
University is not sustainable. Please make sure that this rezoning request does not interfere with the
future Sunset/ Fontaine Connector.
Mr. Zobrist invited other public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Commission.
Mr. Morris said the one thing that boggled his mind is requesting that they reopen the question of where
the Fontaine Connector is going to be. It was talked about in the ‘80’s. This Commission talked about it
time and time again in dealing with Biscuit Run. It was set for the location that is on the plan right now.
Especially those good folks in Fry’s Springs it is a way to assist traffic that currently exists and will
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
6
increase very probably out of their neighborhood and along this thoroughfare. He understands that the
proffers are asking the University for $20,000. He would like to see that $20,000 just be put in escrow to
go to the construction of this road where it has been set for the entire time.
Mr. Lafferty asked why this question has come up about the alignment again and why there seems to be
a need for another study.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that very honestly it was about the engineering feasibility of building it in that
particular location. There were several alignments looked at from a planning perspective, but they were
never looked at from an engineering perspective per say. David Benish may be able to speak to this
better than he. W hile Alternative 4 has been identified in the Area B Study, the Comprehensive Plan
adoption refers to the Area B Study, but does not refer specifically to Alternative 4 only because the
Board wanted to make sure that it could be built where ever it needed to be built. Very frankly for the
applicant he thinks it is an issue of the disruptive to their park if it were to be in a location other than
Alternative 4. They recognize that. But there is an engineering challenge and feasibility question
regarding Alternative 4 actually ever being built through that may not be as challenging using the other
alternative they identified with the applicant. They probably should let Mr. Graham speak to the challenge
from an engineering standpoint.
Mr. Zobrist invited Mr. Graham to address the issue.
Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, not ed that he was standing in for the County
Engineer who is on vacation. The real issue here is obvious. It is the separation between the existing
entrance to Fontaine where this would be with Stribling Avenue. It is just from a traffic standpoint. It is not
going to meet the standards. There is going to be congestion here. The reality is if this Sunset
Connector gets built they are actually going to see the level of service on Fontaine go down rather than
up because more traffic comes to Fontaine as a r esult of that. It is creating a future potential conflict.
There are no answers at this point in time on how that is going to be addressed.
Mr. Lafferty noted they have a request in front of them to build more buildings and more people in the
park and he was saying that one of the alternatives is to put more traffic through the park, too. He did not
see how that was acceptable.
Mr. Graham replied that he was saying with Alternative 4 that has been proposed it is not going to put
more traffic into the Park.
Mr. Lafferty noted that the alternative was going through the Forestry Department.
Mr. Graham said if they can get it down to one intersection where they have this traffic introduced versus
two major intersections within that short distance the t raffic management would become simpler. It is that
separation for those two intersections that is the real issue there.
Ms. Porterfield said actually she thought there was more of an issue than that. She had an 87 and 89
year old parents who get a goodly amount of their health care there and they drive. There are a lot of
patients that are going in and out of there all of the time. To bring in a connector road that is going to run
through what is a health care park just does not make any sense. They can just visualize the speed that
people might be going and visualize the fact that it is going to cut off that north/west quadrant unless they
build it something like the downtown post office where she grew up in Chicago that drives right through it
when coming in from the west side. She just did not see this. She was not here when they studied the
other side. But if that is what was agreed to and the University is willing to build it she would think that the
University could work with the traffic peopl e and make the best of the intersection. It has got to be better
than burdening a health care facility.
Mr. Franco agreed with everybody else in what they have said. He thought that if nothing else Places29
is probably good example of this where they had routes going through Forest Lakes that were reserved in
the future. Then all of a sudden the residents come in whether it be living there or operating a business
there and say they don’t want that alternative. Then it is lost. He sees this route bei ng outside that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
7
building envelope and something that could be preserved into the future. He did not know when this
connector road is going to be built, but it makes sense to have it outside the uses.
Mr. Smith said if it was in his front yard he would not want everybody driving through the park.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that he had a question for Ms. Long. What he has always understood from the
last time they did this several years ago is that the University has always accepted this alternative as one
to reserve the spaces and was willing to pay for it. He asked if a different agreement is done will they put
the same resources to what a different agreement is in the future. This is a long way off. He asked if
they have any idea as to when this will ever be built.
Ms. Long replied that the University Foundation has said they will build it at the time the rest of the road
and the bridge or tunnel is also ready to be built. So really it becomes an issue of funding, which is
certainly the multi-million dollar question. These days there is lots of uncertainty of future transportation
funding resources. Certainly the Foundation has said that it will not hold it up if others are ready to go
they will work with them. But they also are not in the position to b uild it before the other owners are ready
to build it.
