HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-06-12
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FIN A L
JULY 12, 2006
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
5:30 O.m. - Tour of Auditorium
1 . Call to Order.
2. Recess.
6:00 O.m. - Meetina Room 241
3. Call to Order.
4. Pledge of Allegiance.
5. Moment of Silence.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next page).
8. Recogn itions:
a. Richard "Jake" Washburne, Registrar
b. Yordanka Slavova, Intern from Bulgaria
9. Public Hearing: Polling Place Ordinance Amendment (Northside Precinct Polling Place Change).
10. SP-2006-005. Damon or Nadeida Galeassi (Sians # 32,44), Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Home
Occupation 'Class B': roofing business; one shed 1 0'x15'; parking two pickup trucks and one small dump truck;
helpers off site. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA--Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: Section 10.2.2.31 Home Occupation 'Class B'; 5.2 Home
Occupations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/acre). LOCATION: 5066 Giannini
Lane, Schuyler. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: TM 126 Parcel 31H5. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville.
11. SP-2006-006. Mount Calvary Baotist Church (Sian # 54). Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Construction, new
church building. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); VR Village Residential. SECTION: Section 12.2.2.15. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre). LOCATION: 3045 Morgantown Road, Charlottesville. TAX
MAP/ PARCEL: TM 58A1 Parcel 20. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
12. SP-2005-008. Tortilleria Y Panaderia La Michoacana (Sian #31). Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Home
Occupation Class B for catering business. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: VR--Village Residential; EC
Entrance Corridor Overlay. SECTION: Section 10.2.2.31 Home Occupations Class B. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area. LOCATION: 3808 Monacan Trail (Rt 29), south of intersection of Monacan Trail
and Plank Rd (Rt 712/Rt 692). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM 99, Parcel 27 A 1, contains 2.007 acres. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
13. SP-2006-010. Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment (Sian #11). Public Hearing on PROPOSED:
Amendment of Special Use Permit to allow for revisions to approved concept plan. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 Residential (4 units/acre). SECTION: 15.2.2.5 which allows for private
schools in R-4 residential by special use permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density
Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools,
commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood Two. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 734 Rio
Road, near the intersection of Penn Park Road and Rio Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcel 17.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
14. Rivanna River Basin Commission Presentation, Ridge Schuyler.
15. Appointments: Eastern Connector Alignment Study.
16. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
17. Adjourn to August 1, 2006, 6:00 p.m., Burley Middle School Auditorium.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
7.1 Amendment of Commission on Children and Families Agreement.
7.2 JAUNT Funding Request.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.3 Copy of Application of Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. for Approval of a Performance Based Rate Regulation
Methodology Pursuant to Va. Code ~ 56-235.6, State Corporation Commission No: PUE-2005-00098 and
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex reI., State Corporation Commission Ex Parle, In Re: Investigation of the Justness
and Reasonableness of Current Rates, Charges, and Terms and Conditions of Service, State Corporation
Commission Case No.: PUE-2005-00100.
.
\
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 12, 2006
July 17, 2006
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to Order. The Board members met in the
Auditorium to review the reconstruction taking
place, There was not a quorum of the Board until
about 5:45 p.m. and no discussion took place as a
Board.
3. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at
6:10 p.m. by the Chainnan, Mr. Rooker, because of
a power outage in the building. All BOS members
were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, Diane Mullins and Meaaan Hoy.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Usted on the Agenda
. Brooks Marshall spoke conceming family
subdivision rights and VDOT requirements for
an entrance.
7.1 Amendment of Commission on Children and
Families Agreement.
. APPROVED
. Mr. Boyd again requested a matrix showing all Roxanne White: Proceed as directed.
agencies and programs supported by CCF to
determine if there is an overlap in funding for
these programs.
7.2 JAUNT Funding Request. OMB: Prepare appropriation fonn for Board
. APPROVED staffs recommendation to approval.
approve an additional one-time amount of
$11,350 for FY '07 from the Board's Reserve
Fund,
8. Recognitions.
. Richard -Jake" Washbume, newly employed
Registrar was present with Will Harvey,
Chainnan ofthe Electoral Board.
. Yordanka Slavova and Nina Yordanova, intems
from Bulgaria who are working for the County
and the City this summer, were introduced. Ms.
Slavova offered to share a CD with more
detailed infonnation on her native city with the
BOS.
9. Polling Place Ordinance Amendment. Clerk: Forward Certified Copy to County
. ADOPTED Ordinance to establish Northside Attomey and Registrar. (Attachment 1)
Precinct Pollina Place.
10. SP-2006-005. Damon or Nadeida Galeassi. Clerk: Forward conditions of approval to
APPROVED with the six conditions recommended Planning staff. (Attachment 2)
bv the Planning Commission, Vote: 6:0
11. SP-2006-006. Mount Calvarv BaDtist Church. Clerk: Forward conditions of approval to
APPROVED with the eight conditions Planning staff, (Attachment 3)
recommended by the Planning Commission. Vote
6:0
12. SP-2005-008. Tortilleria Y Panaderia La Clerk: Forward conditions of approval to
Michoacana. APPROVED subject to nine Planning staff. (Attachment 4)
conditions. Vote 5:1
13. SP-2006.o10. Charlottesville Waldorf School Cle..rk; Forward conditions of approval to
1
.
Amendment, APPROVED subject to the 13 Planning staff, (Attachment 5)
conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission. Vote 6:0.
14. Rivanna River Basin Commission. Clerk: Forward signed copy of adopted
ADOPTED a resolution agreeing to becoming a resolution to Mr. Ridge Schuyler. (Attachment
member of and participating in the Rivanna River 6)
Basin Commission.
15. Eastern Connector Alignment Study. Clerk: Proceed as directed.
APPOINTED Mr. Ken C. Boyd to be a member of
the project steering committee.
. Staff is to advertise for a citizen representative
to the project steering committee.
. The Board agreed that the Planning
Commission will appoint their representative to
the project steering committee.
. The Board agreed that Juandiego Wade and
Mark Graham as staff representatives to the
project steering committee are appropriate.
16. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
. David Wvant: Asked that the Crozet Advisory
Committee be reminded of the charge given
them by the Board.
. SallY Thomas: Mentioned a group called Clerk: Schedule on a future agenda.
Creciendo Juntas (translated as -Growing
Together") and requested the Board schedule
time on a future agenda for a discussion on
how County staff may best communicate with
and serve citizens in the Latino community.
. Ms. Thomas mentioned the matter brought up
by Mr. Marshall at the beginning of the meeting
regarding VDOT's requirements for an entrance
pennit where there are family subdivision rights
involved. Mr. Davis said the County has no
authority in this matter; these are VDOT
requirements.
. Ken Boyd: Mentioned infrastructure Steve Allshouse: Proceed as directed.
improvements in the Crozet Community and
wondered if there is a way to distribute these
costs to each new home built (basically
countywide). He suggested the Fiscal Impact
Committee look at this issue. Ms. Thomas said
the cost of water and transportationltransit
should be included in this discussion.
