HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-8-14Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
AUGUST 14, 2013
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
AUDITORIUM
3:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
Work Sessions:
2. Firearms Training Facility.
3. CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment.
4. Status Update on Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston.
5. Adjourn.
6:00 p.m.
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Proclamation Recognizing August 26, 2013 Women’s Equality Day.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9. SP-2012-00021. Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship (Sign #77&80).
PROPOSAL: Request for a special use permit to convert an existing residence to a church on 1.38 acres. No
dwellings proposed. ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: YES. PROFFERS: NO. LOCATION: 3917 and 3935 Rock Branch Rd. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 087B0-00-00-
001A0, 087B0-00-00-00200. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
10. SP-2013-00005. The Field School of Charlottesville (Sign #65). PROPOSAL:
Private school on 62.1 acres. ZONING: RA Rural Area -- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding. ENTRANCE
CORRIDOR: No. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). LOCATION: 1717 Polo Grounds Road.
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 04600-00-00-02200, 04600-00-00-022C0, and 04600-00-00-098A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Rivanna.
11. ZMA-2012-00004. Avon Park II (Signs #89&91). PROPOSAL: Rezone 5.262 acres from
R-6 zoning district for which allows residential uses at a density of 6 units per acre to PRD zoning district which allows
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0814/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/5/2020 10:59:35 AM]
Tentative
residential uses with limited commercial uses at a density of 3 - 34 units/acre. 32 maximum units proposed for a density of
6 units/acre. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. PROFFERS: Yes. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Neighborhood Density
Residential– residential (3-6 units/acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, and other small-scale non-
residential uses. LOCATION: 1960 Avon Street Extended. Approximately 1000 feet north of the intersection of Avon Street
Extended and Route 20, south of existing Avon Court. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 09000000003100. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
Scottsville. (No action required; moved to consent agenda.)
12. ZMA-2013-00006. Estes Park- Proffer Amendment. PROPOSAL: Amend proffer #4 of
approved ZMA201200008 to remove the requirement that the construction entrance enter from Proffit Road. Construction
entrance will be located off of Worth Crossing. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/
DENSITY: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: In the southeast quadrant of the
intersection of Proffit Road (Rt 649) and Worth Crossing, approximately 800 feet south of Proffit Road in the Community of
Hollymead. TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03200000003300, TMP 03200000003400, 046B4000000500 and TMP
046B40000005A0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. (No action required; moved to consent
agenda.)
13. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
14. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Adjourn to August 21, 2013, 9:00 a.m., Morven Farms.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: March 11, March 13(N), April 10A and June 12, 2013.
8.2 Resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds by the Industrial Development Authority of the Town of
Louisa, in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 for the benefit of the Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.
8.3 Resolution authorizing the issuance of revenue bonds by the Economic Development Authority of Fluvanna County
in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 for the benefit of the Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.
8.4 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriation.
8.5 Road name change of Anchorage Farm to Farm Vista Road.
8.6 ZMA-2012-00004. Avon Park II (Signs #89&91) (At request of applicant, defer to September
11, 2013).
8.7 ZMA-2013-00006. Estes Park- Proffer Amendment (At request of applicant, defer to
September 11, 2013).
8.8 Resolution to accept road(s) in Langdon Woods Subdivision into the Secondary System of Highways.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0814/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/5/2020 10:59:35 AM]
Tentative
8.9 Resolution for the abandonment and addition of roads as a result of the John W. Warner Parkway construction.
CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2013Files/0814/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/5/2020 10:59:35 AM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Introduction of Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
process discussion
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, Benish, Echols
PRESENTER (S): Elaine Echols
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Comprehensive Plan Amendment as recommended by the Planning Commission (Attachment 1) is presented to the
Board with a summary of changes from the current Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 2).
On July 26, 2011, the Planning Commission began the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process with a general review of
the County’s Vision, Goals, and Objectives. Since that time, the Commission has conducted approximately 40 meetings
with opportunity for public input at each meeting. On July 30, 2013, the Commission recommended approval of CPA-
2013-00001, the attached draft Comprehensive Plan with the summary of changes. The Commission has not finished its
review of the Master Plan for the Southern and Western Neighborhoods, the Implementation Chapter, and the Summary,
but recommended that the draft plan be forwarded to the Board with the understanding that the Commission anticipates
completing its review of these chapters in August and forwarding them to the Board in September. At that time, the
Commission’s work of the CPA will be done.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
At the Board work session on August 14, 2013, staff will provide a presentation on the draft plan (Attachment 1) and a
summary of changes that have been recommended (Attachment 2). Staff will also offer two possible approaches to
reviewing the draft plan for the Board’s consideration. The draft plan is being edited for typographical and
grammatical errors and consistency of voice.
Staff noted a process for review of the plan was not established in prior Board discussions about the Comprehensive
Plan update, though preferences have been expressed by individual Board members. The following outlines two
general approaches for review of the plan that the Board may wish to use to frame its discussion around preferences
for consideration of the Plan:
1. Public Hearing followed by a review of raised concerns.
Staff would consider this a good approach if the Board believes the draft plan adequately addresses its policy
concerns. Typically, Comprehensive Plan Amendments have required more Board attention than suggested
by this process, but there have been times when the Board believed the recommended plan was ready for
consideration. For example, the Crozet Master Plan was recommended for approval by the Planning
Commission on July 27, 2010 and adopted by the Board on October 13, 2010, a period of slightly more than
two months. If this approach is desired by the Board, staff would provide a September work session to review
the plan, followed by a public hearing in October or November, with a Board action to occur as early as
November or December. This is the only process staff identified that could result in completion in 2013.
2. Detailed review of chapters and/or policy issues raised by Board members, followed by a public
hearing.
This approach would provide the Board the opportunity to delve into the plan details and identify possible
changes prior to holding a public hearing. This approach is more typical of Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and can require extensive time before the Board. For example, the Places 29 Master Plan was recommended
AGENDA TITLE: CPA-2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Update/Amendment
August 14, 2013
Page 2
for approval by the Planning Commission on October 27, 2009, first considered by the Board on January 13,
2010, and adopted by the Board on February 2, 2011, a period of slightly more than fifteen months.
Recognizing the draft plan includes 13 chapters and covers a wide range of potential issues, staff believes this
type of detailed review would require at least six work sessions prior to a public hearing and the entire process
could take approximately one year. If this approach is preferred, staff requests the Board indicate if a chapter
by chapter review is preferred or provide a list of policy issues where detailed considerations are desired.
Staff will then develop this into a proposed review schedule for the Board to consider in September.
BUDGET IMPACT:
As noted above, the Planning Commission anticipates a recommendation on the Implementation Chapter in August.
This will include recommendations for future capital improvements and operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
No action on the CPA is being requested at this time. The purpose of the work session is to present the draft to the
Board and solicit input on a process to be used for review and consideration.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment I: Comprehensive Plan Draft dated July 23, 2013 Comprehensive Plan Draft dated July 23, 2013
Attachment 2: Summary of Comprehensive Plan changes
Return to agenda
CPA 2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes
The Planning Commission reviewed the Comprehensive plan Draft dated July 23, 2013 and has recommended
the following changes to that draft with their recommendation for approval:
General Information
1. All maps should be large enough to be readable – includes content and legends
2. There is recognition that copy editing is needed and will occur.
3. Information in the Errors and Omissions memo should be included to the list of changes that are needed to
the Plan.
4. At the beginning of all Chapters, add back in the blue boxes that contain the agreed to Livability goals.
Table of Contents
1. The Table of Contents needs to clearly reflect that there will be three separate documents: the Summary
(currently not complete), the Plan, and the Reference materials. This info rmation should match up with the
information on page 1.13.
Summary
1. Start with an introduction.
2. Include information on implementation as well.
Chapter 1: Introduction and Context
1. If net worth information can be obtained easily add it to the graphs. Add a qualifier to the statement about
income on page 1.10 that net worth may be significantly higher in some households and may not be
reflected in information about income.
Chapter 2: Vision and Values
1. Add “rivers” to the list of resources that includes mountains, valleys, and streams (first bullet) on page 2.2.
2. Add information on the source of the information to back up the “values” on page 2.2.
3. Add a statement to include “property rights” in the list of “values” on page 2.2.
Chapter 3: Growth Management
No recommended changes except to make the map on page 3-4 more readable.
Chapter 4: Natural Resources
1. Add information on community surveys which have indicated a high level of support for environmental and
natural resources on page 4.3.
2. Add the word, “quantity” to Objective 1 on page 4.4 so that it reads, “Protect the quality and quantity of
surface water and groundwater resources in the County.
3. Add a statement or phrase about the relationship of the County’s water to the Chesapeake Bay in bullet 1
on page 4.4 to set up the discussion on TMDLs on pages 4.6 and 4.7. (Elaine’s suggestion, “The fact that
many of Albemarle County’s streams and rivers flow to the Chesapeake Bay puts a high level of
responsibility on the County to keep those streams and rivers free from pollutants.”)
4. Under Strategy 1b, on misnumbered page 5.1.9, which talks about the Water Protection Ordinance (WPO),
add the date the original ordinance was adopted by the County.
5. Under Strategy 1e which talks about groundwater on page 4.11, add a bullet that says, “Study ways to
assess the potential impacts of fracking on groundwater.”
6. Verify that the statement on page 4.12, “Air pollution in Albemarle County primarily comes from local
vehicle emissions” is accurate by checking with the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Staff at the
Planning District Commission (PDC).
7. On page 4.14, Objective 4, delete, “in both the Rural Area and the Development Areas” so that the
objective reads, “Protect biological diversity and ecological integrity.”
8. On page 4.15 in the biodiversity section, add a statement that indicates the focus of biodiversity efforts is in
the Rural Area. Biodiversity efforts are different in the Development Areas.
CPA 2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes
Chapter 5: Historic, Cultural, and Scenic Resources
1. Add the definition of a historic resource to the introductory section on page 5.3.
2. In Strategy 1b on page 5.4, add the word, “prehistoric” to the list of historic resources preserve.
3. For recommendations related to Monticello, retain the second 4b on page 5.7 and add the sentence (from
the following page), “The Foundation has requested notification of new projects under review, so the
Foundation will be able to contact the owners and developers directly to clarify the extent of visibility and to
discuss the Foundation’s guidelines for reducing visual impacts, as necessary.” Eliminate Strategy 4c on
page 5.8.
4. Regarding the County’s Scenic Streams regulations on page 5.14, clarify that the conflict between the
Scenic Streams requirements and the Water Protection Ordinance requirements should be rectified.
Chapter 6: Economic Development
1. On page 6.5, under Strategy 1c, move the image that looks like a logo to the bottom of the page.
2. Within Strategy 5c on page 6.9, add the words, “traffic impacts” in the list of items to be considered when
evaluating the fiscal impacts of new business and industrial development.
Chapter 7: Rural Area
1. On page 7.6, within the second paragraph on the page, above Objective 1, add text which speaks to the
need to evaluate the impacts of recent zoning amendments before proposing or approving new zoning
amendments in the Rural Area.
1. Provide a 20-year span in Figure 2: Building Permits for Single-Family detached Residential Units on page
7.7 to provide a larger picture of residential construction in the Rural Area.
2. On page 7.11, in Strategy 1f about conservation easements, the strategy should say, “Continue to promote
conservation easements to provide a financially attractive way for landowners to protect family farms in
Albemarle County and their unique open space resources, an opportunity for landowners to voluntarily sell
a conservation easement to a public agency to be held in trust for perpetuity, and to preserve important
features of the Rural Area for all.”
3. Add “amount of grape production” as an indicator of progress of agricultural activities in the County. (to be
added to the Indicators of Progress section.)
4. For strategy 7e on page 7.26, change the statement from, “Give preference to the Shadwell Interchange for
a greater intensity and concentration of operations which can support agriculture and forestry” to “Study the
Shadwell interchange to determine the potential level and concentration of operations which are
appropriate for agriculture and forestry at that intersection.”
Chapter 8: Development Areas
2. For the village description add term “multimodal” to the sentence that discusses how villages are
connected to the City and urban neighborhoods on page 8.4.
3. Add to the section on creating new villages that more than one route should be accessible to and from a
new village on page 8.4
4. Also on page 8.4., add this sentence, “In particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should
be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already
living and owning property in the area. Any development near the boundaries of a village should be
sensitive to the existing character of the surrounding Rural Area.”
Chapter 9: Housing
No recommended changes.
Chapter 10: Transportation
1. Add “increasingly” after “…transportation network will…” in the goal on page 10.1 so that it reads,
“Albemarle’s transportation network will be increasingly multimodal, environmentally sound, well
maintained, safe, and reliable.”
CPA 2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes
2. Add statements about the community’s responsibility to pay for and maintain aging road infrastructure to
address existing needs and accommodate existing zoning. This could be added to Strategy 1b or be an
additional strategy.
3. Be aware that CHART’s name is changing to Citizen’s Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)
pending approval by the MPO Policy Board later this year, if timing works out so that that occurs before
the Board considers adopting the Plan, change the name in the Plan.
4. Add a strategy to the draft to reinstate the Transportation Planner position to help with County road
planning, traffic modeling, coordination with the MPO, and with traffic analyses for development proposals.
5. Add wording to state that increased road and interchange capacity will be considered after fully examining
all other multimodal options as well. Additional wording may work in Objective 2 or Objective 6.
6. Amend strategy 11d on page 10.28 to begin with “Participate in the study of a new east-west passenger
train route through the Albemarle-Charlottesville region,” rather than “Initiate a new east-west passenger
train route...”
7. Be sure that the draft reflects that bicycles are classified as vehicles.
Chapter 11: Parks and Recreation, Greenways, Blueways, and Green Systems
5. Add wording to text under strategy 7a on page 11.16 so that the first sentence reads: “Through the
Livability project, the City and County have decided this is a top priority and that a plan should be
developed and implemented that support the river corridor as a destination. . .”
6. A statement needs to be added about the importance of opportunities for the public to participate in
decisions related to park needs.
7. Make sure there is a reference to the trails that are recommended in the Greenway Plan, such as the
Northtown Trail.
Chapter 12: Community Facilities
3. On page 12.3 add a paragraph about strengthening the relationship or link between fiscal planning and the
reduction in federal and state funding. The text should advise the public that local funding will be needed
for community services and facilities. Also, provide text that indicates the need for a link between
community facilities planning and the CIP process.
4. On page 12.12, the reference to public schools should clarify that these are K-12 County public schools.
5. On page 12.27, reference where in the appendix more information on water and sewer capacity can be
found on the Village of Rivanna and the other Development Areas.
Chapter 13: Implementation
1. On page 13.5 add wording under the heading “Work Program for the County” in the third sentence so
that it reads: “The Work Program is developed by staff, reviewed by the Planning Commission, and
endorsed by the Board of Supervisors…”
2. On page 13.5 Add wording on how the Planning Commission’s annual report will be used to give a
status check on the indicators of progress.
3. Look at the indicators of mobility from the TJPDC to add to the indicators of progress.
4. On pages A.5.4 and A.5.5 provide less specificity in area of each room. Identify the minimum square
footage needed for District Stations as 7,000 sq. feet and 13,000 sq. feet for Training Academy. Identify
the activities the building will need to accommodate.
Appendices A1 through A7 and A9, A11, A12, and A13
No changes were recommended.
Cash Proffer Policy
There were no proposed changes. [It was noted the Board was going to reexamine the whole policy.]
Affordable Housing Policy
There were no proposed changes.
Neighborhood Model Guidance
CPA 2013-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Attachment 2 – Summary of Changes
There were no proposed changes with the exception of typos.
Community Facilities and Service Expectations
There were no proposed changes.
Land Use Design Guidelines
- Be sure to provide 11 x 17s instead of 8 ½ x 11 size pages.
Crozet Master Plan
- There were no proposed changes.
Appendix A8: Southern and Western Neighborhoods
1. No changes were recommended at this time to the Master Plan other than to clearly state the expectations
for the Parham parcel that were provided at the May 28, 2013 Commission meeting and those identified by
staff in relation to Area B. The Parham site is intended t o allow for a residential component, but this same
allowance is not intended for other Office/R&D/Flex/Light Industrial designated properties in the area.
The Commission said it was not opposed to considering a request received last week from three proper ty
owners in the Southern Neighborhood for properties adjacent to Pebble Drive (TMPs 90 -35F, 91-16B, and
91-16A) to be designated as urban density residential through a future comprehensive plan amendment.
The Commission did not feel it was too late in this process to bring up substantive requests because the
larger community had not had an opportunity to see and discuss the implications, nor had the Commission.
Staff noted that the economic development staff were in support of leaving the designations as shown on
the recommended plan because the proposed designation for Office/R&D/Flex/LI increases localized job
opportunities, the location connects closely to I-64, I-95, I-81, and local target industries looking to expand
could benefit from expanded space options and better location.