Mr. Zobrist agreed that they should not build a road to nowhere when they don’t know what is going on.
He would probably change the proffer a little bit and say they are proffering that or any other acceptable
route and costing similar dollars so they could cover this. He thought that something will be worked out
eventually. He thinks this is kind of like Jarman’s Gap Road in Crozet. He did not know if they will ever
get that road improved. He did not know if they are going to get this built. It certainly looks less likely in
the short term than in the longer term. He thinks that it is very wise to reserve space for it and to get the
funding commitment from the University now. He did not think they should hold up what they are doing
because of that and would like to work the language of the proffer a little bit to make sure that money is
available whether that is what they all agreed upon or whatever else they agree upon. But he did not think
they want them to hold up this zoning while they wait for what the staff thinks is going to be an agreement
which may never come.
Ms. Long thanked him because that is certainly the case. They definitely would like to move forward and
appreciate their understanding of that situation.
Mr. Zobrist asked if they would broaden the proffer.
Ms. Long replied that they would certainly need to talk with the Foundation’s and University’s
representatives. Part of it is that obviously it would have to be conditioned on an alignment that was
acceptable to the University. If that is an off-site alignment, then that should be fine.
Mr. Zobrist suggested by agreement that the same land, the same resources and the same cost to the
University be maintained regardless of what is eventually agreed upon. He agreed that if the ownership
does not agree upon it, then he did not think they can condemn through the middle of the building. He
thinks that it is has to be something that reasonable minds will figure out when someth ing comes up along
Sunset that is going to make enough sense where somebody is going to want to build this thing . Then
they will all agree that it will either be here or they will agree to something else even if it is off -site.
Ms. Long asked that Mr. Rose be allowed to speak.
Mr. Zobrist asked Mr. Rose to address the Commission.
Mr. Tim Rose said what he thought he heard Mr. Zobrist say is would they be willing to broaden the
proffer so that they committed to paying for the connector road should it be built in a different place.
Mr. Zobrist replied that was correct and being limited to the same resources that would be required with
what they have proffered. He was not suggesting that they increase their commitment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
8
Mr. Rose said in their current plan at some point in the future they would be building, if they come back
for a second rezoning, from generally this area with the assumption that they could work out a waiver for
a second entrance back down in this area. That is a cost that they anticipate incurring at some point
anyway. What they would like to do based on what he said is broaden the proffer and agree that the
distance from here to here for that construction price could be applied to some other portion at the time
that the connector was built with the assumption that the connectors was not going through the middle of
their park.
Ms. Monteith asked to also add that if they were going to take that approach that they should make sure
that the development plan shown is not going to be impact ed by any change in the future in terms of the
alignment.
Ms. Porterfield said that she was not asking them, which was another part of Ms. Grant’s report, to
maintain the northwest portion without doing anything to it.
Mr. Zobrist said no, not at all.
Ms. Porterfield said in other words that right now his idea is simply that either it is going to come down the
alignment on the east side or potentially some place outside of their property, but this is the only place on
their property that they have to maintain open.
Mr. Zobrist said that he did not see any reason to hold up them moving ahead with their plans while they
wait to figure that out because he thinks that would be acceptable.
Mr. Morris agreed completely.
Mr. Franco agreed and that the only qualifications he would put on that is there may be improvements
during that initial stretch of road that would be above and beyond what they might be installing that would
have been required if the connector road went in. For instance, they may only requ ire two lanes but the
connector road might be four lanes. So he would want that proportion of funding to go with the back half.
Mr. Rose said that if this had to go from two to four lanes at the time that the connector road in totality is
being constructed they would put in at the same point.
Mr. Franco noted or with the same funds if the road went somewhere else, and Mr. Rose agreed.
Mr. Zobrist asked if there was a motion.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there needs to be one motion on the zoning map amendment. If there was
consensus the special use permits can be taken together noting that two of those special use permits
have conditions recommended by staff. There is also the one modification to section 21.4 with a
condition. Also in their direction on the ZMA they can recommend the further revisions to the proffers as
recommended by staff and as discussed here.
Mr. Zobrist asked if the Commission can have the written proffers back on the consensus agenda to look
at before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg said that is not normally what they have done because that holds up the process for it
getting to the Board. If they feel like they want to see the proffers first staff can do that.
.
Mr. Zobrist suggested that was something they need to think about to get it right even if it slows them
down a few weeks. He really thought they need to see the proffers finished.