. Mr. Boyd mentioned the Meadow Creek
Parkway. He said there are some private
developers who are interested in bringing
forward a proposal for development in an area
along Rio Road and they said they would build
a large section of the Parkway which could
amount to as much as $8.0 million. The subject
was discussed at length, however, there was
no action taken.
. David Slutzky mentioned the conflict with
meetings scheduled for August 1 and August 3
with the Planning Commission and the
Albemar1e County Fair. Mr. Tucker said staff
2
,
will man a booth at the Fair so the public will
have an opportunity to give comments on the
Mountain Overtay District and the Phasing and
Clustering Ordinances.
. Mr. Slutzky asked if any Board member has a
concem about the MPO moving forward with
the idea of fonning a joint transit authority.
. Bob Tucker introduced Mark Graham to talk Mr. Graham: Proceed as directed.
about a pilot program as it relates to expediting
engineering review on subdivision and site
plans only. There was a lengthy discussion of
the request. Mr. Rooker asked what other
localities are doing in this respect and said he
would like to see the minutes of the Planning
Commission on this subject, No action was
taken; this was referred to the Development
Review Task Force for further study.
17. Adjourned.
. At 10:06 p,m. this meeting was adjoumed until
August 1, 2006, at 6:00 p,m. in the Burley
Middle School Auditorium for a joint meeting
with the Planning Commission to take
comments on the proposed Mountain Overtay
District.
Idbm
Attachment 1 - Ordinance No. 06-2(2) an ordinance to amend chapter 2, Elections
Attachment 2 - SP-2006-00S, Galeassi, Conditions of approval
Attachment 3 - SP-2006-006, Mount Calvary, Conditions of approval
Attachment 4 - SP-2005-008, La Michoacana, Conditions of approval
Attachment S - SP-2006-010, Waldorf School, Conditions of approval
Attachment 6 - Resolution-Rivanna River Basin commission
3
,
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. 06-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemar1e, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration,
Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork Rivanna River and its
intersection with the northeastern limits of the City of Charlottesville; then meandering north and west along the South
Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then northeast along Seminole Trail to its
intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering along the North Fork Riyanna River northwest to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to its intersection with
Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville Road to Its Intersection with Buck Mountain Road
(State Route 663); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to Its intersection with Buck Mountain
Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 66S); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 66S) to its intersection with
Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south along Bleak House Road to Its Intersection with Reas Ford Road
(State Route 660); then south along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Ear1ysville Road (State Route 743);
then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route 743); then southwest along
Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with
Greenbrier Drive; then east on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U,S. Route 29); then south on
Seminole Trail to its intersection with the northern limits of the City of Charlottesville; then following the limits of the
City of Char10ttesville east to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (S) voting precincts, as described herein:
1, Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Beginning at Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29) and its intersection with
Greenbrier Drive; then northeast along Seminole Trail to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering west and south along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Ear1ysville Road (State Route
743); then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route 743); then southwest along
Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with
Greenbrier Drive; then east along Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail, the point of origin.
2. Branch/ands Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of Charlottesville and its
intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on Rio Road
East to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to the northern city limits of
Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its Intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-way and Rio Road
East, the point of origin.
4
.
3. Dun/ora Precinct: Beginning at Rio Road East (State Route 631) at its intersection with the
Southern Railroad right-of way; then northeast along the Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the
South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with the
Charlottesville City limits; then following northwest along the Charlottesville City limits to the intersection with Rio Road
East and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the point of origin.
4. Northside Precinct: Beginning at the Intersection of Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29) and the
South Fork Rivanna River; then northeast on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then
meandering northwest to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to
its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville Road to its intersection with
Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664)
to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road (State
Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south along Bleak House Road to its
intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then South along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the
South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering eastward to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29), the point
of origin.
5. Woodbrook Precinct: Beginning at the northem city limits of Charlottesville and its intersection
with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with the South
Fork Riyanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to its
intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631); then southeast on Rio Road East to its intersection with the
Southem Railroad right-of-way and the northern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of origin.
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the location identified below:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, 3201 Berkmar Drive.
2. Branch/ands Precinct: Senior Center, 674 HiIIsdale Drive.
3. Dun/ora Precinct: Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center, 1000 East Rio Road.
4. Northside Precinct: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station, 283 Reas Ford Road,
5. Woodbrook Precinct: Wood brook Elementary School, 100 Woodbrook Drive.
(8-19-71, i 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, i 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1),1-11-95; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98, i 2-100(1), i 2-
101; Ord. 01-2(1),5-9-01; Ord. 06-2(2), 7-12-06)
5
ATTACHMENT 2
SP-2006-005. Damon or Nadeida Galeassi (Sions # 3a.44). Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Home
Occupation 'Class B': roofing business; one shed 1 0'x15'; parking two pickup trucks and one small dump truck;
helpers off site. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA-Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre). SECTION: Section 10.2.2.31 Home Occupation 'Class B'; 5.2 Home
Occupations. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USElDENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources! density (0.5 unit/acre).
LOCATION: 5066 Giannini Lane, Schuyler. TAX MAP/ PARCEL: TM 126 Parcel 31H5. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
1. Special Use Permit 2006-05 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled .Plan
'B'" amended by Damon Galeassi in April of 2006 (Attachment A.) However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance;
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 10' x 15';
3. Employees shall not report to this property for work assignments, equipment, or materials;
4. All materials associated with this home occupation shall be stored in the proposed shed;
5. No deliveries of materials associated with this home occupation shall be made to this site;
6. Vehides parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to two pickup trucks
and one small dump truck.
6
ATTACHMENT 3
SP-2006-006. Mount Calvarv BaDtist Church (Sian t# 64). Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Construction, new
church building. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery
uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre); VR Village Residential. SECTION: Section 12.2.2.15. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USElDENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural,
historic and scenic resources! density (0.5 unit/ acre). LOCATION: 3045 Morgantown Road, Char1ottesville. TAX
MAP/ PARCEL: TM 58A 1 Parcel 20. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
1. Special Use Pennit 2006-06 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan dated May
31, 2006, prepared by Dex Sanders, architect, and titled -Masterplan Mount Calvary Baptist Church-
(Attachment F.) Important elements ofthe concept plan include the following:
. The church shall be located as close to Route 738 as possible to maintain the overall hierarchy of
buildings along Morgantown Road and their placement related to one another and to the street;
. To protect the adjacent dwelling to the east, no parking shall be located in the area labeled mixed
trees and shrubs adjacent to the dwelling on the east side of the church property;
2. The ingress/egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) shall be consolidated into a single entrance
that meets VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street requirements;
3. A 12' wide by 48' long right-tum taper shall be constructed for access to the entrance from eastbound
Morgantown Road;
4. Two, 10 foot, one-way travel lanes shall be required to access the parking area to the south of the
new cemetery. In order to reduce as much as possible the amount of retaining wall needed, the
specific length of these travel ways, their configuration, and the arrangement of the parking area shall
be determined at final site plan review;
5. The existing 1890's church building shall be documented using the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historical Documentation prior to any disturbance of the site. Copies of the
documentation of the building shall be provided to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and
the Albemarte County Historic Preservation Planner;
6. Pennanent fencing shall be installed on the portion of the perimeter of the cemetery known as the
'Cooper Family Cemetery' that is located on the property known as Tax Map 58A(1) Parcel 20. The
location and extent of the boundary of the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' (labeled 'Old Cemetery' on the
concept plan) on Parcel 58A 1-20 shall be located in the field and fencing shall be fully installed as
approved by the Director of Planning direction before any site disturbance occurs;
7. Any area of platted cemetery that is proposed to be used as parking area shall be fonnally
abandoned prior to site plan approval;
8. Construction of the church as shown on the concept plan shall commence within five years of the
date of approval of this special use permit or it shall expire.