Appendix A10: Places 29
1. No changes were recommended to the area north of Rivanna Station which were requested by the
property owner and reviewed by the Places 29 Advisory Council on June 19, 2013. As with the properties
in the Southern and Western Neighborhoods, the Commission believed more study was needed than the
time allowed. Potential road layout in relation to environmental features, such as two creeks on the
property could be problematic. The Commission did not want to endorse creek and floodplain crossings for
future road connections without more study. They did not want to make a decision without input from other
property owners in the general area. In addition, no other expansions of the Development Areas were
being recommended by the Commission with this update, so it would be unfair to the other applicants to
recommend an expansion for just this case.
The Commission said it was not opposed to considering a request after the Comprehensive Plan is
adopted. The request could be considered prior to or in conjunction with the Places 29 Master Plan
update.
Community Facilities Standards
There were no proposed changes.
Pantops Master Plan –
There were no proposed changes other than the removal of two roads on the Land Use and Transportation
Plans.
Village of Rivanna Land Use Plan
There were no proposed changes except to augment the Master Plan with a Land Use Plan for the Village
using standard colors.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and
Preston
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Status of Project-based Voucher Approval
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Walker, and White
PRESENTER (S): Ron White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On July 3, 2013, staff provided the Board with an update on the status of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD’s) review and approval for the issuance of project-based vouchers (PBVs) for The Crossings. The
County committed nine PBVs to The Crossings in March 2010. Although staff believed all regulatory requirements had
been satisfied based on previous guidance received from HUD, the County was informed in March 2012 of a number of
deficiencies in the process used to commit the vouchers. The specific deficiencies and actions taken by staff are outlined
in the July 3, 2013 Executive Summary. A timeline of events was also included as an attachment. In April 2013, the
County submitted a revised request for certain regulatory waivers to HUD after receiving comments from HUD in March
2012 on the initial submittal in September 2012.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community.
DISCUSSION:
There has been significant correspondence with HUD since July 3, 2013. Although HUD has not committed to a
timeframe for the approval to issue PBVs, the County received a letter on July 19, 2013 dated July 12, 2013, indicating
that HUD had completed its review of requested waivers, prepared a recommendation, and forwarded the waiver
request to Headquarters (Washington). The letter also stated that no regulatory waivers would be approved until all
issues with statutory requirements were resolved. The two outstanding statutory requirements are the Environmental
Review (ER) and Subsidy Layering Review (SLR). A revised ER, prepared by the City of Charlottesville, was sent to
HUD on May 1, 2013. The City received a request from HUD on July 8, 2013 for additional information, specifically a
timeline for the ER. This information was sent to HUD by the City on July 24, 2013.
The County sent materials to HUD for the SLR on July 10 and on July 16, 2013. HUD requested additional
information, some of which was needed from the City and the owners. On July 17, 2013, the County responded to the
request providing the information available at that time. On July 24, 2013, the requested information prepared by the
owner was sent.
The County was surprised to receive yet another letter from HUD dated July 19, 2013, identifying 54 items which HUD
indicated were missing or not adequately addressed in the Administrative Plan. The County initially revised and
approved its Plan in June 2012 and submitted it to HUD for comment. In July 2012, HUD provided comments which
were addressed in a second revision, approved by the Board, and submitted to HUD in September 2012. An
additional request by HUD for revisions (10 months after the County had addressed all issues identified by HUD in July
2012) came within ten days after staff was contacted by Representative Robert Hurt’s office seeking information on
The Crossings and the lack of resolution from HUD. It must be noted that most of the items identified in HUD’s July
19, 2013, letter are requirements for which the County has no discretion. HUD’s guidance on preparing Administrative
Plans states that including items for which there is no discretion is not advised. Staff responded to this latest request
in a July 24, 2013 letter challenging those items which are non-discretionary, identifying some items not related to the
Administrative Plan, and requesting that HUD consider a revised Plan with some additions and clarifications on those
requirements for which the County has choices. Staff also contacted Rep. Hurt’s office to advise them of this new
request.
AGENDA TITLE: Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston
August 14, 2013
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Board committed to provide local general funds to support rents for nine units in The Crossings for up to
twelve months. This commitment ends August 31, 2013. The FY13 appropriation was $53,640 for ten months
and $10,728 is appropriated in FY14. To date, $51,970 has been expended to cover rents through August 31,
2013. The balance from both appropriations would provide an additional 3 months of rents at the current level.
As of July 1, 2013, only six of the original nine tenants remain.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve an extension of the current agreement with Virginia Supportive Housing, the
owners of The Crossings, for up to an additional three (3) months using funds appropriated for FY14 and the balance
of funds from FY13. If the Board approves this extension, FY13 funds will be included in a request for reapproriation
in September.
Return to agenda
PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS, this is the 93rd Anniversary of the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution giving women the right to vote in 1920; and
WHEREAS, in 1848, 164 years ago in Seneca Falls, the need was recognized and
proclaimed, but after great effort there is still no reliable protection in the U.S. Constitution for
women against sex discrimination in general; and
WHEREAS, in many other ways the tasks of providing equal opportunities to women and
men, and the tasks of removing burdens which fall unjustly on women as compared with men
remain uncompleted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby proclaim
August 26, 2013,
as
WOMEN'S EQUALITY DAY
in remembrance of all those women and men who have worked to develop a more equitable
community, which acknowledges both the real similarities and the important differences between
women and men, with liberty and justice for all; and
Signed and sealed this 14th day of August 2013.
Return to agenda
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the Town of Louisa, Virginia (the
“Authority”), has been requested by Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. (the
“Company”), a non-profit, Virginia nonstock corporation, to approve the issuance of a revenue
bond in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 (the “Bonds”) to assist the Company in (A)
refinancing the Authority’s $7,601,200 Community Services Board Facilities Revenue Bond
(Region Ten Project) Series 2006 (the “Series 2006 Bond”); and (B) paying all or a portion of
the costs of issuance of the Bonds. The Series 2006 Bond was issued by the Authority on
December 21, 2006, with the proceeds thereof being applied by the Company to: (1) refinance
the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia’s $5,000,000 Variable Rate
Community Services Facilities Revenue Bonds (Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc.),
Series 1999, issued on August 31, 1999 to finance and refinance (a) several Company facilities
located in the City of Charlottesville, Virginia at 800 Preston Avenue, 1907 Cedar Hill Road,
720 Highland Avenue, 719 Shamrock Road, 100 Burnett Street, 2000 Michie Drive, and 401 4th
Street NW; and (b) Company Facilities located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia at 4312
Dickerson Road; (2) finance the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the
property known as Mountainwood, to house the Company’s administrative offices and
community services, located on an approximately 9 acre tract of land on Old Lynchburg Road, in
the County of Albemarle, Virginia; and (3) finance the acquisition, construction, renovation and
equipping of the Nelson County Counseling Center located at Tanbark Plaza, Lovingston
(Nelson County), Virginia (the projects described in clauses (1)-(3) above are collectively
referred to herein as, the “Project”);
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance
bonds;
WHEREAS, a portion of the Project is to be located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(the “County”) and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (“Board”)
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Code, the public hearing held by
Authority was within 100 miles of the County;
WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as (the
“Virginia Code”), the Authority is issuing the portion of the Bonds relating to the portion of the
Project located in the County on behalf of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds and concur with the Authority’s inducement resolution regarding the issuance of the
Bonds (the “Resolution”); and
12517846v1
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's Resolution, a certificate of the public hearing, a
reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing, and a Fiscal
Impact Statement have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the
Company, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended (“Virginia Code”) to permit the Authority to assist in the financing
of the Project.
2. The Board concurs with the Resolution adopted by the Authority and approves the
issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company as and to the extent
required by Section 15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code.
3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company.
4. As required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that the
County will have no obligation to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia this ____ day
of August, 2013.
_____________________________________
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
RESOLUTION
OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Fluvanna County, Virginia (the
“Authority”), has been requested by Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. (the
“Company”), a non-profit, Virginia nonstock corporation, to approve the issuance of a revenue
bond in an amount not to exceed $7,000,000 (the “Bonds”) to assist the Company in (1)
refinancing that certain $4,711,400 Region Ten Community Services Board, Inc. Taxable Note
(Region Ten Project), Series 2006, which was issued by the Industrial Development Authority of
the Town of Louisa, Virginia (“Louisa IDA”) (the “Series 2006 Note”), (2) financing the costs of
construction and equipping of up to 12,000 square feet of additional space at, and further
renovation and equipping of other portions of, the Company’s existing facility located at 800
Preston Avenue, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903, (3) financing all or a portion of the costs of
issuance of the Bonds in permissible amounts, and (4) paying capitalized interest on the Bonds
for a period not to exceed one year after the date of issuance of the Bonds. The Series 2006 Note
was issued by the Louisa IDA on December 21, 2006 to finance and refinance a portion of the
costs of acquisition, construction and equipping of the Company’s headquarters facility located
at 500, 502, and 504 Old Lynchburg Road, Charlottesville (Albemarle County), Virginia 22901;
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), provides that the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which any
facility financed with the proceeds of private activity bonds is located must approve the issuance
bonds;
WHEREAS, a portion of the Project is to be located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia
(the “County”) and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (“Board”)
constitutes the highest elected governmental unit of the County;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 147(f) of the Code, the public hearing held by
Authority was within 100 miles of the County;
WHEREAS, for purposes of Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as (the
“Virginia Code”), the Authority is issuing the portion of the Bonds relating to the portion of the
Project located in the County on behalf of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has recommended that the Board approve the issuance of the
Bonds and concur with the Authority’s inducement resolution regarding the issuance of the
Bonds (the “Resolution”); and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's Resolution, a certificate of the public hearing, a
reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing, and a Fiscal
Impact Statement have been filed with the Board.
12518180v2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the
Company, as required by Section 147(f) of the Code and Section 15.2-4906 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended (“Virginia Code”) to permit the Authority to assist in the financing
of the Project.
2. The Board concurs with the resolution to be adopted by the Authority and approves the
issuance of the Bonds by the Authority for the benefit of the Company as required by Section
15.2-4905 of the Virginia Code.
3. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds does not constitute an endorsement to a
prospective purchaser of the Bond of the creditworthiness of the Project or the Company.
4. As required by Section 15.2-4909 of the Virginia Code, the Bonds shall provide that the
County will have no obligation to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident
thereto.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia ____ day of August,
2013.
_____________________________________
Clerk, Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle, Virginia
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation
#2014025 for a local government project.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L.
PRESENTER (S):
N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2014
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: YES
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all
County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total increase to the FY 14 budget due to the appropriation itemized below is $15,219.88. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently
adopted budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public
service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2014025) totaling $15,219.88 for an Emergency Communications Center grant.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriation #2014025 to provide funds for a local government project and program as
described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2014025 $15,219.88
Source: Federal Revenue $ 15,219.88
This request is to appropriate $15,219.88 to increase the amount budgeted in federal revenue and related
expenditures for the Emergency Communications Center’s (ECC) Local Emergency Management Performance Grant
(LEMPG) grant. The ECC’s appropriated FY 14 budget included $10.232.00 for this grant and the ECC has been
notified by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) that the annual amount the ECC receives will
be increased by an additional $15,219.88. This funding will be used towards the ECC’s Public Outreach Initiative and
additional training for the Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Anchorage Farm Road Name Change
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of road name change of Anchorage Farm to
Farm Vista Road
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Davis, Walker, Graham, Cilimberg, Weaver,
Pettitt, and Slack
PRESENTER (S): N/A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2013
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name
change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation of the following:
That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road have signed a petition in
favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with the road name
guidelines set forth in the Manual.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
DISCUSSION:
The landowners of the property served by a road named Anchorage Farm submitted a request to change the road
name of Anchorage Farm to Farm Vista Road and have signed a letter agreeing to the new road name (Attachment
B). Staff finds the request to be consistent with Part 1, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and
Property Numbering Manual.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for the costs associated with new
signage.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Anchorage Farm to Farm Vista Road and
authorize staff to implement the change.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Location Map
B – Property Owner Letter
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RED HILL RDMONACAN TRAIL RD
DUDLEY MOUNTAIN RDTOWNLEY LNTAYLORS GAP RDANCHORAGE FARMPENNY LNCHOPIN DRGLECO MILLS LNPOPLAR DRMONACAN TRAIL RD5Roads
Anchorage FarmRoad Name Change
0 1 20.5 Miles
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Community DevelopmentMap created July 2013By Andy Slack GIS Specialist II
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.
Pro posed Road N ame Farm Vista Road
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in regular meeting on the
14th August 2013, adopted the following resolution:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the street(s) in Langdon Woods Subdivision, as described on the attached
Additions Form AM-4.3 dated August 14, 2013, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown
on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transpo rtation has
advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street
Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors
requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the street(s) in Langdon Woods
Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form AM-4.3 dated August 14, 2013, to the
secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1 -229, Code of Virginia, and the
Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right -of-
way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described
on the recorded plats; and
FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident
Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
The road(s) described on Additions Form AM-4.3 is:
1) Langdon Drive (State Route 1758) from (Route 1759) Langdon Woods Drive
south to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3771, pages 198-206, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.21 miles.
2) Langdon Woods Drive (State Route 1759) from (Route 1758) Langdon Drive
south to the end of the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded in the office the Clerk
of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3771, pages 198 -206, with a 50-
foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.38 miles.
3) Langdon Drive (State Route 1758) from (Route 663) Simmons Gap Road south to
(Route 1759) Langdon Woods Drive, as shown on plat recorded in the office the
Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 3771, pages 198-206, with
a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.11 miles.
Total Mileage – 0.70
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin ia, in a regular meeting on the
14th day of August , 2013, adopted the following:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with a sketch dated October 28, 2011, depicting the
additions, discontinuances and abandonments required in the secondary system of state highways;
and
WHEREAS, the portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified to be discontinued is deemed to
no longer serve public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense ; and
WHEREAS, the new road serves the same citizens as those portions of old road identified to
be abandoned and those segments no longer serve a public ne ed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors abandons as part of
the secondary system of state highways those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as from
0.44 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.58 miles south of Ro ute 650 (Seg L), for a distance
of 0.14 miles; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) from 0.17 miles southeast to Route 650 (Seg
E) to 0.44 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg G), for a distance of 0.27 miles; and those portions of
Route 631 (Rio Road), identified as from 0.44 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg G) to 0.05 miles
east (Seg H), for a distance of 0.05 miles, pursuant to Section 33.1-155, of the Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby requests the Virginia
Department of Transportation to add to the secondary system of state highways those portions of
Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from 0.17 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg E) to 0.32 miles
southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for a distance of 0.15 miles, with a right-of-way width of 80.5 feet;
those portions of Route 885 (Dunlora Drive) identified as from 0.3 2 miles southeast of Route 650
(Seg D) to 0.36 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg J) for a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-
way width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identified as from 0.39 miles southeast of Route
650 (Seg C) to 0.32 miles southeast of Route 650 (Seg D) for a distance of 0.07 miles, with a r ight-
of-way width of 80.5 feet; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road) identifie d as from 0.05 miles
southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.08 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg L) for a distance of
0.03 miles, with a variable right-of-way width of 67 feet; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora
Drive) identified as from 0.05 miles southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) to 0.11 miles east of Seg (J)
for a distance of 0.11 miles, with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 1177 (Dunlora Drive)
identified as from 0.07 miles west of Route 1239 (Seg J) to 0.03 miles west of Route 1239 (Seg H)
for a distance of 0.04 miles, with no right-of-way width; those portions of Route 631 (Rio Road)
identified as from Route 2500, a distance of 1.01 miles north of Route 3412 (Seg C) to 0.05 miles
southeast of Route 2500 (Seg K) for a distance of 0.05 mile s, with a variable right-of-way width of 67
feet; those portions of Route 2500 (John W. Warner Parkway) from A -Melbourne Road (City street)
to 0.70 miles north of Melbourne Route (B-Bridge Structure 6402), a distance of 0.70 miles, with a
variable right-of-way width of 41 feet; and those portions of Route 2500 (John W. Warner Parkway)
identified as from 0.70 miles north of the intersection with Route 3412 (Node B) to 0.31 miles north
to intersection with Route 631 (Rio Road)(Node C), for a distance of 0.31 miles, with no right-of-way
width, pursuant to Section 33.1-229, of the Code of Virginia; and
RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for
the Virginia Department of Transportation.
* * * * *
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Special use permit request for a church in the Rural
Areas zoning district.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Benish, Clark, Davis, Kamptner
LEGAL REVIEW:
AGENDA DATE:
August 14, 2013
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This special use permit was heard by the Planning Commission on May 21, 2013. The Commission recommended
approval of this special use permit with the conditions shown in the action letter (Attachment 1).
DISCUSSION:
As part of their action, the Planning Commission directed staff to work with the applicants and with the neighbors at 3947
Rock Branch Road (parcel 08700-00-00-03300) to develop a condition of approval requiring a fence or wall that would
improve screening between the two properties. The dwelling at 3947 Rock Branch Road is approximately 60 feet from the
building where the proposed church would be located, and the occupants of the dwelling have reported noise impacts
from the church property.