Mr. Morris suggested that they do it by email.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was happy to do it by email, but would prefer taking action after seeing the final
proffers.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
9
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if they were just interested in seeing the final proffers they can provide that
information. But if they feel they need to see them and take some kind of action then that has to be done
in a meeting. The next Commission meeting is on August 17, but taking an action then would move the
Board date to October.
Mr. Rose said if they approve it tonight then they can draft proffers to the extent that they don’t say
exactly what they want them to say then the Board of Supervisors can weigh in at that point. But they are
committed to drafting the proffers precisely the way they just discussed with the Commission. They
encourage the Commission to vote tonight so that they can move forward to the Board.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff could work with the County Attorney and applicants to get the proffers
signed and advertised. They would be able to capture everything intended with that work and normally
don’t come back. Staff can provide that information, but the Commission cannot act again on it. He
deferred the question to Mr. Kamptner since he works on the proffers in the end. Staff wants to make
sure the substance is captured.
Mr. Kamptner said that they reach a point of finality and sometimes finality is reached hours before the
Board meeting, but they strive to get things wrapped up as soon as possible and can share that with the
Commissioners. If they have any concerns or comments the Commissioners can pass them on to staff.
Staff can pass that on to the Board.
Mr. Zobrist said that he was in agreement with that.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that actually the process is that they are supposed to have the proffers complete and
signed before the Board advertises. That is a little different than it used to be.
Mr. Kamptner said that they would have the substance nailed down on the proffers by the time it is ready
to be advertised. There may be some minor editing things.
Mr. Zobrist said that any member of the Commission can comment and staff will look at the comments
and decide if they want to follow them or not. He was okay with that.
Ms. Porterfield said before they make a motion she would like to ask a question about proffer 12. Should
the Commission give some type of a recommendatio n as to whether they are going with Plan A or Plan B.
Ms. Grant replied no that will be determined later during the site plan process.
Ms. Porterfield noted since she does not always show up at the site plan meeting she would like to throw
her idea out. She thought that it would help with the football traffic if they had the one straight through
and the two lefts to try to get as much traffic off of Fontaine as they can. That is a huge bottle neck and
her parking space is near there. They have gotten tr apped in that and it is bad news. It is just a thought
to note.
Mr. Morris noted one point of clarification. Based upon what they have said they are not going to be
asking the University to contribute $20,000 to a study that does not need to be created.
Mr. Zobrist replied not right now.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that actually there will need to be further analysis for some of the purposes that Mr.
Graham described. That is why he thought there could be some other alternative maybe not even
involving their site that would have to accommodate the connection. That is why Mr. Zobrist has
indicated that there might need to be an alternative in the future. It would be based on a later study. But,
the Commission is not expecting them to participate, which is what he was hearing.
Motion on ZMA-2007-013:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
10
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine
Research Park Expansion with the amendment to the proffers as discussed.
Mr. Cilimberg noted for clarification so staff can represent this properly before the Board that would mean
with acceptance of the connector as shown on their plan and at their participation in that connector or an
alternative as discussed tonight. There was no anticipation for participatio n in the traffic study. The rest
is the legal and acceptable technical wording of the proffer. They will cover the commercial use sealing
as part of the special use permit.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the Commission could take action on all five special use permits at one time.
Mr. Kamptner replied that if there is consensus the Commission could take action on all five special use
permits at one time.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to take action on all five special use permits at one
time.
Motion on SP-2007-0055, SP-2009-00010, SP-2009-00011, SP-2009-00013 and SP-2009-00014:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of all five special use
permits (SP-2007-0055, SP-2009-00010, SP-2009-00011, SP-2009-00013 and SP-2009-00014) as
reflected in the staff report with the conditions as recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Motion on Modification from Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding heigh t regulations:
Ms. Porterfield asked if they have to change it because of the interior versus the exterior.
Ms. Monteith said that is actually a clarification of the road name more than anything else rather than
getting into the interior and exterior. She thought it was misunderstood that Ray C. Hunt is the road that
both comes into the park and moves through the park. What they would want to say is to condition it so
that staff can work it out so that they get that appropriately worded.