7
ATTACHMENT 4
SP-2005-008. Tortilleria Y Panaderia La Michoacana (Sian #31), Public Hearing on PROPOSED: Home
Occupation Class B for catering business. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: VR--Village Residential;
EC Entrance Corridor Overlay. SECTION: Section 10.2.2.31 Home Occupations Class B. COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN LAND USElDENSITY: Rural Area. LOCATION: 3808 Monacan Trail (Rt 29), south of intersection of
Monacan Trail and Plank Rd (Rt 712/Rt 692). TAX MAPIPARCEL: TM 99, Parcel 27A1 , contains 2.007 acres.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller.
1. Special Use Pennit 2005-08 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled 'Gaona
Home Occupation' (Attachment A, reference Condition #7.) and dated June 8, 2006, However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance;
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 18' x 20';
3. The entrance from Route 29 South shall meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private
street requirements;
4. No more than two employees other than persons living on the property are pennitted to come to this
site for any work-related purpose;
5, The hours of operation of this home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 am until 6:00 pm.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to one panel truck and
one trailer,
7, The applicant shall plant and maintain a 100' long continuous buffer adjacent to the southern parcel
boundary. The buffer shall begin 15' from the westemmost trunks of the existing cluster of large
deciduous trees located at the intersection of parcels 27A1, 27A2, and Route 29 South, The plants
comprising the buffer shall be evergreen trees or large shrubs (6' tall minimum upon planting; 8'
minimum mature height); mixed species or a monoculture. The trees/shrubs shall be planted a
minimum of 8' on center for the continuous 100' length. Suggested species include: Juniperus
virginiana (Virginia red cedar) and lIex opaca (American holly). The approximate location of the
buffer is indicated on the concept plan (Attachment A.);
8. There shall be no delivery of food products or business materials on site; and
9. There shall be no on-site sales of food products.
(NOTE: Mr. Cilimberg noted that Attachment -A- said -Ref. Condition 'If' and did not have the number -7" after
it. It has been marked on the copy in the staff report in the Board's Office.)
8
.
ATTACHMENT 5
SP-2oo6-010. Chartottesville Waldorf School Amendment 'Sian #11 }. Public Hearing on PROPOSED:
Amendment of Special Use Permit to allow for revisions to approved concept plan. ZONING
CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 Residential (4 units/acre). SECTION: 15.2.2.5 which allows for private
schools In R-4 residential by special use permit. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USElDENSITY: Urban
Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions,
schools, commercial, office and service uses in Neighborhood Two. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: 734 Rio Road, near the Intersection of Penn Park Road and Rio Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax
Map 61, Parcel 17 . MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
1. Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three hundred fifty (350) students, with a
maximum of 40 staff. Any Increase to enrollment or staffing shall require amendment of this special pennit;
2. Nonnal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, with occasional uses
in the evenings and weekend;
3. The approved final site plan shall be In general accord with Drawing 3 titled -Amendment to SP 2001-
040", dated May 24, 2006, hereinafter, the -Concept Plan" and shall reflect all required pedestrian and road
connections to adjacent properties;
4. A building setback and tree screening buffer to the satisfaction of the agent shall be maintained adjacent to the
Village Square residential development to the south and adjacent to Tax Map 61, Parcel 171 , as shown on the
Concept Plan;
5. The school shall be operated in general accord with the Special Use Permit Application and Justification (SP
2001-040) submitted August 27, 2001 and the Site Development Strategy Narrative submitted via facsimile
December 18, 2001; and the stand-alone parking Special Use Permit Application and Justification submitted
March 20, 2003 for SP 2003-029;
6. If it is detennined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel access as shown on the concept
plan and labeled -Proposed Road Easement", the owner shall make the reserved vehicular connection
available for such use. This reservation may be relocated or modified so long as it is in general accord with the
Concept Plan;
7. If it is determined by the County that altemate access connections are necessary for the properties adjacent to
the school's main access road, the owner shall construct vehicular access from this parcel to the property line
of Tax Map 61, Parcels 173A and 174 in an appropriate location and manner to be detennined in conjunction
with the County's review and approval of the site plan for the school, so as not to conflict with access to the
private school;
8. A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to the south of the school property as
shown on SDP-2003-097;
9. As a condition of tinal site plan approval, the owner shall dedicate to Albemar1e County are for a greenway
along Meadow Creek at the western boundary of the parcel as delineated on the Concept Plan;
10. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or other undisturbed areas
identified on the conceptual master plan of the original SP 2001-040 shall occur as a result of site
development other than development of a pedestrian access to the greenway. As a condition of final site plan
approval, the owner shall submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the Zoning Administrator, addressing
in detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be preserved, clearing and Iimbing
policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and shrubs (if any), and related issues. Screening
consisting of an opaque fence and landscaping shall be installed along the shared boundary between Parcels
170 and 172A where deemed necessary by the agent for screening;
11. As a condition of tinal site plan approval, the area necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio Road shall be
identified and right-of-way dedicated;
12. No structure, parking, or loading shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential district. This 20-
foot setback shall also include an undisturbed buffer, subject to Section 21.7.3;
13. Future amendments to this special use permit shall be evaluated for confonnity with the Jones and Jones
study (Final Report dated May, 2001) for relationships of building placement and their relationship with open
space.
9
.
,
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION
Rivanna River Basin Commission
WHEREAS the majority of Albemarte County (67.9%) lies in the Rivanna Riverwatershed; and
WHEREAS the Albemarte County Board of Supervisors has recognized in its Comprehensive Plan that -[p]rotection of
water resources is essential to Albemarle County and Virginia in general;. and
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Plan provides as one of its Principles that 1w]ater resources do not follow
jurisdictional boundaries. and that -Albemarle County is connected hydrologically (through surface water and
groundwater) to the City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Fluvanna County, Nelson County, Louisa County,
Orange County, and the rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;" and
WHEREAS the statute authorizing the creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission establishes a framework that
will allow the COunty of Albemarte to work across jurisdictional boundaries to advance its goals for protecting
water resources as set forth in its Comprehensive Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOlVED that the Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction hereby agrees to become a
member of and participate in the Rivanna River Basin Commission as described in Chapter 5.6 (f62.1-69.45
et seq.) of Title 62.1 of the Code of Virginia.