Working with the Design Planner, staff has developed a condition that would require a fence between the two properties
to improve screening. The proposed condition would require that the applicants install a six-foot-tall solid board fence near
the property line between the church and the adjacent lot to address the neighbors’ concerns with impacts of the church
use. Staff proposes that the fence be wooden and remain unpainted to minimize impacts on the Entrance Corridor.
The Zoning Administrator has recommended that the additional condition specify that the fence not interfere with the sight
distance from the church entrance.
Condition 1 has been revised to match the new standard condition format established by the Zoning Administrator and the
County Attorney’s office.
Condition 11 has been added below in accord with the Planning Commission’s direction, as shown in the action letter. On
the advice of the Zoning Administrator, staff has changed the term “music” to “sound.”
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve SP2012-00021 with the following revised conditions:
1. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled “Faith and Grace
Christian Fellowship,”prepared by Nathaniel Rexrode, dated January 13, 2013 (hereafter “Conceptual
Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general
accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements
in the approximate location, number and extent as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• location and size of the church building
• the location of the parking areas and the entrances from the public road
• location and extent of plantings
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 structure labeled on the conceptual plan as “1 Story w/Basement” shall not be used for worship services.
3. The use shall not commence until all parking spaces have been delineated by the use of parking stops.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties.
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special use permit;
6. The use shall not commence without written approval from the Virginia Department of Health of the water
supply and septic system.
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the building official and the fire official.
8. The use shall not commence until a plat combining tax map parcels 087B0-00-00-001A0 and 087B0-00-00-
00200 has been recorded.
9. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall expire and be
of no effect.
10. The use shall not commence until a fence is installed along the full length of the property boundary
with parcel 08700-00-00-03300 (provided that the fence shall not be placed to interfere with sight
distance from the church entrance). The fence shall be a solid board fence, shall be six feet tall, shall
be between the church building and the property boundary, and shall remain unpainted. The fence
shall be installed in a location that does not require the removal of any trees of more than 3 inches
diameter at breast height (DBH) between the church building and parcel 08700-00-00-03300.
11. Outdoor amplified music sound is prohibited and for any indoor amplified music sound the windows
shall be closed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Planning Commission Action Letter
B- Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments
C- Planning Commission minutes
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 4, 2013
Nathaniel & Dana Rexrode
5771 Heards Mountain Road
Covesville, VA. 22931
RE: SP201200021 Faith and Grace Fellowship
TAX MAP PARCEL: 087B00000001A0, 087B0000000200
Dear Mr. or Ms. Rexrode:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 21, 2013, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is based on the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled “Faith
and Grace Christian Fellowship,” (including the s heets titled “Parking & Site Plan” and “Tree
Cover/Landscape Plan,” prepared by Nathaniel Rexrode, and dated January 13, 2013.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
• location and size of the church building
• the location of the parking areas and the entrances from the public road
• location and extent of plantings
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 structure labeled on the conceptual plan as “1 Story w/Basement” shall not be used for
worship services.
3. The use shall not commence until all parking spaces have been delineated by the use of
parking stops.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties.
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit;
6. The use shall not commence without written approval from the Virginia Department of Health
of the water supply and septic system.
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the building official and the fire official.
8. The use shall not commence until a plat combining tax map parcels 087B0-00-00-001A0
and 087B0-00-00-00200 has been recorded.
9. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit
shall expire and be of no effect.
10. [The applicant shall work with staff in coordination with the neighbor to provide
landscaping or privacy fencing. Staff to talk with the applicant about how they would
augment the planting or fence. With the scale of information they need to make sure
what is doable, but staff understands the intent of landsca ping and/or fencing.]
11. [Outdoor amplified music is prohibited and for any indoor amplified music the
windows shall be closed.]
(Note: Staff to finalize the language between now and the Board hearing for
conditions 10 and 11.)
Return to exec summary
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 10, 2013.
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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc Faith & Grace Christian
P.O. Box 232
Covesville, VA. 22931
Jones, Calvin S or Doris S
1125 James River Road
Scottsville, VA. 24590
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
SP2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship
Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing: May
21, 2013
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
TBA
Owner/s: Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship
Applicant: Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship
Acreage: 1.38 acres Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35, Church
building and adjunct cemetery
TMP: 087B0-00-00-001A0, 087B0-00-
00-00200
Location: 3917 and 3935 Rock Branch Rd.
Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA
Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and
fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre
in development lots)
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Conditions or Proffers: Yes
RA (Rural Areas) Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
Proposal: Request for a special use permit to
convert an existing residence to a church on
1.38 acres. No dwellings proposed.
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and
scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in
development lots)
Character of Property: Rural residential Use of Surrounding Properties: Small- and
large-lot rural residences
Factors Favorable
1. The Virginia Department of
Transportation has approved the
proposed access to the site.
2. The conceptual plan proposes additional
screening plantings on the side of the
property facing the Entrance Corridor.
Factors Unfavorable
1. The proposed church building is within
65 feet of a neighboring dwelling,
raising concerns about noise and light.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP2012-00021, with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: Scott Clark
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 21st, 2013
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201200021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
PROPERTY OWNER: Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
APPLICANT: Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
PETITION:
PROPOSED: Request for a special use permit to convert an existing residence to a church on
1.38 acres. No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 - Preserve and
protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
PROFFERS: NO
LOCATION: 3917 and 3935 Rock Branch Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 087B0-00-00-001A0, 087B0-00-00-00200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The immediate surroundings of the site are characterized by small- and large-lot rural residential
development.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
HO2004-00207: A previous owner of the property received approval of a request for a Home
Occupation A on May 17, 2004.
REGULATORY CONTEXT:
SP201200021 is subject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key
provision of RLUIPA states:
No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes
a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly
or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that
person, assembly, or institution – (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental
interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest. (italics added)
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1) treat a religious
assembly or institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions; (2) not
discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious
denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious assemblies, or unreasonably limit religious
assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b).
APPLICANT’S PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION
The applicants are proposing to use an existing 1,200-square-foot structure on the property as a
church, with a possible future expansion to a total of 1,740 square feet. This church would be the
only facility for this church organization, and would be used for worship services and other
religious purposes. There is a second structure on the property, a dwelling of approximately
1,135 square feet, that would not be used for worship services, but that might be used for board
meetings, Sunday school classes, etc. The site would have 23 parking spaces, which the
applicants have stated would be sufficient for their most-attended functions (up to 80 persons,
with many arriving as families in single vehicles).
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be reviewed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
Approval of this special use permit would increase levels of activity in an effectively
residential portion of the Rural Areas.
The nearest dwelling, on Tax Map 87 Parcel 33, is approximately 65 feet from the church
building. Two other dwellings across Rock Branch Road are approximately 160 and 265
feet away. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any outdoor
lighting to be shielded from adjacent properties. The applicants have not proposed any
outdoor amplified sound for this use. Other sources of noise might include arriving and
departing vehicles, and voices from outdoor activities such as church picnics.
While the church building is located relatively close to an adjacent dwelling, given the
scale of the proposed use and the fact that most activity would be indoors, staff opinion is
that there will not be a significant negative impact on adjacent properties.
Traffic impacts would increase. However, the applicants have stated that their largest
event has attracted 80 people, most of whom arrived with several persons per vehicle, as
the church’s activities are focused on family groups. The 23 parking spaces shown on the
conceptual plan are intended to accommodate the number of vehicles that the applicants
have observed at events of that size. The applicants expect that most events and services
would be below that size.
Overall, the impacts are expected to be typical for a small church in the type of rural
residential setting where such uses often occur.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
Small churches are found throughout the Rural Areas zoning district. An additional
church would not change the overall character of the district.
The property is also in the Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay zoning district. The Design
Planner has reviewed the conceptual plan. As the proposal would use an existing
building, would involve limited tree-cutting, and would supply additional screening
vegetation along the Entrance Corridor, the Design Planner finds that the character of this
zoning overlay district would not be significantly changed.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
Religious land uses are not specifically addressed in the purpose or intent of the zoning
ordinance. However, they have generally been considered as compatible land uses in
rural and residential areas.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Churches are common in the Rural Areas zoning district, and have generally been
considered in harmony with agricultural land uses and with residential uses.
Will the use be in harmony with additional regulations provided in section 5?
There are no additional regulations in section 5 for churches.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed and approved the
proposed entrances for the site, which are the two westernmost entrances shown on Rock
Branch Road. The dashed entrances shown for the existing dwelling are not proposed to
be used for the church. VDOT has not noted any problems with the capacity of Rock
Branch Road to carry traffic generated by this use.
The Fire/Rescue Department has noted that access to the building for emergency vehicles
and equipment must be provided. While the conceptual plan does not show obstructions
to access, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring Fire/Rescue and
building official approval before the use begins.
The applicants have consulted with the Virginia Department of Health to ensure that the
site’s water supply and septic-processing capacities would be sufficient for the use. Staff
is recommending a condition of approval that would require written confirmation of
VDH’s approval of the well and septic facilities before the use could begin.
SUMMARY AND ACTION
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the proposed access to the
site.
2. The conceptual plan proposes additional screening plantings on the side of the property
facing the Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposed church building is within 65 feet of a neighboring dwelling, raising concerns
about noise and light.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of SP2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship based upon
the analysis provided herein, with the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled
“Faith and Grace Christian Fellowship,” (including the sheets titled “Parking & Site
Plan” and “Tree Cover/Landscape Plan,” prepared by Nathaniel Rexrode, and dated
January 13, 2013.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central
features essential to the design of the development:
location and size of the church building
the location of the parking areas and the entrances from the public road
location and extent of plantings
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 structure labeled on the conceptual plan as “1 Story w/Basement” shall not be used for
worship services.
3. The use shall not commence until all parking spaces have been delineated by the use of
parking stops.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties.
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate
special use permit;
6. The use shall not commence without written approval from the Virginia Department of
Health of the water supply and septic system.
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the building official and the fire official.
8. The use shall not commence until a plat combining tax map parcels 087B0-00-00-001A0 and
087B0-00-00-00200 has been recorded.
9. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit
shall expire and be of no effect.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship with the conditions recommended by staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP SP 2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship. Should a commissioner motion to recommend denial, he or she should state
the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Vicinity Map
Attachment B – Site Map
Attachment C – Conceptual Plan
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 21, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting and public hearing on Tuesday, May
21, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty,
Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Absent was Richard Randolph. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Scott Clark, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Sarah
Baldwin, Senior Planner; Chris Perez, Senior Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
PROPOSED: Request for a special use permit to convert an existing residence to a church on 1.38 acres.
No dwellings proposed.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 3 - Preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: YES
PROFFERS: NO
LOCATION: 3917 and 3935 Rock Branch Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 087B0-00-00-001A0, 087B0-00-00-00200
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
Proposal: Request for a special use permit to convert an existing residence to a church on 1.38 acres.
The applicants are proposing to use an existing 1,200-square-foot structure on the property as a church,
with a possible future expansion to a total of 1,740 square feet. This church would be the only facility for
this church organization, and would be used for worship services and other religious purposes. There is a
second structure on the property, a dwelling of approximately 1,135 square feet, that would not be used
for worship services or the area of assembly for the church, but that might be used for board meetings,
Sunday school classes, and other church related uses. The building shown on the right in the plan is the
building proposed to be the area of assembly. The site would have 23 parking spaces, which the
applicants have stated would be sufficient for their most -attended functions (up to 80 persons, with many
arriving as families in single vehicles).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
Staff reviewed the two sheets of the conceptual plan pointing out the gravel parking area and landscape
plan. The features with X’s are the ones that would be removed. The tree out by the road would be
removed for sight distance. The other trees being removed are to allow the parking and other construction
to occur. The majority of the trees would remain. The plan shows that the existing vegetation along
Route 29 would be added to.
The possible impacts of the proposal:
• Approval of this special use permit would increase levels of activity in a residential portion of the
Rural Areas.
• The nearest dwelling, on Tax Map 87 Parcel 33, is approximately 65 feet from the church building.
Two other dwellings across Rock Branch Road are approximately 160 and 265 feet away.
• Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require any outdoor lighting to be shielded
from adjacent properties.
• The applicants have not proposed any outdoor amplified sound for this use. Other sources of noise
might include arriving and departing vehicles and voices from outdoor activities such as church
picnics.
• While the church building is located relatively close to an adjacent dwelling, given the scale of the
proposed use and the fact that most activity would be indoors, staff opinion is that there will not b e a
significant negative impact on adjacent properties.
• Traffic would increase.
• This church’s largest event has attracted 80 people, most of whom are families and arrived with
several persons per vehicle,
• The 23 parking spaces shown on the conceptual plan are intended to accommodate the number of
vehicles that the applicants have observed at events of that size.
• Overall, the impacts are expected to be typical for a small church in the type of rural residential
setting where such uses often occur.
• Entrance Corridor (EC) overlay zoning district:
The proposal would use an existing building, would involve limited tree -cutting, and would
supply additional screening vegetation along the Entrance Corridor.
The Design Planner finds that the character of this zoning overlay district would not be
significantly changed.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved?
• The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has reviewed and approved the proposed
entrances for the site. VDOT has not noted any problems with the capacity of Rock Branch Road to
carry traffic generated by this use.
• The Fire/Rescue Department has noted that access to the building for emergency vehicles and
equipment must be provided. Staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring Fire/Rescue
and building official approval before the use begins.
• The applicants have consulted with the Virginia Department of Health to ensure that the site’s water
supply and septic-processing capacities would be sufficient for the use.
• Staff is recommending a condition of approval that would require written confirmation of VDH’s
approval of the well and septic facilities before the use could begin.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
1. The Virginia Department of Transportation has approved the proposed access to the site.
2. The conceptual plan proposes additional screening plantings on the side of the property facing the
Entrance Corridor.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. The proposed church building is within 65 feet of a neighboring dwelling, raising concerns about
noise and light.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship based upon the
analysis provided herein, with the conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Loach asked if the staff has spoken to the adjacent landowners, and Mr. Clark replied that he had
spoke to two adjacent landowners, but not all of them.
Mr. Loach noted the unfavorable factor was the distance. He noticed in the condition staff did not look at
any additional plantings along the property line. He asked if that was entertained.
Mr. Clark replied there is vegetation along that property line shown on the conceptual plan. There is
nothing on the conceptual plan saying that would be augmented. However, there is some vegetation
there. The Commission could add some language requiring that the vegetation be beefed up.
Mr. Lafferty said the septic system has four lines and a leech field. He asked do they require that they
have an additional place in case that fails because they are covering it up with a parking lot.
Mr. Smith pointed out the conceptual plan shows the future septic right above the existing septic area.
However, he did not know if it had been tested.
Mr. Clark pointed out the existing septic and reserve area. The parking is to the northeast of that.
Mr. Lafferty asked when they start this project will they expand the septic field to accommodate the
additional expansion of the church.
Mr. Clark replied what he understands from the health department that what is there is sufficient. By
having that condition if that changes or they find that they need more area they can require that before the
use can begin.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out the septic fields look like a standard single residence’s field.
Mr. Smith asked if the future septic field had been tested.
Mr. Clark replied that he could not recall. However, the applicant could probably answer that question.
Mr. Benish said condition 6 will allow the health department to require what is necessary for that
approval.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
address the Commission.
Dana Rexrode, representative for Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship, pointed out her husband Nathaniel
is the Pastor. First, she thanked Mr. Clark and the Planning staff for all of their help through this process.
It is a little bit confusing to those who don’t work in it. She explained the proposal, as follows.
- They are a very small family church. It is about five years old. Our members live largely in the rural
southern part of the County. They originally met in an empty building in Covesville and then moved
to met at Redhill Elementary School. However, County policy states that you can only use a school
as a building for so long. So they intermediately began looking for somewhere to meet. Finding a
suitable home has been difficult. They met with County staff about a couple other properties and
they were shot down for various reasons. It was for health department or VDOT reasons. So they
come to the Commission for this property because they feel like it is the best thing out there in our
area administering the southern part of the County.
- This property was originally built as a commercial auto garage run by the people who own the house
next door to it. They converted a residential use in the 70’s. This means it is suitable to convert back
to church use. It has been hard to find a property that would meet those standards out in the rural
areas. The proximity to 29 on a paved road also makes it unique among the other properties that they
looked at. The members of Faith & Grace all care for the North Garden area. They are all from that
part of the County and they love the rural nature and the character out there. They are not seeking or
asking to change that. That is part of the reason why they are not asking for any significant exterior
changes outside of the parking and other standards that the County is requiring.
- They have spoken with the neighbors and the reaction has been mostly positive. They have had some
concerns, of course, but mostly the neighbors have been very welcoming. They also sent letters not
just to the intermediately adjacent neighbors, but to everyone on the street. They have not heard
anything from them. Then they went door to door to visit the adjacent neighbors as well looking for
public input. They have heard some concerns about traffic and noise in particular. So she would like
to take a second to address those.