Mr. Cilimberg noted it was a recommendation in this case since the Board takes the final action on that
particular modification. Staff can get the roads properly referenced if they so move to.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded to recommend approval o f the modification of
Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height regulations with conditions so that staff can get the
roads properly referenced.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Zobrist noted that ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion, the five special use permits
and the modification of Section 21.4 would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval, as summarized and noted below:
Action on ZMA-2007-013:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion
subject to the following:
1. Revisions of proffers to provide that either: 1) the owner will construct the Sunset -Fontaine
Connector in the alignment reserved on the Application Plan at s uch time that the remainder of
the road is constructed off of the Fontaine Research Park property or 2) the owner shall
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 27, 2010
DRAFT MINUTES –SUBMITTED TO PC
11
contribute cash to the County that is equal to the value of constructing the alignment onsite if the
Sunset-Fontaine Connector is not established in a location that utilizes the alignment reserved on
the Application Plan, and the cash would be applied to the cost of the acquisition, design,
engineering and construction of the Connector in the new alignment.
2. There is no requirement for a cash contribution proffer for further study of the Fontaine-Sunset
Connector.
3. Revisions of proffers to incorporate legal and acceptable technical wording recommended by staff
shall be completed before the ZMA goes to the Board of Supervisors.
4. The Applicant commits to a five (5) percent ceiling for supporting commercial uses as a condition
of SP-2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses. There is no minimum amount required.
Action on Five (5) Special Use Permits:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the five (5) special use permits -SP-2007-055;
SP-2009-010; SP-2009-011; SP-2009-013; and SP-2009-014, as reflected in the staff report, with the
conditions as recommended by staff.
SP-2009-013 Hospital with the following conditions:
1. The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
2. The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals have
been obtained;
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
4. The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency services.
SP-2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses with the following condition:
1. The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) percent of the square
footage allowed in the park. There is no minimum amount required.
Action on Modification:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding height regulations with the expectation that the relationships of building heights t o
the roads will be properly referenced.
Return to exec summary
Go to next set of minutes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2007-13 FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK & FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 24, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, August 24,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith, Don Franco,
Calvin Morris, Linda Porterfield, and Thomas Loach, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use
Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion (Sign # 34 & 35) PROPOSAL: Rezone
approximately 54 acres from CO Commercial Office - offices, supporting commercial and service uses;
and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to PDMC Planned Development Mixed
Commercial - large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to allow
for an increase from 565,000 square feet to 875,000 square feet of office, laboratories, medical or
pharmaceutical, research & development activities, hospitals, and supporting commercial space permitted
in the research park. Three parking garages are proposed. No residential units are proposed. The
following Special Use Permits are in conjunction with this rezoning: SP200700055, SP200900010,
SP200900011, SP200900013, and SP200900014. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Office Service - office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34
units/acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: Adjacent to the intersection of Ray C. Hunt Drive
and Fontaine Avenue in Neighborhood Six. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 76, Parcels 17B, 17BW, 17BX,
17B1, 17B2, 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA and 17B8. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel
Miller
AND
SP-2007-0055 Fontaine Research Park - Parking Structures (Sign # 34 & 35). PROPOSED: Parking
Structures in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with
ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00010 Fontaine Research Park - Research & Development Activities (Sign # 34 & 35)
PROPOSED: Research and development activities in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning
District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00011 Fontaine Research Park - Laboratories, Medical or Pharmaceutical
PROPOSED: Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial
Zoning District. This SP is in conjunction with ZMA2007-00013.
AND
SP-2009-00013 Fontaine Research Park - Hospitals
PROPOSED: Hospitals in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District. This SP is in
conjunction with ZMA200700013. 17B3, 17B4, 17B5, 17B6, 17B7, 17BB, 17BA & 17B8. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
AND
SP-2009-00014 Fontaine Research Park - Supporting Commercial Uses (Sign # 34 & 35).
PROPOSED: Supporting commercial uses in Planned Development - Mixed Commercial Zoning District.
This SP is in conjunction with ZMA200700013. (Claudette Grant)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2007-13 FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK & FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS
2
Mr. Loach said that the Commission heard these requests previously.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out if the Commission can reach a consensus they can come up with one motion
for all of the applications.
Ms. Porterfield noted the problem was the requests were not advertised correctly. She asked if they can
go straight to that since they have already discussed the requests.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff will show the Commission the parcel that they did not realize existed and
then the Commission has already seen the rest of the information that has not changed. One update is
that there are proffers in response to the Commission’s recommendation that will go to the Board that are
addressing their recommendation. Copies of the final and signed proffers will be provided to the
Commission.