-
I, Diane B. Mullins, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarte County by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
July 12, 2006.
Acting Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
AD tw
Mr. Boyd :r: -
Mr. Dorrier :r: -
Mr. Rooker :r: -
Mr. Slutzky :r: -
Ms. Thomas :r: -
Mr. Wyant :r: -
10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Amendment of Commission on Children and July 12, 2006
Families Agreement
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSALlREQU EST:
Request approval to amend membership of the CONSENT AGENDA:
Commission on Children and Families ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Tucker, White, Davis, Ellis ATTACHMENTS: No ~~
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
REVIEWED BY: r
BACKGROUND:
Beginning in 2005, the Executive and Redesign Committee of the Commission on Children and Families embarked on a
planning and research project to determine how the Commission could address organizational challenges and become
more effective in improving outcomes for local children and families. The Report's findings come from a historic review of
CCF documents, interviews, discussions with stakeholders and a review of similar organizations identified as among the
best in the country.
From this research, three major goals were identified:
. Goal 1. Increase Impact: Place children and their families at the forefront of the localities planning and investment
agendas;
. Goal 2: Build Capacity: Increase the resources available to the Charlottesville/Albemarle community to understand
and meet the current and emerging needs of children and their families;
. Goal 3: Improve Efficiency: Restructure the composition of the CCF to focus member's attention on the research,
planning, coordination and community problem solving necessary for preventing risk factors and addressing
children and family needs.
Under this last goal, one of the strategies to improve efficiency was: Revise charter and membership to more accurately
reflect and address CCF's core purpose of improving outcomes for children and their families.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
To Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle Citizens
DISCUSSION:
To strengthen CCF's efficiency and effectiveness, the Commission recommends adding the Chiefs of Police and Director's
of Parks and Recreation from both the City and County as members of the Commission. In addition, the Commission is also
requesting the addition of an elected School Board member from each jurisdiction, those members to be nominated by their
respective School Boards, and appointed by the respective locality.
The addition of the Police Chiefs and the Directors of Parks and Recreation will increase the capacity of the Commission to
address children and youth issues on a broader or more systemic scale. Both of these functional areas are directly impacted
by youth and youth activities and need to be at the table when the Commission brings the community together to address
community wide issues, such as teen violence, increased gang activity, after school activities for youth, domestic violence,
child abuse, etc. The emphasis on prevention strategies to overcome or lessen at-risk youth behaviors in the community
also requires the input from both of these major functional areas of public safety and recreation.
I I
AGENDA TITLE:
Commission on Children and Families Additional Members
July 12, 2006
Page 2
The Commission also feels that the addition of a School Board member from each jurisdiction will increase the knowledge
and involvement of both school divisions, who have perhaps the greatest impact on and contact with our children, youth and
their families. Coordination between the school divisions and community agencies and programs is critically important to
the success of any community prevention and early intervention strategy for improving the health and safety of our children.
Both Police Chiefs and Directors of Parks and Recreation have agreed to serve if appointed. Both School Divisions have
been notified of this pending recommendation and will follow with a nomination of one of their members to the Commission.
There are several other minor recommended changes to the approved agreement:
1. Revise the agreement to allow the three (3) non-voting members, i.e. representatives of the County Executive's
Office and the City Manager's Office and the United Way Director, to be voting members.
2. Delete the sections of the agreement that were required by state grant funding requirements. There are several
sections of the original agreement and the subsequent amendments that addressed specific requirements set out
by the Virginia Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act Grant. Since the state no longer provides any
funding assistance, the Commission does not need to conform to their requirements, most of which centered on
requiring a majority of citizen members on the Commission and having agency members be appointed by name,
not position.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman of the Board to execute the attached Agreement to replace the
existing Agreement regarding the Commission on Children and Families.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Revised CCF City County Agreement
06.085
Attachment A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY COUNCIL ON
THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (the "Countv") and the Charlottesville City
Council (the "Citv") agree to join together to form the Commission on Children and Families
(the "Commission") whose sole responsibility shall be to plan, coordinate, monitor and
evaluate a community wide system of children and family agencies. The intended goal of
the Commission is to improve services to children, youth and families, to be accountable
for the efficient use of public/private resources and to be responsive to the changing needs
of the community. In doing so, we agree to the following:
1 ) With respect to the STRUCTURE OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County
agree that:
a) The Commission shall consist of nineteen twentv-eiaht voting members. A
m~jority of the bo~rd Gh~1I be citizens who ~re not employed by government
or service ~goncies ~nd 'Nho ~re not elected government offici~ls. Eleven of
the voting members shall be citizen representatives ("Citizen Members"): five
appointed by the County, five appointed by the City and one jointly appointed
private service provider. Of the eleven citizen members, at least one
appointee from each jurisdiction must be a parent, and at least one
appointee from each jurisdiction must be a youth under the age of eighteen
years at the time his or her appointment takes effect. ~ Fourteen of the
voting members shall be as follows ("Agency Members"): the School Division
Superintendent ef.tRe Ch~rlottesville City School division; the Superintendent
of the I\lbem~rle County School di'Jision; from both the Citv and the Countv:
one elected School Board member from both the Citv and the Countv: the
Director of the Ch~rlottesville Department of Social Services from both the
Citv and the County; the Chief of Police from both the Citv and the Countv:
the Director of Parks and Recreation from both the Citv and the Countv: the
Director of the Sixteenth District Court Services Unit; the Director of the
Thomas Jefferson Health District; the Director of Region Ten Community
Services Board; two Parks ~nd Recreation Directors; and a representative of
the University ofVirginia~. In addition to the seventeen voting members, the
Commission sh~1I include three non voting members, an Albemarle Assistant
County Executive; a Charlottesville Assistant City Manager; and the
President of the United Way - Thomas Jefferson Area,
b) Terms of Appointment. Each voting Citizen Memberofthe Commission shall
be appointed for a term that shall expire three years from the first day of July
of the year of appointment, except the youth Citizen Members shall be
appointed for a term that shall expire one year from the first day of July of the
year of appointment. With the exception of the private service provider
representative, each voting Citizen Member shall be eligible for
reappointment to one additional term of the same length as the initial
appointment. The private service provider shall not be eligible for
reappointment to a second term. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any voting
Citizen Member, including the private service provider, who is initially
1
Attachment A
appointed to fill a vacancy, may serve an additional successive term.