- They feel that because of the location of the property they don’t think that traffic is going to be a
significant concern. They understand that any proposal for added traffic is going to be a concern to
neighbors. However, Rock Branch Road is an intermediate left turn once turning onto Taylor’s Gap
Road from Route 29. So the vehicles from the church don’t actually pass by any driveways on
Taylor’s Gap Road and past the side of the property across Rock Branch Road. They are not a large
church and not talking about dozens and dozens of cars at all hours of the day and night through
there. Our church traffic will be on that road mostly when other commercial or work related traffic is
not. There is actually an elementary school that enters on to that intersection from the other side of
Route 29. That intersection can handle all of that traffic. Also, they will not be there at the same time
as the elementary school. They are going to have a lot less traffic than they are.
- VDOT officials came out and looked at everything. They assured us the small volume of cars which
they are talking about is not going to be an issue for those roadways in that area. As far as noise, they
do understand that this is a rural area and have no plans for loud music, party or to be there 24/7.
Most of the events do happen indoors. The children play outside after church, but they are mostly
indoors.
- The properties across the street and next door do have significant buffers of vegetation already. They
would be happy to plant more vegetation to augment if that is something the Planning Commission is
interested in on the side. They can’t plant in the front because VDOT will not let us across the road.
However, they would be happy to plant down the side further. The property backs up directly to
Route 29. So there is already a significant amount of noise from passing traffic. She did not think
that any noise that they make is going to be significantly louder than that. It c ertainly is going to be
less frequent. As they can see from the site plan the only trees they are requesting to be removed are
ones that either the health department, VDOT, or the County have requested to be removed for the
parking that they want. The health department said that there are two trees too close to the septic
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
5
tanks and have asked us to remove those. But, outside of that they are not proposing removing any
trees just for our own purposes. They feel that pictures of the property as it is now would be a good
site plan because they really do intend to keep it much the same.
- In conclusion, they understand the nature of this area, the limitations of this property, and are not
asking for permission to put a 500 person mega church on that spot. They know what it can hold and
are realistic about what the area can support. They love the area because they all live there. They
believe that Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship will be a benefit to the community and a positive
addition to the neighborhood.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Lafferty applauded the applicant for contacting the neighbors to the extent they did. He wished more
applicants would do that because it would save them a lot of trouble.
Mr. Smith asked where the well is.
Ms. Rexrode replied the well is the little box in the bottom right corner. The two properties share a well,
which is part of the reason why zoning wanted the two properties combined.
Mr. Smith said if it is approved one of the things he would suggest is that the condition say there will not
be any outdoor amplified sound.
Ms. Rexrode said that is agreeable to the church.
Mr. Smith asked if she was talking about using the adjacent building for Sunday school.
Ms. Rexrode replied yes, the adjacent building would be used for Sunday school, board meetings and that
kind of thing. It is not as a separate worship area.
Mr. Smith noted it was nitpicky but that is worship also. However, that was okay. He asked Mr. Franco
if the parking is big enough as shown for 10’ X 18’ with only a 20’ drive through.
Mr. Franco agreed it was large enough.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Ann Morris, resident on Taylor’s Gap Road, said she received her letter last Friday. That was the first
letter she has received. She talked with Ms. Rexrode before that. She was concerned and had sent a letter
yesterday about the traffic in our area. They live right on the corner. They are seeing a lot of traffic.
They are seeing double trailer logging trucks, tractor trailers going into a farm right across the road, and
school buses. They have a horse farm at the end of Rock Branch Road. They are now seeing horse trailers
going into the farm. She was a little concerned because Sunday went home from church and turned onto
Rock Branch a car was coming out of Rock Branch on her side of the road. She thinks they will have to
work with that when the church comes in. Also, they have j oggers and people on motorcycles going
through the neighborhood. She was really concerned at the intersection with the service station at which
has two exits onto 29 that there will be a major accident. These are her concerns. She also wanted to note
if they see or experience problems in the future do they come back to the County.
Mr. Morris replied that they always have that option. He thanked Ms. Morris for sending the email to the
Commissioners. It really helps to see comments well ahead of time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
6
Mr. Lafferty pointed out that he had bicycled Taylor Gap quite a few times.
Tracy Shifflett said he had some concerns because he is the neighbor that is 65’ from this dwelling which
is supposed to be a church. Twenty-three years ago he went to North garden and it was the greatest thing
he ever did in his life. He ran into senior citizens and people that lived there and made farms out of
things. He has watched this area grow. He has witnessed several things that have come to hurt us in that
area. They live in a drought area. If they know anything about North Garden this is not the first time they
are hearing about a drought area. He already has one dry well on his land, which is next door to where
the church is proposing to go. His second well, which he dug, is 425’ in the ground. With the increase of
people coming in, even if it is 23 cars, they can be packed. He was not sure if our water system could be
taxed. He was not sure if that was even addressed in the original plans for this area.
Mr. Shifflett said he also has concerns with the noise. On Sunday morning he walks out on his deck and
listens to the birds and other good things. There is traffic on 29, but not as bad as during the week. Now
he hears screaming children next door. As a matter of fact on Sunday he thought he was going to have to
call the police because one was screaming to the point he thought the little girl was being hurt. So he
stands here before the Commission because he was that person. When they talk about barriers being built
between the little pieces of land next door to where this church is going he planted the Leyland Cyprus
that run that barrier up through there. He was very concerned with what is going on next door. Also,
there was a little storage unit put on that land. It was practically put right on the line or perhaps 6’ off the
line. He was not sure what the County standard is now and needs to look that up. He works out of town
a lot.
Mary Payne said she was the other neighbor that lives next door. She has the same concerns that Tracy
Shifflett just voiced. She lives in the same house she does. The traffic is her biggest concern. She hears
them talk about not having a whole lot of traffic and not having a whole lot of noise. She is there most of
the time on Sunday mornings unless on call. She could say that listening to those children screaming is
very disruptive on a Sunday morning when that may be your only day off. This has been a very qui et
area. They have the two dwellings. They have put all of the toys right next to their property. She asked
that they have some respect for the neighbors. She is not opposed to a church, but she is opposed to
disrespect. As far as the parking goes, there are quite a few cars there. She knows at one time she has
counted over 23 cars and not to mention the bus that is being brought in on Sunday mornings. She
objects to getting up on Sunday mornings and wondering if she is going to have to call the police because
you don’t know if a child is being killed next door. She is also concerned with the water issues because it
is a drought area. She questioned what is going to happen to their water and the value of their property.
Sam Clark said he and his wife had lived on Rockbridge Road for over 35 years. When they moved in it
was zoned agricultural and residential. It remained such for the 35 years they have been there. He did not
see any reason why it should change now. The point was made about traffic just coming in on Taylor’s
Gap Road and going intermediately to the church. But, Rock Bridge Road goes all the way down and T’s
into Rock Bridge Lane which connects to 29. There is nothing to say that a whole bunch of this traffic is
not going to come in from 29 south and come right up Rock Branch Road into this parking area. He also
has one question about what was said about tree removal for construction purposes. It was his
understanding that there was going to be no additional construction. So that is a concern. He also
wonders how that old converted garage got to be 1,200 square feet because it was a garage. Those are his
concerns.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission for discussion and action. He invited discussion. He offered a five minute time for
rebuttal to the applicant.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
7
Ms. Rexrode said she would like to address the water issue and the building that is on the property. They
got the appropriate approval from the County. They actually came out and looked at where they were
putting that shed. They put the shed where County staff said to. Because it borders 29 technically this
property they told us has three fronts and one side. Because of the setbacks from the front and the back
they only had a very limited place to put that. That is why the shed is where it is. As far as the w ater the
health department came out and told us that a church of the size being proposed actually uses less water
than a three bedroom residence, which is what this structure was before. This is because they are only
there limited hours. So they are actually going to be less hard on the water in the area than the residence
was.
Mr. Dotson asked if they are operating a church there now.
Ms. Rexrode replied they have a Sunday morning Bible study. Someone lives there. They are not
bringing in a bus. That bus belongs to a family that has seven children. They drive the bus as their own
personal vehicle. They had a YMCA 15-passenger van they drove before. They are not busing in
children. They have a small Bible study there on Sunday morning hosted by the person who lives there.
Mr. Smith asked would they be willing to put a privacy fence up if the neighbor would desire one on the
west side.
Ms. Rexrode replied yes they would be willing to do that or plant additional plantings.
Mr. Smith asked if they could control the children.
Ms. Rexrode replied in her experience they were not as loud as has been described.
Mr. Smith noted that was always a difference of opinion.
Ms. Rexrode said they don’t run around killing each other. The children play some football in the yard
after the Sunday school lesson for 20 or 30 minutes while their parents are talking and cleaning up.
Mr. Smith noted it appears that the largest open is the other side of the existing building all the way to the
east.
Ms. Rexrode replied yes, sir. That is currently someone else’s residence. That is a rental property and
someone is living there. Also, a lot of that area is in the VDOT right-of-way and trees.
Mr. Smith asked if they own it.
Ms. Rexrode replied that they do own that. Eventually they would be using that for Sunday school and
things like that. However, they are under a lease with the people that live there right now.
Mr. Morris pointed out this particular lot is subject to the first amendment of the United States
Constitution in establishing a free exercise clause for religious land use and institutional person al act.
They just need to keep that in mind.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved to recommend approval of SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian
Fellowship with the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. He would add his comment that they
would agree with the neighbor for the privacy fence next door as condition 10.
Mr. Morris asked if requested, and Mr. Smith agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
8
Mr. Lafferty asked if it would be better to plant something.
Mr. Morris suggested either/or.
Mr. Smith replied no, he thinks both. They already have Leyland Cyprus there. If they want a fence he
felt that the neighbor ought to have a fence.
Mr. Loach noted that the neighbors said that they would rather have more plantings.
Mr. Smith agreed with either/or.
Mr. Kamptner noted that Mr. Smith had also discussed with the applicant the possibility of prohibiting
outdoor amplified music.
Mr. Smith agreed that was correct. He had forgotten about that. He noted that should be condition 11.
Mr. Kamptner noted it had been agreed to.
Mr. Dotson noted an appendix to that is any indoor amplified music the windows shall be closed.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any problems with that.
Mr. Benish replied that he did not think so
Mr. Morris pointed out he thought the applicant agreed.
Mr. Morris asked if there were any problems with that.
Mr. Benish said he did not think so.
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant agreed.
Mr. Benish asked if they were making these recommendations for conditions to be added so they could
tailor that language.
Mr. Smith replied yes.
Mr. Kamptner noted they would finalize the language between now and the Board hearing.
Mr. Benish said staff might get with the applicant again to talk about how they would augment the
planting and fence. The scale of information they have here they need to make sure w hat is doable, but
staff understands the intent of landscaping and/or fencing.
Mr. Smith noted he wants the coordination with the neighbor also.
Mr. Benish agreed.
Second: Mr. Loach seconded the motion.
Mr. Morris asked for a roll call.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 21, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship
SUBMITTED TO BOS
9
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0. (Randolph absent)
Mr. Morris said SP-2012-00021 Faith & Grace Christian Fellowship would be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors with a recommendation for approval with the conditions , as amended, at a time to be
determined.
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan entitled “Faith and
Grace Christian Fellowship,” (including the sheets titled “Parking & Site Plan” and “Tree
Cover/Landscape Plan,” prepared by Nathaniel Rexrode, and dated January 13, 2013.
To be in general accord with the plan, development shall reflect the following central features
essential to the design of the development:
• location and size of the church building
• the location of the parking areas and the entrances from the public road
• location and extent of plantings
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 structure labeled on the conceptual plan as “1 Story w/Basement” shall not be used for
worship services.
3. The use shall not commence until all parking spaces have been delineated by the use of parking
stops.
4. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties.
5. There shall be no day care center or private school on site without approval of a separate special
use permit;
6. The use shall not commence without written approval from the Virginia Department of Health of
the water supply and septic system.
7. The use shall not commence without approval from the building official and the fire official.
8. The use shall not commence until a plat combining tax map parcels 087B0-00-00-001A0 and
087B0-00-00-00200 has been recorded.
9. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall
expire and be of no effect.
10. [The applicant shall work with staff in coordination with the neighbor to provide landscaping
either/or privacy fencing. Staff to talk with the applicant about how they would augment the
planting and fence. With the scale of information they need to make sure what is doable, but staff
understands the intent of landscaping and/or fencing.]
11. [Outdoor amplified music is prohibited and for any indoor amplified music the windows shall be
closed.]
(Note: Staff to finalize the language between now and the Board hearing for conditions 10 and
11.)
Return to 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
July 25, 2013
Kelly Strickland, Shimp Engineering
210 E. Main St, Suite M
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
RE: SP201300005 The Field School of Charlottesville
TAX MAP PARCEL: 04600000002200, 046000000022C0 & 046000000098A0
Dear Ms. Strickland:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 16 2013, by a vote of 4:2
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this recommendation is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C3 of the Conceptual Plan entitled
“Special Use Permit Application Plan for The Field School of Charlottesville” prepared by Shimp
Engineering, P.C., revision #2, dated 6/20/13, as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and use
shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• Locations of buildings and facilities within the indicated building envelopes
• Total building footprint of 30,000 square feet
• Maximum footprint of 12,000 square feet for any single building
• Retention of the existing house on the property
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may be made to
ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Modifications are to be considered in terms of
minimizing or improving impacts on adjoining properties and roadways. Buildings and parking may be
developed in phases
2. The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students.
3. Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall not continue later than 5:00 p.m.
These hours shall not apply to sports events. Classes shall not be held on Saturday or Sunday.
4. Non-sporting school-related events shall with more than 50 attendees not occur more than 12 times
per calendar year and attendance shall not exceed 200 persons. The facility shall not be used for
events not related to the school use.
5. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed entrance location and
design from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
6. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed water-supply well and
septic facilities from the Virginia Department of Health.
7. Construction of the parking area shown as “Overflow Pervious Parking Area” shall not c ommence
without written approval of the proposed surface materials from the County Engineer.
8. No outdoor lighting of sports fields shall be installed for this use.
9. Any new 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 her designee for approval
10. A Phase I archaeological survey and any appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the
Planning Director shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use prior to issuance of a grading
permit.
11. The use shall commence on or before [date five years from Board approval] or the permit shall expire
and be of no effect.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on a date to be determined.
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,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc The Field School of Charlottesville
P.O. Box 4234
Charlottesville, VA. 22905
Hurt Investment Company
P O Box 8147
Charlottesville VA. 22906
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2013-00005 The Field School Staff: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
July 16, 2013
Board of Supervisors Hearing: TBD
TBD
Owners: Hurt Investment Company Applicant: The Field School of Charlottesville
Acreage: 62.1 acres Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: 10.2.2.5, Private Schools
TMP: Tax Map Parcel 04600-00-00-02200, 04600-00-
00-022C0, and 04600-00-00-098A0
Location: 1717 Polo Grounds Road
By-right use: RA, Rural Areas
Magisterial District: Rivanna Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Private school with up to 30,000
square feet of building footprint (maximum
12,000 square feet per building), play fields, and
parking.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Areas in Rural
Area 2 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots)
Character of Property: Partially wooded, with one
existing dwelling and a disused borrow pit.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Residential,
sports fields.
Factors Favorable:
1. The defined building envelopes restrict land
disturbance on the site and leave the majority of
the site undeveloped.
2. The proposal would provide an additional school
option for County residents.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. VDOT has significant concerns with the
findings and completeness of the applicants’
traffic analysis. Without a more complete
study, the proposal’s traffic impacts cannot be
accurately assessed.
2. VDOT has described the increased delays that
the proposal would cause at the US 29/Polo
Grounds Roads intersection as “not
acceptable.”
3. Traffic generation would be significantly
higher than that caused by residential
development on the site.
Zoning Ordinance Waivers and Recommendations:
Based on findings presented in the staff report, staff recommends denial of SP2013-00005 The Field School.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Scott Clark, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: July 16, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
AGENDA TITLE: SP201300005 The Field School
PROPERTY OWNER: Hurt Investment Company
APPLICANT: The Field School of Charlottesville
PROPOSAL:
PROPOSAL: Private school on 62.1 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Area -- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from
flooding
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 1717 Polo Grounds Road
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 04600-00-00-02200, 04600-00-00-022C0, and 04600-00-00-098A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The site is located in a section of the Rural Areas along the floodplain of the South Fork Rivanna
River, just upstream of its confluence with the North Fork Rivanna. This narrow portion of the
Rural Areas is partially open and partially wooded. Neighborhood 2 lies across the river to the
south, and the Hollymead community is across Polo Grounds Road to the north.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
SP 90-35: On June 6, 1990, the Board of Supervisors approved (with conditions) a special use
permit for an 800-seat church on this site. The church was never built.