Ms. Grant said she would not go into great detail since they have already heard this. Basically, the
subject parcel, Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9, is part of this rezoning and special use permit request, but it
was not advertised. Staff is bringing it back to the Commission just to have it advertised for public
hearing. (Staff Report Summary Noted Below)
BACKGROUND:
On July 27, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the Fontaine Research Park. While
staff did not recommend approval of the re-zoning for several reasons noted in the staff report provided
for that public hearing, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of ZMA-2007-13 with
the amendments to the proffers as discussed. Also, the Commission, by a vote of 6:0, recommended
approval of five (5) Special use permits, SP2007-55, SP2009-10, SP2009-11, SP2009-13, and SP2009-
14, as reflected in the staff report, with the conditions as recommended by staff. The Commission also
recommended approval of the modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding height
regulations with changes to the referenced street names in the staff recommended condition.
DISCUSSION:
This request is before the Commission because Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9 was not included in the
legal ad for the July 27 public hearing. This parcel was subdivided from Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B1
(which was included in the original legal ad) and recorded on September 9, 2009,but staff was
unaware of the recordation of the new parcel until the applicant called it to staff’s attention after the
July 27th public hearing. Due to the absence of Tax Map 76, Parcel 17B9 in the legal ad for the Ju ly
27th public hearing, the rezoning and SP’s need to be re -advertised and a new public hearing held.
There are no proposed changes to the rezoning and special use permit requests that were originally
heard by the Commission other than the inclusion of this new parcel. The applicant is in the process
of amending the proffers to reflect the actions of the Commission.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
As nothing of substance has changed since the Commission’s July 27 th public hearing, it is recommended
the Planning Commission once again recommend approval of: 1) the rezoning request subject to the
amended proffers; 2) the five special use permits subject to the conditions recommended by staff; and 3)
modification to the building height regulations with changes to the refere nced street names in the staff
recommended condition.
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and the applicant
invited to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the application, offered to answer questions.
There being no questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the
public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2007-13 FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK & FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS
3
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to take action on the requests in one action.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved to approve the entire package with the conditions as stated before and with
the revised proffers with copies to be received by the Planning Commission.
Ms. Porterfield noted that there were a couple of items that needed to be clarified by staff such as the way
the buildings were facing and their sides and front yards. She asked that all of that information be taken
out of the previous discussion and included.
Mr. Kamptner noted that also includes the zoning map amendment, the modification and the five special
use permits.
Mr. Zobrist seconded the motion.
The motion was approved by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the entire packet would go to the Board of Supervisors on September 8, 201 0 as
previously approved, as follows:
Action on ZMA-2007-013:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the entire package, as follows:
ZMA-2007-013 Fontaine Research Park Expansion subject to the following:
1. Revisions of proffers to provide that either: 1) the owner will construct the Sunset-Fontaine
Connector in the alignment reserved on the Application Plan at such time that the remainder of
the road is constructed off of the Fontaine Research Park property or 2) the owner shall
contribute cash to the County that is equal to the value of constructing the alignment onsite if the
Sunset-Fontaine Connector is not established in a location that utilizes the alignment reserved on
the Application Plan, and the cash would be applied to the cost of the acquisition, design,
engineering and construction of the Connector in the new alignment.
2. There is no requirement for a cash contribution proffer for further study of the Fontaine -Sunset
Connector.
3. Revisions of proffers to incorporate legal and acceptable technical wording recommended by staff
shall be completed before the ZMA goes to the Board of Supervisors.
4. The Applicant commits to a five (5) percent ceiling for supporting commercial uses as a condition
of SP-2009-014 Supporting Commercial Uses. There is no minimum amount required.
Action on Five (5) Special Use Permits:
• The Planning Commission recommended approval of the five (5) special use permits -SP-2007-055;
SP-2009-010; SP-2009-011; SP-2009-013; and SP-2009-014, as reflected in the staff report, with the
conditions as recommended by staff.
SP-2009-013 Hospital with the following conditions:
1. The hospital use shall be limited to 60 beds;
2. The use shall not commence until such time as appropriate state and federal approvals have
been obtained;
3. Site plan shall not be signed until fire official approval has been obtained;
4. The use shall be for inpatient medical rehabilitation and shall not provide emergency services.
SP-2009-014-Supporting Commercial Uses with the following condition:
1. The supporting commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of five (5) percent of the square
footage allowed in the park. There is no minimum amount required.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – AUGUST 24, 2010
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – ZMA-2007-13 FONTAINE RESEARCH PARK & FIVE SPECIAL USE PERMITS
4
Action on Modification:
The Planning Commission recommended approval of modification of Section 21.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding height regulations with the expectation that the relationships of building heights to
the roads will be properly referenced.
• Staff to send the copies of the final signed proffers to the Commissioners.
Return to exec summary