Appointment shall be staggered for continuity, Each voting Agency Member
of the Commission shall serve for as lona as thev hold their oublic office or
until reolaced bv the aooointina authoritv be appointed f-or a term that 'NiII
expire five ye3rE from the first d3Y of July of the year of 3ppointment. E3ch
voting Agency Member shall be eligible for re3ppointment to one or more
successive terms.
c) Manner of Appointments. Each 3ppointment, whether for voting or non
voting positions, sh311 be m3de by h3ving the The City Council and/or County
B03rd of Supervisors (as may be 3pplicable) name shall aoooint the specific
individuals reoresentina that localitv who will serve on the Commission,
unless the member is solelv desianated bv his oosition or office. and by
identifying the date upon which that individual's appointed term will expire.Jf
aoolicable. No title, position or 3gency sh311 be 3ppointed to the
Commission. The reoresentative of the Universitv of Virainia will be iointly
aooointed bv the Citv and the Countv.
2) With respect to the RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the
County agree that the Commission shall:
a) Adhere to the responsibilities of the Community Policy and Management
Team set forth in the Virginia Code Ch3pter 880, Section 2.1 715 2,2-5200
et seq.;
b) Provide comprehensive short and long range planning for children and family
services within the Charlottesville/Albemarle community;
c) Make program and funding recommendations to the City and County
governing bodies within the budgetary procedures and guidelines set by
each jurisdiction;
d) Review and evaluate current service delivery systems to ensure that the
needs of children and families are being met effectively and efficiently;
e) Identify and encourage new and innovative approaches to program
development for children and families;
f) Identify additional public and private funding sources for children and youth
programs;
g) Participate in the yearly evaluation of the director of Commission staff;
h) Provide structured opportunities for community input and participation on the
needs of families, e,g. public hearings workshops focus groups and work
teams;
i) Provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors and City Council to
insure that the County and City are in agreement with the policy and direction
set by the Commission.
3) With respect to STAFFING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County agree
that: I
2 I
Attachment A
a) Staff will be hired, supervised and evaluated as mutually agreed upon by the
City and the County with assistance and input from the Commission;
b) Staff will be employees of the City of Charlottesville subject to all personnel
policies and entitled to all its benefits;
4) With respect to FUNDING OF THE COMMISSION, the City and the County intend
to:
a) Provide an annual contribution as mutually agreed upon for the operation of
the Commission;
bt-- Provide the local match required by the Virginb Delinquency Prevention and
Youth Development Act Grant Programs and adhere to the minimum
st3ndards setout in the Virginia Code Ch3pter Title Section subject to 3nnu31
3pproprbtion;
611) Direct the Commission on Children and Families to actively seek funding for
children and family projects from other sources, including public and private
grants, local service groups and the business community;
Gg) Pool all Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) administrative funds for the
operations of the Commission. Each jurisdiction will continue to provide the
required matching funds for CSA services according to the state formula
subject to annual appropriation;
eg) The City of Charlottesville will provide fiscal and legal services to the
Commission for an administrative fee equal to two percent (2%) of the
Commission's operating budget.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
BY:
CHAIRMAN
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILE
BY:
MAYOR
Approved as to form:
County Attorney
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
JAUNT Projected Funding Shortfall, FY 2006-07 July 12, 2006
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: ACTION: INFORMATION:
Approve $11,350 to fund shortfall in JAUNT budget
due to a State reduction in JAUNT's FY2006-07 CONSENT AGENDA:
budget allocation. ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S): //'
Messrs.: Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Benish, Wade
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY: (
BACKGROUND:
JAUNT has informed the County that its State funding allocation for FY 2006-07 has been reduced by nearly $27,000
(Attachment A). This reduction will result in an $11,350 shortfall in funding for service in Albemarle County. The Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation imposed the reduction on all public transportation providers based on a State
mandated formula used to derive the transportation budget for the upcoming year. Due to the budget impasse at the
General Assembly, The Commonwealth Transportation Board was required to adopt a FY07 transportation budget for
localities based on the November 2005 estimated revenues from the Department of Taxation. JAUNT is requesting
direction from the Board on how to best address this shortfall of funding for County Service
STRATEGIC PLAN:
3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
DISCUSSION:
JAUNT has provided two options for addressing the shortfall in the attached letter: 1) eliminate the Sunday service and the
twice-weekly Covesville route; or 2) turn down eight requests for service each day. The Executive Director of JAUNT
believes the first option of eliminating the Sunday service and the twice-weekly Covesville route is the only viable option for
JAUNT to address this shortage. It is her opinion that the second option of turning down requests for service would be in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Neither Sunday service nor the Covesville route are mandated by the
Americans with Disability Act (ADA). JAUNT has also indicated that they have made other budget reductions to address
this shortage, but feel that further cuts would affect their ability to provide core services. Also, while raising rural fairs is a
possibility, they don't consider it a viable option. As the enclosed letter indicates, requests for additional funds have also
been made to the other localities they serve.
The first option has two parts - the Sunday service and the Covesville route. Every Sunday JAUNT provides transportation
for approximately 20 to 25 Albemarle residents with disabilities. About half of these trips are to church, nearly half are for
work, and the rest include things such as nursing home visits and grocery shopping. Most live in the urban area (some in
nursing homes), but JAUNT also has a few additional rural riders each week. The Covesville twice a week route averages
about 17 riders a month. Most of the riders of the Sunday service and the Covesville route are regular users and are
dependent on JAUNT for their transportation needs.
Staff believes that both options proposed by JAUNT for addressing the budget shortfall would negatively impact some of
the County's most at risk citizens. Therefore, staff recommends that the County fund the shortfall this year, but re-evaluate
this issue and services levels during the upcoming budget process to determine if additional funding should be continued in
subsequent fiscal years. If the shortfall cannot be funded, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors advise JAUNT
to pursue other options to offset the $11,350 shortfall.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This request will have an $11,350 impact on the budget.
I
AGENDA TITLE:
JAUNT Projected Funding Shortfall, FY 2006-07
July 12, 2006
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve an additional one time amount of $11 ,350 for FY 07 from the
Board reserve.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Letter from JAUNT Executive Director to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
06.098
I
Attachment A
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Albemarle County Executive
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902 June 5,2006
Dear Bob,
We have just been informed that, as a result of the budget standoff, our state
allocation for FY07 will be reduced by nearly $27,000. JAUNT cannot absorb this shortfall and we
have prepared alternatives for each locality so that each local government can make a choice
about services and funding.
In Albemarle, we will be short $11,350. This shortfall could be made up by 1) eliminating
the Sunday service and the twice-weekly Covesville route or 2) by turning down eight requests for
service each day. As you know, Sunday service is the only service JAUNT provides that is not
mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Having a plan to turn down requests for service
will be a violation of this federal mandate.
I am very sorry to bring this to your attention with so little notice, but we were blind-sided by
this news ourselves. Please let me know if you would like further information or would like to
discuss other options.