SP 90-107: On January 16, 1991, the Board of Supervisors denied a later, separate request for a
300-seat church proposed for a portion of a larger parcel that, at the time, included this site.
SP 2006-00008 SOCA South Fork Expansion: On April 11, 2007, the Board of Supervisors
denied a request for a soccer facility that would have included a 33,000 square-foot indoor soccer
arena building (with offices, locker and training rooms, meeting rooms, a concession stand, and
gear sales for club members), an outdoor synthetic-turf field with lighting, two outdoor training
courts, and 96 parking spaces.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The conceptual plan (Attachment C) shows building and facility envelopes for the proposed
school. The school expects to go through an extensive design process (which will include the
school’s students) over the next few years, and so does not yet have detailed building designs or
site layouts. Staff and the applicant agreed that show building envelopes on the conceptual plan
was the best approach, as it sets expectations for the location and scope of site development
3
without unnecessarily restricting the school’s design choices. The building envelopes show the
possible locations of buildings and other facilities and the extent of most of the land disturbance.
The proposed school use would include:
o Buildings for instruction, offices, gymnasiums, etc. The applicants have proposed a total
footprint of 30,000 square feet, with a per-building limit of 12,000 square feet. All new
structures would be located within the building envelope titled “School Campus” on
Sheet C3 of the conceptual plan.
o Two play fields
o Approximately 49 paved regular spaces, 5 paved bus/trailer spaces, and 76 pervious
spaces for events.
o After-school and weekend sports events for the school’s teams.
o Non-sports-related school events such as fundraisers, meetings, etc. The applicant has
proposed to limit such events with more than 50 attendees to 12 times per year, but has
not proposed a maximum attendance.
o The school does not have specific plans for summer-school activities, but may have
school-related summer uses in the future.
The following table compares the Field School proposal with theoretical by-right residential
development on the site, and with two relevant special use permit requests:
o SP2006-00008 SOCA South Fork Expansion: A proposed indoor/outdoor soccer facility
on a 10-acre portion of the same site (see description above). The Board of Supervisors
denied this proposal.
o SP2010-00036: A proposed 4-field soccer facility located to the west on Polo Grounds
Road that raised similar concerns. The Board of Supervisors approved this proposal with
conditions.
4
Comparison of Development Proposals
Theoretical By-right
Residential
Development
SP 2013-00005 The
Field School
SP 2006-00008
SOCA South Fork
Expansion (denied)
SP 2010-00036 MonU
Park (approved on
different site on Polo
Grounds Road)
Site Acreage 62.1 62.1 10 79.5
New Structures Six dwellings, plus
accessory structures
Approximately four
structures. Overall limit
of 30,000 square feet,
individual-building limit
of 12,000 square feet.
Buildings approximately
400 feet or more from
Polo Grounds Road.
One structure of more
than 30,000 square
feet, 75 feet from
Polo Grounds Road
None
Number of fields n/a Two One outdoor, one
indoor
Four
Outdoor lighting ? Full-cutoff building
lights only
Field lighting None
Distance to
nearest dwelling
? Approximately 330 feet
from edge of play fields,
880 feet from building
envelope
300 feet 1,200 feet
Other uses
proposed
n/a No Originally requested
4 non-soccer events
per year; request was
withdrawn
No
Season Year-round Currently operates
during typical school
year. Summer-school
uses possible but not
specifically proposed.
Year-round indoors,
spring and fall
outdoors
Spring and fall games,
some summer practice
Estimated
Traffic
Generation
53 to 61 vehicle trips
per day
Applicant estimate: 194
vehicle trips/day on
weekdays (ITE
“Elementary School”
category)
515 vehicles trips/day
at peak use
230 vehicle trips/day at
peak (weekends with
games)
VDOT estimate: 372
vehicle trips/day (ITE
“Private School”
category)
Public-facilities
Demand
None None Sewer None
Parking Typical residential
facilities
Approximately 49
paved regular spaces, 5
paved bus/trailer spaces,
and 76 pervious spaces
for events
96 spaces 96 spaces
Critical slopes
disturbance
? Yes -- specific waivers
to be requested during
site-plan review if
approved
Yes No
Tree clearing
proposed?
? Yes Yes No
5
ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUEST:
Section 33.8 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Planning Commission and Board of
Supervisors shall reasonably consider the following factors when reviewing and acting upon an
application for a special use permit:
No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to
adjacent lots. The nearest dwelling is approximately 330 feet from the edge of the envelope
for play fields shown on the conceptual plan, and could be impacted by noise from those
fields. That dwelling is approximately 880 feet from the proposed building envelope. As no
outdoor lighting (other than full-cutoff building lighting) and no outdoor amplification are
proposed, nearby residences should not be impacted by activities in the building envelope.
However, nearby residences would be impacted by additional traffic on Polo Grounds Road.
See below for an assessment of traffic impacts.
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the
proposed special use. This portion of the RA zoning district is characterized by residential,
agricultural, horticultural, and recreational uses. The proposed school use would be more
intense than those rural uses, but more in harmony with the suburban residential uses of the
Hollymead Community, which is located directly across Polo Grounds Road, and in the urban
area, which is located just south of the river.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of
this chapter,
Schools do not directly support or conflict with the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning
district, and are permitted by special use permit.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
The uses permitted by right in the RA zoning district support agriculture, forestry, and land
conservation, or permit residential uses. This school use would be more intense than by-right
uses, but would use a limited portion (approximately 10 acres) of the 62-acre site.
The building envelopes indicate that some small areas of critical slopes may be impacted by
the eventual development of the school. The specific areas to be impacted, and the exact
acreage to be impacted, cannot be calculated at this conceptual level of planning for the
proposal. Staff therefore recommends that any critical slope waivers, if needed, be evaluated
with the review of the site development plan for the site.
Open-space use of the remainder of the property would be in harmony with by-right uses in
the district, and could limit land disturbance and vegetation changes compared to residential
development of the entire property.
Also, the site is bounded on two sides by the South Fork Rivanna River and Powell’s Creek.
However, as the developed portions of the site would be approximately 750 feet from the
South Fork Rivanna and 300 feet from Powell’s Creek, both of which are protected by the
County’s Water Protection Ordinance, water-quality impacts on the river are not considered to
be a significant issue for this proposal.
6
This area along the South Fork Rivanna is known to have been the location of Native
American settlements (of the Monacan nation). For previous approvals in this area, staff has
typically recommended conditions of approval requiring an initial archaeological assessment
of the site and appropriate mitigation measures. In this case, given the relatively small area of
the 62-acre parcel that is proposed for development, staff would recommend that that
condition apply only to the areas to be graded.
…with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, and with the public health,
safety and general welfare.
Traffic impacts on the existing levels of use of Polo Grounds Road have been a significant
concern with past development proposals in this location and elsewhere along the road.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has identified the following concerns with the
proposal’s potential traffic impacts and the applicants’ traffic analysis:
o Traffic Generation: The applicants’ traffic analysis, using the “Elementary School”
category in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip-generation manual, shows an
increase of 194 vehicle trips per day for weekdays. VDOT feels that the “Private
School” category in the ITE manual would more accurately reflect this use. That
category would predict an increase of 372 vehicle trips per day.
It is difficult to put either estimate in the context of the total traffic load on Polo
Grounds Road, as the applicants’ traffic study does not establish what that load is, and
VDOT does not have sufficient traffic-count data to show when peak traffic occurs.
o Impacts on US 29 Intersection: VDOT notes that while the applicants’ traffic study
assesses the proposal’s impacts on delays for traffic westbound on Polo Grounds Road
in terms of Levels of Service, it is more appropriate to consider this matter in terms of
increased delay times. VDOT states that the westbound delay at that intersection “goes
from 51.7 seconds in the future background case to 83.6 seconds under the future build
scenario. This amounts to a 61.7% increase in delay, which is not acceptable.”
o Traffic Analysis: VDOT has noted that the traffic analysis does not account for traffic
before 8:30 a.m., which is expected to occur due to staff arrivals, etc. VDOT needs a
more detailed and complete analysis of traffic impacts in order to completely assess
the impacts of the proposal.
There are some potential mitigating factors related to the traffic impacts of this proposal:
o The applicants recently contacted VDOT to note a problem with traffic-signal timing
at the US 29/Polo Grounds Road intersection. Vehicles leaving the adjacent SOCA
facility after practices, usually around 6:30 p.m., were experiencing significant delays
at that intersection. The signal timing did not change to let more vehicles turn onto
US 29 until 7:00 p.m. In response, VDOT increased the time available for left-turning
vehicles during the following periods:
7
o Weekdays from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
o Weekends from 7 a.m.to 11 p.m. on weekends and Monday-Friday 9am to
3pm and 7pm to 9pm.
The applicants are to be commended for making VDOT aware of this problem,
especially for addressing an existing problem that was not related to their own
proposal. The weekday portion of the timing change may in fact reduce the delays
caused by the proposed use. However, VDOT needs the traffic analysis to be revised
to reflect this change before they can verify or quantify any reduction.
o According to the applicants, a significant portion of the school’s existing students
travel to and from the school by bus. This significantly decreases the school’s total
traffic generation. However, as the applicant is unable to commit to any specific level
of bus ridership for the proposed use, and no commitments to such a level of use are
proposed, it is impossible to quantify the potential reduction in traffic generation.
Given that lack of assurance, and the fact that the special use permit could be used by
some other future owner with a different transportation plan, staff and VDOT can
only assess the proposed use without taking bus ridership into account.
o VDOT has recently awarded funding to the County for VDOT to install more
adaptive timing circuits on traffic signal along US 29. This change could potentially
improve traffic flow at the intersection of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road. However,
no design specifics are available on this newly-approved project, and staff cannot
estimate what (if any) impacts it will have on that intersection.
In past proposals in this area, the railroad underpass located to the east on Polo Grounds
Road has raised concerns. The underpass is narrow and located at a turn, so drivers have
extremely limited sight lines. Traffic proceeds in one direction at a time and drivers
typically signal with their horns before starting through. While VDOT has no record of
significant traffic-safety issues with the underpass, both VDOT and the County Engineer
are concerned that the cumulative impacts of development along Polo Grounds Road
could lead to this underpass becoming a bottleneck that limits traffic capacity. No
information is available on what level of traffic would generate that effect. The applicants
in this case expect a large majority of traffic generated by the proposal to come from
US29 rather than through the underpass.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas-. preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5
unit/ acre in development lots)
The proposed school does not actively support agricultural or forestal uses, and would
require some impacts on natural and scenic resources. However, similar impacts would be
generated through by-right residential development of the site or by other uses permitted by-
right in the RA zoning district. The defined extent of development on the site would limit the
area of land disturbance compared to some other uses, and so would help to protect natural
resources in the areas not designated for development. Therefore, while the proposal is not
8
directly supportive of Comprehensive Plan goals, it is no less consistent than some by-right
uses in its zoning district.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable to this request include:
1. The defined building envelopes restrict land disturbance on the site and leave the
majority of the site undeveloped.
2. The proposal would provide an additional school option for County residents.
Factors unfavorable to this request include:
1. VDOT has significant concerns with the findings and completeness of the applicants’
traffic analysis. Without a more complete study, the proposal’s traffic impacts cannot be
accurately assessed.
2. VDOT has described the increased delays that the proposal would cause at the US
29/Polo Grounds Roads intersection as “not acceptable.”
3. Traffic generation would be significantly higher than that caused by residential
development on the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SP 2013-00005 The Field School due to
the unfavorable factors listed above. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of this proposal, staff has provided the following recommended conditions
of approval:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C3 of the Conceptual Plan
entitled “Special Use Permit Application Plan for The Field School of Charlottesville,
prepared by Shimp Engineering, P.C., revision #2, dated 6/20/13, as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the
Conceptual Plan, the development and use shall reflect the following major elements as
shown on the Conceptual Plan:
o Locations of buildings and facilities within the indicated building envelopes
o Total building footprint of 30,000 square feet
o Maximum footprint of `12,000 square feet for any single building
o Retention of the existing house on the property
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may
be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Modifications are to be
considered in terms of minimizing or improving impacts on adjoining properties and
9
roadways. Buildings and parking may be developed in phases
2. The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students.
3. Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall not continue later than
5:00 p.m. These hours shall not apply to sports events. Classes shall not be held on
Saturday or Sunday.
4. Non-sporting school-related events shall with more than 50 attendees not occur more than
12 times per calendar year and attendance shall not exceed 200 persons. The facility shall
not be used for events not related to the school use.
5. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed entrance
location and design from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
6. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed water-
supply well and septic facilities from the Virginia Department of Health.
7. Construction of the parking area shown as “Overflow Pervious Parking Area” shall not
commence without written approval of the proposed surface materials from the County
Engineer.
8. No outdoor lighting of sports fields shall be installed for this use.
9. Any new 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 her designee for approval
10. A Phase I archaeological survey and any appropriate mitigation measures as
approved by the Planning Director shall be completed for areas to be graded for
this use prior to issuance of a grading permit.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Area Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan
Return to PC actions letter
The Planning Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
A. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend approval of this request:
I move to recommend approval of SP 2013-00005 The Field School with the
conditions outlined in the staff report.
B. Should the Planning Commission choose to recommend denial of this Tier III personal
wireless service facility:
10
I move to recommend denial of SP 2013-00005 The Field School. (Planning
Commission needs to give a reason for denial)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 16, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular hearing on Tuesday, July 16, 2013, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virgin ia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Don Franco, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac)
Lafferty, Vice Chair, and Calvin Morris, Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the
University of Virginia was present. Bruce Dotson was absent.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Chris Perez,
Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning/Zoning
Administrator; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP-2013-00005 Field School of Charlottesville
PROPOSAL: Private school on 62.1 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Area -- agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots); FH Flood Hazard – Overlay to provide safety and protection from flooding
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
LOCATION: 1717 Polo Grounds Road
TAX MAP/PARCELS: 04600-00-00-02200, 04600-00-00-022C0, and 04600-00-00-098A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
(Scott Clark)
Scott Clark presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a special use permit request for a private school on 62 acre s in the rural areas. The site is located
on Polo Grounds Road east of Route 29. The property next door is the existing SOCCA sports field
facility. The aerials give an idea of the topography of the site. It is largely a peninsula or ridge running
down from Polo Grounds Road towards the river. There is floodplain on either side and there is the ridge
down the middle. The majority of the development will be in this area nearer to but not really adjacent to
Polo Grounds Road.
DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL:
The proposed school use would include:
• Buildings for instruction, offices, gymnasiums, etc. The applicants have proposed a total footprint
of 30,000 square feet, with a per-building limit of 12,000 square feet. All new structures would be
located within the building envelope titled “School Campus” on Sheet C3 of the conceptual plan.
• Two play fields
• Approximately 49 paved regular spaces, 5 paved bus/trailer spaces, and 76 pervious spaces for
events.
• After-school and weekend sports events for the school’s teams.
• Non-sports-related school events such as fundraisers, meetings, etc. The applicant has proposed
to limit such events with more than 50 attendees to 12 times per year, but has not proposed a
maximum attendance.
• The school does not have specific plans for summer-school activities, but may have school-
related summer uses in the future.
Special Use Permit Review Criteria
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
2
No substantial detriment. The proposed use will not be a substantial detriment to adjacent lots.
• Distance from play-field envelope to nearest dwelling: 330 feet
• Some noise impacts possible, but no amplified sound
• Distance from school-campus envelope to nearest dwelling: 880 feet.
• No outdoor lighting (other than full-cutoff building lighting)
• No outdoor amplification are proposed
• Limited impact from school-campus area
Character of district unchanged. The character of the district will not be changed by the proposed
special use.
This portion of the RA zoning district is characterized by residential, agricultural, horticultural, an d
recreational uses. The proposed school use would be more intense than those rural uses, but more in
harmony with the suburban residential uses of the Hollymead Community, which is located directly across
Polo Grounds Road, and in the urban area, which is located just south of the river.
Harmony. The proposed special use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
chapter,
Schools do not directly support or conflict with the purposes of the Rural Areas zoning district, and are
permitted by special use permit.
…with the uses permitted by right in the district
• The uses permitted by right in the RA zoning district support agriculture, forestry, and land
conservation, or permit residential uses.
• This school use would be more intense than by-right uses, but would use a limited portion
(approximately 10 acres) of the 62-acre site.
• Critical-slope impacts:
• Site grading would impact some area of critical slopes
• Exact area to be calculated during review of site plan
• Most major slope areas, and those closest to the river or to Powell’s Creek, would not be
disturbed
Staff noted because the applicants are in the beginnings of their design process staff agreed that the
building envelope approach was better than a specific plan that might change and hav e to be revised and
amended later. So they don’t know the exact area of critical slopes that will be disturbed at this point. It
would be better dealt with during the site plan review once the building locations have been tied down and
the area of disturbance has been tied down. In general the large areas of critical slopes and the large
areas important to the water resources, such as stream buffers, are avoided by the conceptual plan as
laid out.