Sincerely,
Donna Shaunesey
Executive Director
cc: Juandiego Wade
Clifford Buys
Carolyn Fowler
Ray East
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARlE David L. Slutzky
Rivanna Rio
Undsay G. Donier, Jr. Office of Board of Supervisors Sally H. Thomas
Scot1sville 401 Mcintire Road Samuel Miller
Dennis S. Rooker Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 David C. Wyant
Jack Jouett (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 WhtteHaIl
July 18, 2006
Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director
Jefferson Area United Transportation
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, V A 22902-6200
RE: JAUNT Funding Request
Dear Ms. Shaunesey:
At its meeting on July 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved staff's recommendation for an
additional one-time amount of $11 ,350 for FY 2007 from the Board's Reserve Fund.
Once the Office of Management and Budget processes the appropriation form, we will advise you
on how these funds will be disbursed.
Sincerely,
AQ~~. ~
Diane B. Mullins
Acting Clerk
DBM
06.003
pc: Mr. Richard Wiggans
Mr. Melvin Breeden
(1)
Printed on recycled paper
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARlE David L. Slutzky
Rivanna Rio
I1ndsay G. Dorrier, Jr. Office of Board of Supervisors Sally H. Thomas
ScottsviIle 401 McIntire Road Samuel Miller
Dennis S. Rooker Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 David C. Wyant
Jack Jouett (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 WhiteHall
July 18, 2006
Donna Shaunesey, Executive Director
Jefferson Area United Transportation
104 Keystone Place
Charlottesville, VA 22902-6200
RE: JAUNT Funding Request
Dear Ms. Shaunesey:
At its meeting on July 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors approved staff's recommendation for an
additional one-time amount of $11 ,350 for FY 2007 from the Board's Reserve Fund.
Once the Office of Management and Budget processes the appropriation form, we will advise you
on how these funds will be disbursed.
Sincerely,
~~~. ~
Diane B. Mullins
Acting Clerk
DBM
06.003
pc: Mr. Richard Wiggans
Mr. Melvin Breeden
@
Printed on recycled paper
. .
cnluffitiia Gas
of VIrgInia
A NiSource Company
1809 Coyote Dr
June 27, 2006 Chester, VA 23836
Mr. Dennis S. Rooker
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22901
Re: Application of Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. For Approval of a
Performance Based Rate Regulation Methodology Pursuant to Va. Code S
56-235.6
State Corporation Commission Case No.: PUE-2005-00098
and
Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rei., State Corporation Commission
Ex Parte, In Re: Investigation of the Justness and Reasonableness of
Current Rates, Charges, and Terms and Conditions of Service
State Corporation Commission Case No,: PUE-2005-00100
Dear Mr. Rooker:
Attached are copies of Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc,'s Application for Approval
of a Performance Based Rate Regulation Methodology; general rate case filing as
required by the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("Commission"); May 19,2006,
Order for Notice and Hearing; and May 25, 2006 Amending Order, as required in
Paragraph 18 of the Order for Notice and Hearing issued by the Commission in the
above-referenced proceeding. Please take notice of the contents.
~td ~,
T. Borden EllIs
Senior Attorney
TBE/maw
Enclosures
I
, . 06 05 3 0 1 4 I'
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, MAY 19,2006
APPLICA nON OF
COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA, INe.
CASE NO. PUE-2005-00098 C::'l
r--,
For approval of a performance based rate =,
=j
r f"r"'"pT 0-
regulation methodology pursuant to rJ ~~':-'",.t . ~
:".i:\; ;:.U ~,.
Va. Code S 56-235.6 -< z
-- -~
~. ~ r I (~ !"'o. r"'\ .-0 ("')
~,L l,' I ': '( . 'l:."U
r":r,'; >'~'i 1~1: Lu;; U 0
z
-;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex reI. y) ;;J
0
N r-
oO-
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION \".;
CASE NO. PUE-2005-00IOO
Ex Parte, In Re: Investigation of the justness
and reasonableness of current rates, charges,
and terms and conditions of service
ORDER FOR NOTICE AND HEARING
On November 2,2005, Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc. ("Columbia" or the "Company"),
filed with the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") an Application for approvalofa
performance based ratemaking methodology ("PBR Plan"), pursuant to S 56-235.6 of the Code
of Virginia ("Code"). Columbia requested that the Commission approve the PBR Plan so that it
becomes effective on January 1, 2006.
The Company explained in its Application that the PBR Plan: (1) freezes non-gas base
rates at their current levels for five years beginning January 1,2006; (2) foregoes regulatory
treatment of merger savings associated with NiSource, Inc. 's (INiSource"), acquisition of the
stock of the Columbia Energy Group ("CEG"), including Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., 1
1 NiSource is the parent holding company of Columbia. On July 14,2000, we entered a Final order approving
NiSource's acquisition of CEG, subject to certain terms and conditions of a Stipulation entered into by NiSource,
New NiSource Inc., Columbia Energy Group, Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., as well as the Staff of the
,
savings that Cohunbia alleged are approximately $3.9 million annually; (3) prohibits the
Company from seeking, at the expiration of the five-year base rate freeze, recovery of these
merger savings; and (4) allows Columbia to request an increase in frozen rates in connection
with (i) any changes in federal, state, or local taxation of incumbent natural gas distribution
utility revenues, or (ii) any financial distress of the Company beyond its control.
Columbia's proposed PBR Plan will maintail1 base rates at their current level and allow
the Company to focus on new capacity additions and infrastructure necessary to satisfy
increasing customer demand and economic growth. The Company advises that it is pursuing:
(1) the acquisition of 50,000 Dth per day of Firm Transportation Service (liFTS ") capacity to
serve its Market Areas 33 and 34 (the area around Richmond and extending southeasterly to
Portsmouth), at an expected capital investment cost of$l million to $1.5 million; (2) the
acquisition of 40,000 Dth of Firm Storage Service ("FSS") and Storage Service Transportation
("SST") to serve its growing customer base in northern Virginia, at an expected capital
investment cost of$l million to $2 million; (3) the acquisition of 40,000 Dth ofFTS capacity per
day to serve the Gainesville area, at an expected capital investment cost of $4.5 million to
$5 million; and (4) the acquisition of 40,000 Dth of capacity per day to serve the Fredericksburg
area, at an expected capital investment cost of $1 0 million to $12 million. Columbia projects
that it will spend an additional $16.5 million to $20 million over the next three to five years to
attach the foregoing capacity to its distribution system.
Columbia states that its last rate case was in 1998, and thus, its PBR Plan would freeze
base rates at their 1998 level until 2010. Columbia concluded that its fully adjusted cost of
Commission. See Joint Petition ofNiSource Inc.. New NiSource Inc. and Columbia EnerlrV Groun. For approval of
agreement and Plan of merger under Chapter 5 of Title 56 of the Code of Virginia, Case No, PUA-2000-00024,
2000 S.C.C. Ann. Rep, 179.
2
service study demonstrates a cumulative revenue deficiency of approximately $66.5 million
during the five-year PBR Plan.
On November 9,2005, the Commission entered its Preliminary Order in this matter.
That Order docketed Columbia's Application as Case No. PUE-2005-00098 and initiated an
investigation docketed as Case No. PUE-2005-00l 00 into the justness and reasonableness of
Columbia's current rates, fees, charges, and terms and conditions of service. The Commission
directed that the Company's PBR Plan would not be implemented unless and until it was
approved by the Commission. The Commission directed the Company to file the schedules
required for a general rate application in full compliance with the Commission's Rules
Governing Utility Rate Increase Applications and Annual Informational Filings,
20 V AC 5-200-30 ("Rate Case Rules"), on or before February 3,2006, and directed that the
evidence produced in either Case No. PUE-2005-00098 or Case No. PUE-2005-00100 be
received concurrently in both of these dockets.
On December 2, 2005, Columbia filed a Motion to Extend Filing Date and for Waiver of
Annual Informational Filing Rules ("Motion"). Columbia requested that the Commission extend
the date by which it was to file the schedules required for a general rate application as directed
by the Commission's Preliminary Order from February 3,2006, through and including May 1,
2006, an extension Columbia advised was needed to file the required schedules based on a
calendar year ended December 31, 2005. In the alternative, Columbia proposed to use a split
year test period for the twelve months ended September 30,2005, and requested a thirty-day
extension to and through March 6, 2006, in which to file the required schedules. The Company
further requested a waiver of the requirement that it file a duplicative Annual Infornational
Filing ("AIF") for the calendar year 2005.
3
On December 14,2005, the Commission Stafffiled a Response to the Motion. On
December 29,2005, the Company filed a Reply to the Staffs Response.
On January 4,2006, the Commission issued its Order on Motion, wherein the
Commission directed the Company to file with the Commission on or before May 1, 2006, the
schedules required for a general rate application in full compliance with the Rate Case Rules,
based on calendar year 2005. The Commission also granted Columbia a waiver from filing a
duplicative AIF for calendar year 2005.
On April 12, 2006, Columbia filed a Motion for Waiver requesting a waiver of the
requirements set out in the Rate Case Rules to file Schedule 31 (Proposed Rates and Tariffs),
Schedule 32 (Present and Proposed Revenues), and Schedule 33 (Sample Billing).
On April 27, 2006, after considering the Response of the Staffand Columbia's Reply, the
Commission entered its Order Denying Motion and directed the Company to file Schedules 31,
32, and 33 on or before May 8,2006.
On May 1, 2006, the Company filed Schedules 1-30 of the Rate Case Rules with the
Commission, In the cover letter accompanying these Schedules, the Company advised that
"[tJhe Schedules show an additional annual revenue requirement of$19,288,735."
On May 8, 2006, the Company filed Schedules 31, 32, and 33 required by the Rate Case
Rules with the Commission. The schedules included in the general rate investigation filing
reflect an effective date of rates and tariffs of October 5, 2006. However, pursuant to the terms
and conditions of the Company's PBR Plan, the Company proposes to forego any rate increase
and the Company does not intend to place the schedules submitted in the general rate
investigation filing in effect on an interim basis during the pendency of the Application for
approval of the PBR Plan.
4
.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing incorporates changes to the Company's rates,
charges, rules and regulations for its sales, transportation and other services, including new
operational requirements for large volume transportation customers. The filing also includes
changes to the Company's Rate Schedules, General Terms and Conditions, and Form of Service
Agreements.
Specifically, the general rate investigation filing includes revisions to Rate Schedules
RS - Residential Service, RTS - Residential Transportation Service, MPS - Metered Propane
Service, PDS - Propane Delivery Service, SGTS - Small General Transportation Service,
SGS - Small General Service, ACS - Air Conditioning Service, ACTS - Air Conditioning
Transportation Service, UGLS - Unmetered Gas Light Service, UGLTS - Unmetered Gas Light
Transportation Service, LGS - Large General Service, TS 1/TS2 - Transportation Service 1 and 2,
L VTS - Large Volume Transportation Service, L VEDTS - Large Volume Economic
Development Transportation Service, EDS - Economic Development Service, DES - Distributor
Exchange Service, CSPS - Competitive Service Provider Service, and AS - Aggregation Service.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing also closes the curtailable service option under Rate
Schedule LGS to new customers. The following new Rate Schedules were also included in the
general rate investigation filing: Rate Schedules SS - Standby Service, BBS - Banking and
Balancing Service, DPS - Demand Polling Service, and DGTS - Daily Gas Transfer Service.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing also modifies the following provisions of its
General Terms and Conditions: Definitions; Measurement; Quality; Possession and Warranty of
Title; Discontinuance of Service; Billing and Payment; Installation of Distribution Facilities;
Daily Curtailment and Interruption of Service; Volumetric Limitations and Curtailment
Provisions; Rate Schedules RS, RTS, SGS, SGTS, MPS, PDS, UGLS, UGLTS, ACS and
5
. .
ACTS - Additional Terms and Conditions; Taps On High Pressure Lines for Service to Rural
Customers; New Space Heating Service; Transportation Service Rate Schedules - Additional
Terms and Conditions; First/Last Gas Through the Meter; PGA Terms and Conditions;
Transition Costs Recovery Mechanism; Service Agreement General Terms and Conditions; and
Special Services Charges. Columbia also adds a provision to its General Terms and Conditions
entitled Alternative Price Index.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing also modifies the Form of Service Agreement
for Large General Service, the Form of Service Agreement for Gas Transportation Service, the
Competitive Service Provider Service Agreement, and the Aggregation Service Service
Agreement. Columbia's filing eliminates the generic Form of Service Agreement, and adds a
new Appointment of Agent and Acknowledgement of Service Form (for Rate Schedules
TS 1rrS2, L VTS and L VEDTS), a Banking and Balancing Service Agreement (for Rate
Schedules L VTS and L VEDTS), and a Standby Service Agreement (for Rate Schedule L VTS
. .
and LVEDTS).
NOW UPON CONSIDERATION of the Application and applicable law, the
Commission is of the opinion and finds as follows. A procedural schedule shall be established,
and Columbia shall give notice to the public of its request for a PBR Plan and its general rate
investigation filing, all as prescribed below. Moreover, pursuant to ~ 56-235.6 of the Code, until
the Commission directs appropriate notice of the Company's PBR Plan, provides an opportunity
for hearing, and makes the findings required under S 56-235.6 of the Code, Columbia has no
authority to implement a PBR Plan. Accordingly, Columbia shall not implement its PBR Plan
unless and until approved by the Commission,
6
Likewise, the Company's general rate investigation filing docketed as Case No.
PUE-2005-00 100, shall be set for hearing and public notice provided as set forth herein. In
addition, until the Commission directs appropriate notice of the Company's general rate
investigation filing docketed as Case No. PUE-2005-00100, provides opportunity for hearing,
and makes its final determination in this matter, the Company has no authority to implement the
increase in additional annual revenue requirement referenced in the Company's PBR Plan, the
cover letter accompanying its general rate investigation filing, or the May 8, 2006, cover letter
accompanying Schedules 31-33.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The PBR Plan shall not be implemented unless and until approved by the
Commission.