• Open-space use of the remainder of the property would b e in harmony with by-right uses in the
district, and could limit land disturbance and vegetation changes compared to residential
development of the entire property.
• Impacts on rivers and streams:
• The site is bordered by the South Fork Rivanna River and Powell’s Creek.
• Developed portions of the site would be approximately 750 feet from the South Fork
Rivanna and 300 feet from Powell’s Creek
• County’s Water Protection Ordinance provides buffers
• Water-quality impacts on the river are not considered to be a significant issue for this
proposal.
• Archaeological impacts:
• This area along the South Fork Rivanna is known to have been the location of Native
American settlements (of the Monacan nation).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
3
• For previous approvals in this area, staff has typically recomm ended conditions of
approval requiring an initial archaeological assessment of the site and appropriate
mitigation measures.
• In this case, given the relatively small area of the 62-acre parcel that is proposed for
development, staff would recommend that condition apply only to the areas to be graded.
with the regulations provided in section 5 as applicable, and with the public health, safety and
general welfare.
Traffic impacts on the existing levels of use of Polo Grounds Road have been a significant con cern with
past development proposals in this location and elsewhere along the road. The biggest issue with this
proposal and with all other projects reviewed on Polo Grounds Road in the last several years has been
traffic. It is the degree of the existing traffic and how a new use will affect that. The applicant has
provided a traffic analysis and it has been reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr.
DeNunzio is here if there are any questions.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has identified the following concerns with the proposal’s
potential traffic impacts and the applicants’ traffic analysis:
o Traffic Generation:
o Applicant’s traffic estimate: ITE “Elementary School” category estimates increase
of 194 vehicle trips per day (weekdays).
o VDOT traffic estimate: ITE “Private School” category estimates increase of 372
vehicle trips per day. This has to be worked out between the applicant and
VDOT as to what is the most appropriate number to use.
o Comparison to total traffic load: It is difficult to put either estimate in the
context of the total traffic load on Polo Grounds Road, as the applicants’
traffic study does not establish what that load is, and VDOT does not have
sufficient traffic-count data to show when peak traffic occurs.
o Impacts on US 29 Intersection:
o VDOT states that the westbound delay “goes from 51.7 seconds in the future
background case to 83.6 seconds under the future build scenario. This amounts
to a 61.7% increase in delay, which is not acceptable.”
o Traffic Analysis:
o VDOT has noted that the traffic analysis does not account for traffic before
8:30 a.m., which is expected to occur due to staff arrivals, etc. VDOT needs
a more detailed and complete analysis of traffic impacts in order to
completely assess the impacts of the proposal.
o Railroad Underpass:
o Existing underpass without sight lines require one-way traffic
o No record of safety issues at underpass
o VDOT and County Engineer concerned with cumulative impacts of development
on Polo Grounds Road. Currently unclear what level of traffic would cause
bottleneck
o The applicants in this case expect a large majority of traffic generated by the
proposal to come from US29 rather than through the underpass.
There are some potential mitigating factors related to the traf fic impacts of this proposal:
o Traffic Signal Timing :
o The applicants recently notified VDOT of signal-timing problems at US 29 and
Polo Grounds Road
o In response, VDOT increased the time available for left-turning vehicles during
the following periods:
o Weekdays from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m.
o Weekends from 7 a.m.to 11 p.m.
o The weekday portion of the timing change may in fact reduce the delays caused
by the proposed use.
o However, VDOT needs the traffic analysis to be revised to reflect this change
before they can verify or quantify any reduction.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
4
o School bus service:
o Many student currently get to the school by bus, which significantly increases
traffic generation
o However, no minimum ridership is proposed with this request. Traffic reduction
cannot be quantified.
o Signal upgrades on US 29
o Funded upgrade to traffic signals on US29 could potentially improve traffic flow at
the intersection of US 29 and Polo Grounds Road.
o However, no design specifics are available on this newly-approved project, and
staff cannot estimate what (if any) impacts it will have on that intersection.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The use will be consistent with the Comprehensive
Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Areas -. preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
• The proposed school does not actively support agricultural or forestal uses, and would require
some impacts on natural and scenic resources.
• Similar impacts would be generated by residential development of the site or by other by-right
uses
• The defined extent of development on the site would limit the area of land disturbance compared
to some other uses,
• Natural resources in the areas not designated for development would be protected from
construction impacts
• The proposal is not directly supportive of Comprehensive Plan goals, but is no less consistent
than some by-right uses in its zoning district.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified factors which are favorable and unfavorable to this proposal:
Factors favorable:
1. The defined building envelopes restrict land disturbance on the site and leave the
majority of the site undeveloped.
2. The proposal would provide an additional school option for County resid ents.
Factors unfavorable:
1. VDOT has significant concerns with the findings and completeness of the applicants’
traffic analysis. Without a more complete study, the proposal’s traffic impacts cannot be
accurately assessed.
2. VDOT has described the increased delays that the proposal would cause at the US
29/Polo Grounds Roads intersection as “not acceptable.”
3. Traffic generation would be significantly higher than that caused by residential
development on the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of SP-2013-00005 the Field School due to the
unfavorable factors listed above. Because they don’t have a firm enough answer for the issues, staff is
recommending denial. They are not recommending denial because they know that the traffic issue is
unsolvable. They are recommending denial because they don’t know enough about the situation to be
able to quantify the impacts on the surroundings. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to
recommend approval of this proposal, staff has provided the recommend ed conditions of approval as
noted in the presentation. Condition 11, which is about the expiration, was not in the staff report. Staff
has put in five years instead of the usual two years because the school needs to do fundraising and go
through the design process. Therefore, they need some extra time to do that.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
5
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this light is covered in the adaptive signaling system that they are going to be putting
in from Charlottesville out 29 north.
Mr. Benish replied that Joel DeNunzio can probably best answer for that. The original proposal intended
it to go through and past this intersection. That design is being done by VDOT.
Mr. Lafferty said if they get the same improvement by installing the adaptive system on Polo Grounds
Road as they got on Route 20 and 250 would it make this more acceptable. Mr. DeNunzio can answer.
He invited Joel DeNunzio to come forward and answer the questions.
Joel DeNunzio, VDOT representative, pointed out the adaptive control system on 29 so far as identified
27 intersections on 29 from the city up to the Hollymead area and 13 signals in the city. Those include
side street signals also. It is proposed to be applied at Polo Grounds Road.
Mr. Lafferty said if they got the same improvement that they did on 250 and 20 would it make this
intersection acceptable.
Mr. DeNunzio replied he did not really have any way of knowing that at this point. The idea is that the
adaptive control system what it does is it platoons vehicles along the main line corridor. It is smart
enough where a traditional signal system will go in phases of signal to allow a left turn here and through
traffic from a side street, the adaptive is able to actually look at how many vehicles cue up on a side street
and is able to know when the platoon is coming down and it can let any phase go at any time.
Sometimes those types of systems work very well on corridors that have very unpredictable traffic. So it
could make a big improvement when they have the SOCCA tryout let out. It could be an improvement
there or it could overload the system there also. It might be some improvement, but not what they expect.
They don’t really know. They just completed the pilot system. Pantops was part of the pilot system. They
did 13 in the state. The Pantops was the most successful. They did have some corridors that were as
successful. They are trying to determine what properties or corridors make it more successful or less
successful. That is hard to say now and that is why they did the pilot program. When they installed the
adaptive control system on the 29 corridor what they will do is look at the traffic patterns, the travel times
and the average number of stops on the 29 corridor before and after installat ion and measures its
effectiveness at that point.
Ms. Monteith asked when the plan installation is.
Mr. DeNunzio replied they don’t have a plan installation now. The County applied for revenue sharing
money. For this year’s allocation the Commonwealth Transportation Board in mid-June approved that
allocation. They started the process with a scoping meeting. Our traffic engineers in Richmond are
working on identifying the scope of the project and they do not have a schedule at this time.
Mr. Franco asked what his best guess is on the soonest that could occur assuming funding is available
and everything else.
Mr. DeNunzio replied at first assuming funding is available the amount of funding that they have allocated
right now and what the cost estimate is going to be, which will have to line up for us to move forward,
construction, of course, they can start with the planning. If the amount of money they have is equivalent
to what it will take, then it is not a long installation process. It will be a couple of month’s installation. It is
lining everything up and getting everything going. If it were to be started this fall it would be impressive.
Mr. Lafferty said he understands that the equipment fits in the existing travel signal boxes.
Mr. DeNunzio said part of the scoping of it really is the communication system between the signals.
Between the signals they all need to communicate. One of the things they are identifying in the scoping
in whether they use radio communications that are already installed or there is also a new fiber line that
goes down 29. The hard wire fiber line is a better communication system and they get better results that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
6
way. It will be a little more expensive. So those are the kinds of things they need to weigh to figure o ut
what the best way to get the communications in line is.
Ms. Monteith said it has not been clear whether this implementation would be a pilot or not.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that no, the 13 pilot programs are over. They are all continuing to operate, like the
Pantops. This might be the first installation they do outside the pilot program. However, he was not sure.
It is managed by their central office in Richmond.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for the applicant and public comment. He invited th e applicant to
address the Commission.
Todd Barnett, Founding Head of School at Field School, said he assumed they know about their school
since they have had about 100 letter writers in support of the application. He explained the proposal.
- He assumed they know about their school since they have had about 100 letter writers write in
support of our application. Based on standardized tests they received back this week our six year old
boy’s school is the very best it can be. They are academically in the 99 percentile nationally in all four
of our boy school classes according to the Iowa Test of Basic Skills . He frankly thought when he
started the school that it would be impossible to do that as an all boy’s school. Boys as a group are
not particularly happy or successful in school these days. They h ave a great school and it is a fun
place. They read good books and have interesting and engaging classes. They have h ighly
motivated teachers who play lots of sports. They have great food.
- The deal at our school is that they are going to do the best we can to make our school a great school
for the boys. They expect the boys to do the same thing in making our school an excellent place.
Part of that is finding the right place for our school in the long run. They have learned a deal about
what works for boys over the past six years. They plan to spend the next few years sharing what they
have learned in making the case increasingly for paying attention to the boys in schools. If they think
they are doing so well because they are so selective in admissions they are not. They take virtually
everyone. Because they are so resource rich, they are not. They spend about 80 percent of what
Albemarle County spends per student. About two years ago the earthquak e leads the County to
condemn a room in our 1924 County school building.
- He pointed out they rent the old Crozet High School from Albemarle County. It frightened him as a
person who has about 80 families depending on him, because they don’t have a fall back space plan.
It would be kind of ridiculous to have one. They had to get a special use permit to be in our school
building. They have to have a special use permit to operate anywhere. It is an eight month process
or so. If it happened at the right time of year they would not have a school. That is if the County had
to condemn that building. In fact, they really only have a year to year lease with the County in Crozet.
The building is, as he is reminded when he talks to County officials it is seen as a long run community
center. So they have been looking really since they started for a building or a piece of land to
purchase.
- He said really building the excellent school has been easier part of this. They believe in r egularly
getting outside. Perhaps you have heard of this idea of nature deficit disorder. They really think boys
need to get outdoors regularly in order to be happy and healthy. Since he knows from the experience
of meetings like these that some neighbors do not like the sound of children playing. They have tried
to find a place that is as far away from neighbors as they can. Here they plan to leave 50 acres of our
property undeveloped between the school and all but one neighboring property. There is one that is
close. Over the past four years with the help of primarily Kelly Strickland they have worked on about
20 pieces of property trying to find one that works for us. This one on Polo Grounds Road does work.
It is a good size and not too far away from population. They don’t wa nt to put people on the road for
too long. The price is realistic. It is not sitting by a highway. It has realistic space for playing fields
relatively flat. It does not have a prohibitive easement or critical slopes or streams that are a
problem. It is on a good sized road as the other side of Polo Grounds Road serves the growth area
with much more development potential. It has an owner who was willing to wait to give us this option
to buy. It is no small expense this option, but it is what they feel like they have to do. The previous
piece of property they tried to buy they alerted the neighbors to the fact that they were doing that and
one of them bought it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
7
- He said about traffic, they drive a bus to and from school every day and take about 60 percent of our
students this way. They are not required to do so. They just do that because it is part of our school’s
culture. At both his camp and school they have always driven a daily shuttle bus. They expect that
they will always do so. He did not know how many will be on it and neither does the County know
how many are going to be riding on their school buses. But, he thinks they will always have at least
50 percent ridership per day and will be willing to commit to that. Vehicles trips per day used up there
are still larger than they have because of the shuttle bus. He e xpects at capacity they will have about
118 cars every day and not 194 or 372 like was on one of the slides. Realistically what they will have
is about 118. He founded this school and really cannot image doing anything else the rest of his life.
He thinks our school is a huge asset to the County now and in the future it will be to the community
along Polo’s Ground Road.
Kelly Strickland, with Shimp Engineering, presented a PowerPoint presentation. He noted he would talk
them through the presentation since his text came in the wrong way.
- This is an image of the by right plan for the site of what it might look like showing the existing house
and six additional parcels. Back in 1992 a special use permit was approved. He believed the water
and sewer hookups are still available for this special use permit for an 800 seat church. It was not
mentioned in the table of comparable land uses that are allowed on the site. But, this is on e that was
approved. W hen they were first looking at it our understanding was that it is still a potential use for
the site as an 800 seat church. There is the church that was approved for the site.
- He pointed out a real quick idea of what the conceptual plan might allow for the school to be
developed. Up in the front there are two ball fields. The area where the ball fields are shown was
actually a waste area for some time. Fields up in the front makes a lot of since buildings cannot be
put there. The conceptual plan is not what is going to be built. Todd Barnett is planning on having a
five year process of fund raising and involving the students to try to come up for a plan for the school.
But, this concept plan shows three buildings being an acade mic building, a gymnasium and a dining
hall. Up in the front is the existing house that sits up on a knoll. As they are along Polo Grounds you
would have to look up a slope to see the ball fields and up an additional slope is the knoll with the
school on the far side. He did not think the school would be visible from Polo Grounds Road. Again,
landscaping is shown as being installed in this particular plan, which is more at tractive than the waste
area there now.
- In a chart he pointed out where private schools and public schools are allowed. Public schools are
allowed in a lot of districts throughout the County. Private schools are allowed in the D owntown
Crozet District. Anyway else private schools would require either a special use permit or are not
allowed. Downtown He tried to verify why this is the case. He was not sure why the Downtown
Crozet District was established to allow it. By the way that is the only district where public schools
are not allowed in the County. The Downtown Crozet District is approximately 52 acres. So it is
about 80 percent of the site that Todd Barnett is looking at trying to put a school on. There are about
60 or 70 parcels in that Downtown Crozet District and they are all established already. He would
reiterate what Todd Barnett said in it has just been a long process for him trying to figure how to find a
site and how to get it established in whether or not he can get a special use permit to put a contract
on the land. They have been through so many evaluations of s o many sites.
- He pointed out in an image the traffic that they would be adding to the cue at 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
based on the traffic study they did. This is primarily the reason it is causing a problem for VDOT and
staff to recommend approval. The existing traffic is shown in orange. In the year 2018 when they are
looking at the study time without putting the school in there would be one less car than what is there
now in that cue at 8:30 a.m. They are actually adding one car over what would be the re in 2018 with
the school traffic. They have met with VDOT on several occasions.
- It is important to note that when they sat down for their pre-application meeting in January with the
County and VDOT staff that they were led to believe that the main issue with the neighbors, the
County and not so much VDOT was the traffic from the SOCCA. The primary reason they did the
traffic study was to show that they were not contributing any traffic during the time when SOCCA was
going. They go at 5:00 p.m. The school is done and gone and out of there at 4:30 p.m. They showed
that, but in doing so they showed that at 8:30 a.m. they are adding a couple of cars to the cue in the
morning cycle. What they did find out when they were looking and evaluating the SOCCA was that
they are adding during their soccer tryouts 100 cars into that cue. They think through that process
that they just talked about, the adaptive cycles on the interchanges, as well as the Western Bypass is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
8
going to change a lot of things. Before they talked about how the traffic study is going to be hard to
show what is going to happen in five years . It is very difficult to do a traffic study now and assume
whether or not there is going to be a Western Bypass; whether or not there is going to be an ex tra
lane between Polo Grounds Road and Ashwood Boulevard; and whether or not there is going to be
the adaptive cycles and how well they are going to work. So they feel they have done everything they
could in that regard.
Mr. Morris said the Commission would take a ten minute break and take public comment afterwards.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:46 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:55
p.m.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
D.J. Bickers said he has been a resident of Albemarle County for his whole life. A lot has changed when
he grew up in the 70’s when there was one stop light on 29. He was present tonight to address the
potential traffic impact of Field School because it is a big concern. He has sat at that light after a SOCCA
tryout and it was very frustrating. He cannot imagine being a resident on that road using it frequently and
sitting at that light. So the good news is that the impact of Field School should be very negligible.
- First of all is the size of the school. They currently have 80 students and our goal is to have 150
students, which is much smaller than one of the smaller elementary schools that have 300.
- Second, is the fact that they do use a bus to get the children to and from school. They get there at 9
a.m. and leave at 4 p.m. That is a very big thing. He has personally sat at another school in a car
line for 30 minutes and has been behind a County bus. He thinks that over 50 percent of the kids do
ride the bus. This is a big thing. In one of the s lides it talked about the delay of a typical private
school. Well this is not a typical private school because they do bus and the kids use the bus. Right
now there are about five big events mostly with family and friends usually after peak rush hour.
- He also wanted to touch on the improvements to 29 that are coming. He can testify that his office is
at the corner of 20 and 250 and he makes a left turn there every day. He is so looking forward to
getting on 250 because that adaptive control works. He has seen improvement. He really hopes it is
implemented. It would put this whole issue to rest. In addition, Kelly Strickland who is the father of
one of the students has worked with VDOT to help with the SOCCA try out timing of lights. He
thought that was a nice thing to do. It has shown some improvement. In addition, with the
implementation of the Western Bypass eventually and the continuing improvements of 29 would help
our cause. His wife and he were blessed to have our boys at Field School.
Geral Long said he bought his property in 1999. While he thinks the Field School is a wonderful
opportunity his concern is for the traffic. It is not just the traffic that they have been talking about tonight.
But, if is for an apparent lack of a traffic ma nagement plan for maintaining and improving Polo Grounds
Road. Having lived here since 1999 he has seen the traffic increase with W.A. Wells and his operation
has expanded; Montgomery Ridge has gone in there; the SOCCA; the MONU; and the Field School.
There is no telling what is going to happen on the north side of Polo Grounds Road at 29.
- His concern and even the concern of the staff report summary talking about VDOT and the County
engineers is about the cumulative impacts of development along Polo Gro unds Road could lead to
this underpass being a bottle neck. The bottom line is the entire time they have been here they have
not heard anything about what the County’s plan is for the future of Polo Grounds Road. If there are
improvement options they should be stated. If there are not and there are bottlenecks such as the
underpass, then there needs to be the limit to the degree to which continued development of property
along Polo Grounds is acceptable to the County. Certainly it is not acceptable to u s as residents who
have to put up with it day after day after day. He did not want to wake up 20 years from now and find
that literally everything along Polo Grounds Road is developed and the traffic is just untenable.
Mark Cave, a Charlottesville City resident and a parent of a boy at Field School, noted that he was a
small business owner and a former educator. He urged this body to think about what kind of applications
they want before them. He feels that the application was already prejudiced and r ejected by this traffic
study. He thinks it is far from being objective and scientific. He suggested that they think about what they
really want in a space along 29. Do they want another strip mall? Do they want a business that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
9
generates trash, gas, cars and smelly restaurant garbage? They are talking about kids here who Field
School educates every day. They are talking about kids who will play baseball, play soccer, and go down
to the creek and perform experiments. Is that the kind of development the y want encourage or
discourage?
- He knows how hard it is to start a school. He started a non -profit in DC many years ago. He knows
how hard it is to fund raise and to site plan. It is not like just putting forth a business plan for a regular
business. Not only do you have to have the vision you have to have the fund raising capacity and
generate support from the student body and parent body. To do that over and over again and come
before these Commissions to beg permission and ask forgiveness for sins that haven’t even been
committed before he questions that strategy from a Planning Commission perspective. He urged
them to think about what they want in this corridor and what kind of a mixed use asset this school
could be to this particular corridor.
- Speaking to the economic impact of the Field School they feel that it is very solid for the County. They
draw from public schools as well as private schools because of the unique nature of the education. It
is 5th through 8th grade. They will be pulling from County schools and then spitting kids back into
County schools. As such they will be taking kids off the County roll, which they estimate to be about
90 kids. They estimate that 90 out of the 150 students that will be attending Field School would ha ve
come from Albemarle County public schools. At $13,000 per student it works out to be over a million
dollars that would be off the budgetary wells of the County. So they feel like not only aesthetically
with the kids and what they are trying to create, but also economically they could be a great asset to
the County.
David Schmitt, resident of Bentivar Complex off Polo Grounds Road, said a lot of the conversation this
evening has focused on traffic.
- Traffic is a problem of time and congestion. It is also a matter of safety. The best point of view is to
step back from Polo Grounds Road and look at what it actually services. It services all of the
properties along Polo Grounds Road; the Bentivar group which is well over 100 homes and
residences; the Montgomery Ridge development; the folks living up on Profit Ridge that are heading
southbound use Polo Grounds Road to head west to join 29; and depending on the future
development an uncertainty which has been addressed by previous speakers will likely b ring people
from the east to 29 to join the bypass if it is there. So they have an accumulation of traffic from the
area converging on Polo Grounds Road.
- Polo Grounds Road is a very narrow road with no shoulder whatsoever. Joggers have caused
accidents simply by jogging on the side of the road and causing traffic to swerve. The problem at 29
has been addressed. The adaptive system is something that people are talking about, which is really
a matter of time and delay. The issue at the underpass is critical. In the past week that road has
been closed twice because of accidents. Some of them he was not exactly sure of the cause.
However, the road in a one week period on the 3rd and 10th was closed because of accidents there.
They are talking about bringing in buses. But, they have no way of knowing whether those buses are
going to reduce or add to the traffic.
- If they look at the topographic map they will see that the school’s entrance is located at the a pex of a
sinuous road coming up from a one wa y spot underpass. In the winter and darkness under
unfavorable conditions with kids on bicycles and jogging and other activities that is going to be
extremely dangerous. If they talk about rights, the whole purpose for this meeting is because there is
no entitlement to the school to this area. This is a residential area. The Commission’s role in advising
the board is to see whether it has merit over the detriment. They are talking about a handful of lucky
privileged kids at the school affecting hundreds of homes who have the expectation of a residential
safe relatively rural area. This school will impact them far greater than the absent of a location will
affect them.
Lethe Bien, resident of Bentivar on Walnut Ridge, pointed out some of her issues had already been
addressed. There are a few other items.
- Field School states that the majority of the people will be coming from 29 and the bus would take care
of at least 50 percent. The school is now in Crozet. The question that has to be asked is where are
the students that take that bus coming from because they have to go all the way out to Crozet. Do
you think if the Field School is now closer into town that the students would be more inclined to be
coming from places where they now don’t have to take a bus? In fact, she knows a family along
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
10
Stony Point Road who tells her that if the school moves in there they will now go to Field School. She
thinks that means there will be more traffic coming from Profit and Stony Point across Polo Grounds
Road under the one lane highway than is anticipated or spoken of tonight.
- Another big concern is enforceability. If the Commission recommends approval and it goes forward
to the Board of Supervisors and they approve it with all of staff’s conditions the question comes up
about how is all of this to be enforced. What happens when the footprint of that school is 200 square
feet bigger or the lights are one way? They have already seen a number of times where they have
developments that have conditions where the conditions are exceeded and then what. Whose is
there to say hold on they were not supposed to do this or that. She asked what that would mean at
the end of the day. The neighbors are the ones who are affected.
- Finally, just a point of order. Going down Polo Grounds Road she thinks the timing of the study was
not exactly at the height since school was out as she could recall with the strip across the street. She
questioned the traffic study. However, more importantly MONU, which was approved by the Board o f
Supervisors, have not yet engaged in their activities. They have no idea even with MONU coming on
line pretty soon what that means with regards to the traffic. That would also include SOCCA and then
adding in Field School and who knows what else. She urged the Commission to deny the special use
permit as it goes forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Julia Kegley, resident of Bentivar, said she wrote an email to the Commission listing her concerns. Our
major concern is noise, which has not been addressed. It seems to be more a traffic question. One of
the map shows the school right backed up to Bentivar Subdivision. Mr. Barnett said himself that boys are
noisy and there are going to be a lot of outside sports. She was worried about our peace and qu iet. Also,
will there be jogging and bikers on the road from the school sports team. It is already a dangerous road.
She did not know what adaptive control is. But, it sounds like more cars can get out of Polo Grounds
Road and less can proceed on 29. She questioned if that was correct. With more traffic on Polo Grounds
Road from the SOCCA fields and who knows what future development that will back up and disrupt traffic
on 29 because there are more cars. Lastly, the school states there is a limit of 150 students. She
wonders if that is feasible because their goal is listed as 300 on their website. H ow will that be enforced?
How can a school be built with just tuition of 150 students. It seems economically it would have to
expand.
Nathaniel Howell said he had lived at 2248 Polo Grounds Road for over 20 years since that road was
graveled. He agreed completely with the recommendation of staff to deny this permit. Their position is
soundly based he thinks but very narrowly on adverse traffic conditions .
- He would remind them that for the people that live on that road it is not only a matter of convenience
that is where our ambulances and fire trucks come in. He added that while traffic is important there
are other serious grounds for opposing in terms of the ecology, quality of life, and the very idea of
what a rural areas means. The traffic problem is not confined to the western end of Polo Grounds
Road. He lived at the other end. The Profit neighborhood, which is completely dependent on two
roads Polo Grounds Road and Profit Road, is already stressed by through traffic and other
developments. For example, for the last several months there has been a crew camped along Profit
Road putting in a fiber optic cable and periodically cutting the road. The y would not allow our
children, the elderly or anyone else to ride a bicycle in our area. In fact, it is not exaggeration to say
that our children and elderly have less mobility on their feet or on their bicycles than they would in
Downtown Charlottesville.
- The community first heard of Field School in January when the Head Master called for an
informational meeting on February 7th. They were told at that meeting, which was well attended, that
the school intends to reach 150 students in grades 5 through 8. Details of the proposal for building
were vague then as they still are to some extent. The community expressed its views, concerns, and
objection and was promised more detail later. A second meeting was called six days later on
February 13 and a third on April 15 for reasons that should be obvious. The community attendance
fell off significantly although they took the precaution of sending someone to take notes. On a Field
School website they saw at the time, which he has copies of upon request, the goal was expressed of
a student body of 300 persons in grades 5 to 12. That was double of what they were told in the
information. Furthermore, in another school website the school presents its master plan. It says in
addition to tuition facility rental for complimentary institution and artillery program will be provided for
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
11
our revenue once our campus is established. So this is something m ore than a simple little boy’s
school on a hill. He urged the Commission to support the staff recommendation.
Lynne Reigel, resident of Bentivar, agreed with those that just voiced their concerns against the proposal
to build the school. She thinks the traffic issues alone on Polo Grounds Road is just not the
inconvenience of waiting several times for the light t o change, but the safety. She has seen first-hand.
She had a son that was forced off the road by a vehicle that came into his lane to avoid something else.
The safety of that road is just very questionable. She did not think any more vehicles should be thrown
on there without really considering what this is doing to the future of our area.
Jim Masloff, a nine-year resident of Bentivar, spoke in opposition to the request.
- He pointed out what he is about to say is not about the Field School request. He thinks Mr. Barnett is
a very effective dedicated advocate for his organization. He congratulates him on his service to them.
Six years ago they went through the same process with the SOCCA organization. That was
ultimately denied by the Board on very solid grounds. He would like to say that his daughter attends a
private school. He was a president of a five million dollar a year non-profit organization here locally
for four years. He appreciates everything that the school is trying to do.
- Right now they have a new request on the same property similar to the last request by SOCCA. The
facility itself in square footage is almost identical. There are a couple of differences that he would like
to make sure that the Commission focuses on. His neighbors have done this already. Right away the
traffic would be a daily difference all year round and not just when tryouts were going on or on
weekends. There is no way to measure that and nobody has an answer. They are talking about 28
teams and they can’t predict that. As the situation exists today he did not see how they can really
predict what it would be with the Field School addition to Polo Grounds Road. There really is not a
worse road where they could put an unknown but large entity. Regarding the one lane underpass if
they have not been through there lately he would challenge them to take a couple of trips through
there for a week He suggested that they make that their route. In addition, Route 29 at Forest Lakes
South at least once a week stops dead typically for something such as a fender bender. When that
happens everybody puts their traffic through Polo Grounds Road to get north of it when heading north
and the same can be said if they are heading south. Then the one lane underpass and the one lane
bridge on Profit gets backed up intermediately.
- Staff made a very appropriate recommendation. There just seems to be way too many unknown.
The building facility, as was admitted by the folks from Field School, is not what would be built. They
don’t know what that will be. He agreed with Ambass ador Howell on what they have seen in the past
as far as their goals for growth. Private schools are busy and he can speak to that from experience.
People are coming and going all day long. It is not just at 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. He would just ask the
Commission to honor the request and the recommendation of staff to deny the request for the special
use permit.
Michele Packard, a current parent of a Field School student and a community volunteer, asked to gi ve
some perspective on Field School. Field School is a socially economically diverse school. One of the
speakers alluded to the fact that it was not that. But, it very much is. Field School has a clear mission to
educate and develop well rounded boys of character and accomplishment. So what does that mean?
She noted her son is a student at Field School. Field School prides itself on excellence in learning,
character development, personal integrity, and in service not only to each other but to the comm unity.
Most of the activities that are driven by service are student lead. Doctor Barnett creates an environment
where the students take the initiative to give back to the community through the Blue Food Bank, the
Salvation Army Infantry as well as a pen pal program with one of our County elementary schools. Field
School’s education upholds the values of not only her family but the other families that attend the school.
She thinks that their principle of excellence is what makes Albemarle County, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and our nation a great place to live. She asks the Commission to assist them in continuing our
educational m ission as they seek a permanent home for our school. She seeks their support in this
application for the future support of Field School.
Fred Gercke said he lives in downtown Profit just off of Polo Grounds Road. He rarely goes across the
bridge on Profit Road. However, twice a day he goes down Polo Grounds Road coming and going to work
as many other people in this area. They need to keep in mind. In the years he had live out there he has
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
12
seen Polo Grounds Road go from a gravel road to a paved road. The parts of the road that have been
paved probably should have never been paved. He is sure Mr. DeNunzio would agree to th at in the area
around the underpass. He was glad to see Mr. Clark note the underpass. He was not as personally
concerned about 29 as he is about the underpass there. The majority of the traffic from the school will be
going to 29. But, the underpass there is just a disaster waiting to happen. With Powell Creek and the
flooding that happens periodically and the railroad and sight distances it is just a no win situation. This is
the fourth proposal he has seen for this parcel. This is a problematic par cel. It has been abused by its
present owner. Field School seems like a good school. He wished it had been around when his son was
going to school. Of the four proposals he remembers, with one predating the three that have been
mentioned in the staff report, this is the least objectionable probably as far as the community is
concerned. However, it is just the wrong place at the wrong time. Therefore, he would recommend that
the Commission deny the permit.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris asked if the applicant wanted to take advantage of the five minute rebuttal.
Kelly Strickland presented the following rebuttal.
- He noted in the last slide as a point of comparison the big problem with the traffic study, which was
causing the problems on the traffic light on 29, was the trip generation they were used was from an
elementary school. There is an elementary school across the road. He noted it was a typical day in
the middle of the day and they could tell the intensity of use by the amount of cars that are parked.
What they don’t see is behind the cafeteria at Crozet Elementary School there is another parking lot
back there. There are approximately three or maybe four times as many cars at Crozet Elementary
School. You can ask anybody in Crozet about when you drive out in the morning at 8:45 a.m., turn
and go to the four way stop sign underneath the railroad trestle, which is the direction of Field School,
you don’t go out to 250 because that is where the middle school and high school is. It takes 15 to 20
minutes to get through the traffic light on 250. He did not think there is a school in the County that
does not have some kind of traffic delays. So they are talking about a 30 second delay at an
intersection.
- He asked to go over a couple of other points that were made. The underpass at the railroad trestle is
a bad problem. However, they are not aware of traffic accidents and things that have caused it. In
meeting with the residents on three different occasions our general impression was that they liked the
underpass the way it was because it actually deters people from cutting through to Profit Road.
People know that railroad trestle is there and they have to come to a stop and go through. So they
tend to go up to Profit Road intersection and turn and not come through. So it slows them down yes,
but it is also a deterrent that keeps traffic off the road.
- Somebody talked about the dangers of walking and mobility. First of all Mr. Barnett can come up and
say he is not going to have kids running up or down the road or bicycles. The second thing is that
this site is in a critical location to connect a trail across the railroad trestle t hat would connect with the
Rivanna Trail System all the way up to the Hollymead Town Center and Forest Lakes. There is the
potential for this site to be able to provide this type of a trail connection right up into the Forest Lakes
neighborhood. That is not going to be the case with a by right development. There are a lot of things
with the school use that would be practical and work here. Finally, he pointed out that directly across
from Polo Grounds Road from our site is a 28 acre Albemarle County ele mentary school site. That is
what it was bought for and that is the intended use. To say that a school use is not practical on this
road is not really logical. Also, this road does serve a growth area
Todd Barnett agreed that they did hold three public meetings. He wished that they had been useful in
trying to persuade someone. He knows there are neighbors that wrote on their behalf that are not
present. But, he feels as if things he said in those meetings were used against us. That is disappointing.
The lucky privileged kid remark is not someone who understands our school. That is just not who they
are. As he said they spend less per student than Albemarle County Schools. He saw in an Albemarle
County School’s presentation recently that they were making an argument for increasing their budget and
they showed three levels. They showed Albemarle County, the City and a private school right up to
$24,000. They spend about a third per student as those others. That is because they take everybody
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
13
that comes to us whether they can afford it or not. They work it out with the parents. That is really
troubling to hear. This is not a lucky privileged school. It is a school where they are trying to do the right
thing. They have been doing that. If a person were interested in learning about the school they would
know that comment is not one that has anything to do with us. They will not contribute to MONU or
SOCCA practice. At Crozet School there are recreational activities that go on during the weeken d
evenings on their field. They share the field with Peachtree and SOCCA. They have never had a conflict
because they are there 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and none of their practices start until 5:00 or 5:30 p.m.
Remember they are not going to do this for six years. So when they asked about adaptive controls being
established he did not realistically think they would be able to raise money to do this for 5 or 6 years.
They were open to the 5 year vesting deadline because it is good to have deadlines because th ey tend to
get people motivated. He has been trying to raise money without any deadlines the last couple of years
with just a vague idea of a campus some day and they don’t get very far that way. However, they have a
deadline on this. Then they would have a deadline on raising money for the school. He did not see
where that money was coming from. So he can’t imagine that adaptive controls are not going to be in
place by that time. They would be happy to submit an annual traffic management plan. He h oped that
the record the school has had in other places shows that they are genuine about the things that they
commit to.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Barnett if they have a board and long range planning committee.
Mr. Barnett replied that their board itself is only five people and they have done the long range planning.
Mr. Randolph said when someone does long range planning normally they project what they look upon as
their future student population. He asked where the figure of 300 students came from because it had
been cited by several individuals.
Mr. Barnett replied that in the year 2000 he tried to start the school. He met with a number of people,
which included Lee Middleditch downtown at McGuire Woods. Mr. Middleditch said he should have a
business plan. Therefore, on his Field Camp site he wrote out a business plan. He did not know that
anyone could see it. It was a page that he was imagining putting up. He never started the school in
2000. He decided to do something else for five years since he felt like he needed to learn more. He
came back and campaigned for it in 2006 and started it in 2007. The same one being referred to had it
year by year. So in 2001 they were going to be at 30 students; 2002 they were going to be at 45 students
and adding 15 students per year. It was kind of dreamed up because someone suggested he needed a
business plan when he first started in 2000. It is tremendously difficult to do this. He was trying to put
this together. They fight for every student they can get. They really don’t want to go more than 120
students, but they are saying 150 because they would like to have some flexibility and not have to come
back. He had been told it was a good thing to have some flexibility in your plan. However, it has just
been quite different.
Mr. Randolph said again the question is there were two people who said there were some plans out there
that said 300 students. He was just trying to clarify for the Commission where this figure came from
because it is relevant as they look into the future if they permit the school here to be at 150 students and
some plan out there within the Field School culture is to move to 300 students they don’t need to come
back to us to go from 150 to 300.
Mr. Barnett asked if his explanation was adequate that he was a little naïve in the year 2000, which was 7
years before he actually got around to starting it. It was 13 years ago. It was not on his current website.
It was on his personal website. But, someone typed in Field School of Charlottesville. What they are not
telling the Commission is that the dates were there with a whole explanation of this is school he was
starting in the year 2000.
Mr. Franco asked if that was still his current plan.
Mr. Barnett replied that his current plan was to go to 120. However, they wanted some flexibility in the
request to go to 150.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
14
Mr. Morris invited further discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Smith said his only concern is the traffic.
Mr. Randolph agreed that his only concern is the traffic.
Mr. Franco commented that he thinks the school is a great use and it is a great school. He was not
worried about the aesthetics. He was not worried about the use, except for the fact that again a special
use permit would be granted for a private school on this property and the Field School could also become
some other school. It could become a St. Anne’s Upper School and all of a sudden the traffic conditions
change. He is concerned with the traffic as well.
Mr. Lafferty asked what the size of the school was that Albemarle County was thinking about putting on
the purchased land.
Mr. Benish replied the school site they have in Hollymead is a proffered site in North Point. This land was
bought to have as a potential for other public uses. To his knowledge it has not been determined.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that actually it was considered at the time that the Baker Butler School ended up
decided upon and located on Profit Road. It is a site that existed in the County’s ownership but it decided
instead to go with the Profit Road site for Baker Butler. He was not aware of any plans for this particular
site now.
Mr. Clark pointed out there was no specific designation for that property in the Places29 plan. It is shown
as institutional.
Ms. Monteith said she had the same approach that others do. She thinks the use and what he is doing is
excellent. She has some concerns about this particular site
Mr. Loach noted coming from Crozet he would say the Field School has been an excellent neighbor and
has been a definite asset to the community during the time they have been there. As far as the school
and its mission go in its impact on the community he can say nothing but good about them.
Mr. Morris commented that he had been impressed with the Field School ever since he heard about them
and the way they have reached out to the community has been extremely gifted. This use is what we
really want. However, traffic is a problem and is going to be a problem no matter what goes in that site. It
seems that if anything is going into the site Field School is what he would like to see in there.
Motion: Mr. Smith moved and Mr. Loach seconded for approval of SP-2013-00005 Field School of
Charlottesville with the conditions as stated in the staff report, as amended, for condition 11.
Mr. Morris invited discussion on the motion.
Mr. Kamptner noted that there were some conditions and modifications to the recommended conditions.
Mr. Morris pointed out that there were 11 conditions as opposed to 10.
Mr. Franco said he was trying to understand. They have expressed a concern about traffic. He asked
how that is mitigated. He can kind of accept the argument that fund raising and this use might not be
actually established for six years out. However, there is still no guarantee that the improvements to that
intersection will take place during that period of time.
Mr. Loach pointed out the mitigation that he heard was the school bus and there would be bus service.
They were going to comply with at least a 50 percent bus usage.
Mr. Morris agreed that was what he heard.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
15
Mr. Cilimberg noted that was not a condition.
Mr. Loach said what he heard from the applicant as far as mitigating the traffic was the use of their school
buses.
Mr. Franco said he could kind of accept that again for Field School. However, what they are approving is
a private school at that facility. So it could be a different school that ends up moving in there eventually
and so on. His long term concern remains. What they are responsible for is the land use. So despite the
fact that he supports Field School he had the long term concern with the land use.
Mr. Loach noted the special use permit is only for five years. He asked wasn’t there a limit.
Mr. Franco replied no, the use has to be established within five years. Once the use is established it is
good forever.
Mr. Franco said if there was some kind of limitation. Again, it was not a condition of this that the bus
service would serve the school.
Mr. Loach suggested adding a condition that any private school must have at least a 50 percent travel
rate by school bus.
Mr. Franco said he was not sure. If they say 50 percent they have cut it half arguably. He questioned
how that impacts the road. He still thinks there is an impact and without doing something to improve the
traffic at that intersection he finds it difficult to support it.
Mr. Smith said he would like to ask the applicant about his comment about the bus.
Mr. Barnett said that he happened to have driven shuttle buses to Ivy, Crozet, and Free Union over the
past 14 years with his camp and the school. When Mr. Clark brought this up he was hesitant to commit to
a number because he did not know what the number would be. He went back and looked at our ridership
year to year and it ranged between 55 and 70 percent. Right now in Ivy surprisingly it is 70 percent. They
think that would be better than it would be in Crozet. But, it was not necessarily better. It occurs to him
that the County does not commit to a certain ridership. However, the bus comes and people use the bus.
In our case it seems that 50 percent is a level they could commit to. He did want to make some kind of
clause so they could have school if bus did not come because it does break down from time to time.
Mr. Benish noted that he was not sure how enforceable that condition would be. It would be a difficult
condition to enforce.
Mr. Morris agreed that it was not enforceable.
Mr. Franco said typically they would try to deal with this in his world by design. Again, as a conceptual
drawing if there was limited parking then that would suggest that there would be limited ability to drive
there. The bus would have to be the service. He thinks they can work out some kind of plan, but it is
going to take a little bit of time to refine the details of what that is going to be. He n eeds to see something
that addresses the traffic impact.
Mr. Loach asked do they have levels of service at that intersection. They know the one at Route 20 was
a grade “F”.
Mr. Clark suggested that the Commission ask Mr. DeNunzio.
Joel DeNunzio, with VDOT, said he believed that more importantly than the level of service it was “D” in
both scenarios. It was the level of delay increase. He thinks Mr. Strickland had said 30 seconds. It does
look like it is from 51.7 to 83.6 seconds of average delay at the intersection westbound Polo Grounds
Road. They are both at the level of service “D”.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
16
Mr. Lafferty said they have heard about traffic on Polo Grounds Road many times at this committee. He
asked if there are any plans for VDOT to upgrade it or put in a right turn lane.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that VDOT does not have any plans on Polo Grounds Road now. The closest
project is the northern interchange of the Western Bypass that will take six lanes through and the
adaptive control system has just gotten approval for funding.
Mr. Lafferty said having read up on the adaptive control system he thinks it probably will improve that
intersection. He has sat here in these meetings and said look VDOT says that this intersection is okay
on these plans then said so why should we question it. Now VDOT is saying it is not okay on this
intersection. That causes him to pause. However, he thinks that the p rospect that they are going to put in
the adaptive control system will improve the intersection there.
Mr. DeNunzio said he would like to address that he said that VDOT said. He thinks that VDOT agrees
with Mr. Clark and the County staff. They reviewed the traffic study and provided comments. The
applicant has provided follow up comments to that. Normally in this process they get a traffic study and
they would work with the applicant to resolve those issues prior to coming to the Commission. They did
not have time in this case. They did not revise the study. When he reads the concerns here normally it
would have been and could have been addressed prior to coming to the Commission and presenting this
information. What they want to see happen is that the applicant, VDOT, and the County staff come with
agreement of what the impacts are going to be. It is not about what the mitigation to those impacts is. It
is what the impacts are. They have to agree on that. Any development is going to have impacts to traffic
signals. There is no doubt about that. They want to agree on the impacts and agree on what the
solutions might be. They did not get to the point. So when they see these comments i t is the unknown
that is the concern.
Mr. Loach asked how long that will take.
Mr. DeNunzio said he could go through each one of them. However, they have already replied. He has
spoken to the person who reviewed the site today and discussed all of these comments. It seems pretty
simple. One is about the trip generation. They never agreed on the trip generatio n. They use ITE
numbers for private or public school. There is a comment in here that he had suggested that they use
public school because of the busing because they thought it might be more appropriate. However, they
never agreed on those things necessarily. They went and counted their existing school, which was his
understanding, and they presented the traffic. One of the issues they have is they are unsure if they
agree with that data or not. They are not saying they don’t agree with the data, but they have some
concerns about how it was collected and want to verify that. They have not had an opportunity to verify
that and agree with the applicant on the data. They are not hard things to address, but it is just that they
have not been addressed yet.
Mr. Loach noted the reason he asked is that what they have done in the past at times is pass something
knowing that there would have to be data by the time it got to the Board of Supervisors when that data
would be resolved so the Board could look at i t. So essentially it is kind of a recommendation for
approval pending the data going there before the Board. That is why he is asking about the timing of it.
Ms. Monteith suggested also in that coordination, just following up on Mr. Franco’s comment, she asked
are you able to have discussions and look at the traffic counts, etc., but also have discussions around the
actual design of the facility. So if there were a limited number of parking places that would help address
the traffic count.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that VDOT would normally not get involved with the internal circulation or parking
on the facility.
Mr. Benish said staff could take those into consideration as they look at conditions of approval that will
address what impacts are agreed to. Again, he would reiterate what Mr. Clark said in his staff report that
our recommendation for denial is because they have an unknown about what the impact is. Once that
information is available the recommendation may change, but they do look at this as not just the Field
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
17
School but as a private school. Therefore, that becomes the issue as to what assumptions to make. One
assumption is more consistent for the Field School. But this use will be there in perpetuity once it is
established and so that becomes a debate about what is the right assumption to make in perpetuity to
assume what the impact is on this site.
Mr. Randolph said he thinks also to Mr. Loach’s point those issues were at a lower thresh whole of
implications to community and to traffic safety when they in the past had said let’s wait for the additional
information and then move it to the Board of Supervisors. This is a huge question mark that they don’t
have a resolution on and they don’t have adequate information. So he could not in good conscious move
this on to the Board of Supervisors and say here get the information in the meantime and you all decide.
He thinks they need to wait until they have an adequacy of information to make an informed decision.
Mr. Morris thanked Mr. DeNunzio for the information. The Commission has a motion on the table and a
second.
Mr. Franco said the only other question he would have is there seems to be faith that the adaptive system
will be in place. He asked if they would be comfortable making that a condition that the use could not be
established until that was put into place. Again, he would if that went in he would feel comfortable that it
will improve the traffic situation there. But, without some guarantee that will go into place he could not
support it.
Mr. Loach said they could make a condition based on the acceptable level of service. He would suggest
that there be some marker.
Mr. Franco said he could probably live with that. But, again he thinks that part of the challenge would be
that they have not agreed on what the impacts are yet. He did not believe that there has been a study
that tells us what the level of service is there now. They have not agreed upon the impacts yet. So there
still are some question marks. Some of that he could move forward with a condition that it is addressed
or that the adaptive system is in place before the use is established. However, he was not sure as an
applicant that he would want that as a condition.
Mr. Lafferty said he believed that the control s ystem will be going in pretty soon. They are talking about
the design process and everything else having to do that. They are giving them five years to do that. It
will certainly be in place before that time. Limiting the number of parking places he did not think will have
an effect because not too many fifth graders or eight graders drive cars to school.
Mr. Franco pointed out however if it did go to an upper school there may be more. If they are comfortable
that it is in place is that a reasonable condition to place on this.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the applicant would accept something like that.
Mr. Smith said he did not see how they could place that condition on the applicant because financially he
has to make plans and everything else. He did not see how they could do that because he would be up
in the air.
Mr. Loach noted that was what Mr. Franco said with the condition, but not one he would agree to.
Mr. Franco said it was not one he would agree to, but it protects that people on that road. If not, then he
remains like staff in the unknown.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Smith if he would accept that as a condition.
Mr. Smith said he would not accept that as a condition.
Mr. Morris called for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Randolph, Franco voted nay)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 16, 2013
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES – SP-2013-00005 FIELD SCHOOL OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
SUBMITTED TO BOS
18
Mr. Randolph voted nay because of the traffic impact.
Mr. Franco voted nay because he could not support this because of the traffic impacts.
Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for approval of SP-2013-00005 Field School of Charlottesville
would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors at a time to be determined with the conditions, as
amended.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Development of the use shall be in general accord with sheet C3 of the Conceptual Plan entitled
“Special Use Permit Application Plan for The Field School of Charlottesville” prepared by Shimp
Engineering, P.C., revision #2, dated 6/20/13, as determined by the Director of Planning and the
Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, the development and
use shall reflect the following major elements as shown on the Conceptual Plan:
• Locations of buildings and facilities within the indicated building envelopes
• Total building footprint of 30,000 square feet
• Maximum footprint of 12,000 square feet for any single building
• Retention of the existing house on the property
Minor modifications to the plan which are in general accord with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Modifications are to be conside red in
terms of minimizing or improving impacts on adjoining properties and roadways. Buildings and
parking may be developed in phases
2. The maximum enrollment shall be 150 students.
3. Classroom instruction shall not begin before 8:00 a.m. and shall not con tinue later than 5:00 p.m.
These hours shall not apply to sports events. Classes shall not be held on Saturday or Sunday.
4. Non-sporting school-related events shall with more than 50 attendees not occur more than 12
times per calendar year and attendance shall not exceed 200 persons. The facility shall not be
used for events not related to the school use.
5. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed entrance location
and design from the Virginia Department of Transportation.
6. No construction for the use shall begin without written approval of the proposed water -supply well
and septic facilities from the Virginia Department of Health.
7. Construction of the parking area shown as “Overflow Pervious Parking Area” shall not commence
without written approval of the proposed surface materials from the County Engineer.
8. No outdoor lighting of sports fields shall be installed for this use.
9. Any new 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 her designee for approval
10. A Phase I archaeological survey and any appropriate mitigation measures as approved by the
Planning Director shall be completed for areas to be graded for this use prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
11. The use shall commence on or before [date five years from Board approval] or the permit shall
expire and be of no effect.
Mr. Loach said as a follow up he would like to see the conclusion of the data Mr. DeNunzio talked about
available for the Board of Supervisors if that is possible by the date.
Mr. Clark said staff will need to work with the applicant to get as much information as they can before it
goes to the Board.
Return to PC actions letter