(2) In accordance with the Company's representations, no increase in conjunction with
the Company's general rate investigation filing shall be implemented unless and until approved
by the Commission, subject, however, to the authority of the Commission, after investigation and
hearing, to fix and order substitutes for such rate or rates, tolls, charges, rules, or regulations, as
shall be just and reasonable.2
(3) The Company may withdraw its PBR Plan in accordance with ~ 56-235.6 of the
Code.
(4) The evidence in this proceeding shall be received concurrently in both of the
captioned dockets.
2 We note that in Columbia's Motion requesting a waiver of the requirement to file Schedules 31, 32, and 33,
Columbia represented that it did not intend to request approval of an increase in its rates and charges, modifications
to its rate design, or modifications to its tariff provisions in the rate investigation. See April 12, 2006, Motion for
Waiver, at 2. In its May 8,2006, submission of Schedules 31-33, Columbia advised that it proposed to forego any
rate increase pursuant to the terms and conditions of its PBR Plan filing and did not intend to place the schedules
filed on May 8, 2006, in effect on an interim basis.
7
.
(5) A copy of the Application and this Order for Notice and Hearing, as well as other
documents now or hereafter filed in these matters, shall be available for public inspection in the
Commission's Document Control Center located on the First Floor of the Tyler Building,
1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, between the hours of8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. A copy of the Application may also be obtained by requesting a copy
of the same from counsel for Columbia, Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP,
One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030. Upon receipt ofa
request for a copy of the Application, Columbia shall serve copies of the same upon the
requesting party within three (3) business days of such request. If acceptable to the requesting
party, the Company may provide the Application, with or without attachments, by electronic
means. In addition, copies of the Commission's Order for Notice and Hearing and other Orders
entered in these dockets, the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as other
information concerning the Commission and the statutes it administers, may be viewed on the
Commission's website at http://www.scc.virmnia.gov/caseinfo.htm;
(6) As provided by S 12.1-31 of the Code of Virginia and the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 5 V AC 5-20-120, Procedures before Hearing Examiners, a hearing
examiner is appointed to conduct all further proceedings in these matters on behalf of the
Commission and to issue a final report herein.
(7) A public hearing shall be convened on November 29, 2006, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Commission's Hearing Examiner in the Commission's Courtroom, Second Floor, Tyler Building,
1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia, to receive comments from members of the public
and to receive evidence in the above-captioned dockets. Any person not participating as a
respondent as provided for below may give oral testimony concerning these cases as a public
8
-
.
witness at the hearing. Public witnesses desiring to make statements at the public hearing need
only appear in the Commission's Second Floor courtroom in the Tyler Building at the address set
forth above prior to 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and register a request to speak with the
Commission's bailiff.
(8) On or before May 19,2006, Columbia shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of
any additional prefiled direct testimony, exhibits, and other material addressing accounting,
capital structure, return on equity, and affiliate issues with the Clerk of the Commission, c/o
Document Control Center, Tyler Building, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118,
supporting its PBR Plan and/or its general rate investigation filing.
(9) On or before June 1, 2006, Columbia shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies of
any additional prefiled direct testimony, exhibits, and any other material addressing Columbia's
proposed tariff revisions and rate design related issues with the Clerk of the Commission at the
address set forth above, supporting the Company's PBR Plan and/or its general rate investigation
.filing.
(10) On or before June 15, 2006, Columbia shall file an original and fifteen (15) copies
of any additional prefiled direct testimony, exhibits, and any other material addressing issues
related to Columbia's proposed acquisition adjustment with the Clerk of the Commission at the
address set forth above, supporting the Company's PBR Plan and/or its general rate investigation
filing.
(11) .AllY interested person may participate as a respondent in this proceeding by filing,
on or before July 28, 2006, an original and fifteen (15) copies of a notice of participation with the
Clerk of the Commission at the address set out in Ordering Paragraph (8) above and shall
simultaneously serve a copy of the notice of participation on counsel for Columbia at the address
9
,
set out in Ordering Paragraph (5) herein. Pursuant to Rule 5 V AC 5-20-80 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, any notice of participation shall set forth: (i) a precise
statement of the interest of the respondent; (ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the
extent then known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action. Respondents shall refer in
all of their filed papers to Case Nos. PUE-2005-00098 and PUE-2005-00100.
(12) Within five (5) business days of receipt of a notice of participation as a respondent,
the Company shall serve upon each respondent a copy of this Order for Notice and Hearing, a
copy of the Application, and all materials filed by the Company with the Commission unless
these materials have already been provided to the respondent.
(13) On or before September 15, 2006, each respondent shall file with the Clerk an
original and fifteen (15) copies of any testimony and exhibits by which it expects to establish its
case and shall serve copies of the testimony and exhibits on counsel to the Company and on all
other respondents. The respondent shall comply with the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, including: 5 V AC 5-20-140, Filing and Service; 5 V AC 5-20-150, Copies and
Format; and 5 V AC 5-20-240, Prepared Testimony and Exhibits.
(14) On or before September 15,2006, any interested person may file with the Clerk of
the State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center, Tyler Building, P.O.
Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118, written comments in the proceeding and shall
simultaneously serve a copy on counsel to Columbia at the address set forth in Ordering
Paragraph (5) herein. On or before September 15, 2006, any interested person desiring to submit
comments electronically may do so by following the instructions found on the Commission's
website: http://www.scc.vircinia.gov/caseinfo.htm, and referring to Case Nos. PUE-2005-00098
and PUE-2005-00100.
10
.
(15) The Commission Staff shall investigate the proposed PBR Plan and the general rate
investigation filing. On or before October 16, 2006, the Staff shall file with the Clerk of the
Commission an original and fifteen (15) copies of the Staffs prefiled direct testimony and
exhibits and shall serve a copy of the same on counsel to the Company and on all respondents
participating in the captioned proceedings.
(16) On or before November 6, 2006, Columbia shall file with the Clerk of the
Commission in both dockets an original and fifteen (15) copies of any rebuttal testimony and
exhibits and shall serve a copy on the Commission Staff assigned to these matters and all
respondents herein.
(17) On or before July 5,2006, the Company shall cause the following notice to be
published as display advertising (not classified) on one occasion in newspapers of general
circulation throughout the Company's service territory within the Commonwealth of Virginia:
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF
COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA, INC.'S, REQUEST FOR
PERFORMANCE BASED RATE REGULA nON AND
GENERAL RATE INVESTIGATION FILING
CASE NOS. PUE-2005-00098 AND PUE-2005-001 00
On November 2,2005, Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc.
("Columbia" or the "Company"), filed with the State Corporation
Commission ("Commission") an Application for approval of a
performance based ratemaking methodology ("PBR Plan"),
pursuant to S 56-235.6 of the Code of Virginia ("Code"). The
Company explained in the Application that its proposed PBR Plan:
(1) freezes non-gas base rates at their current levels for five years
beginning January 1, 2006; (2) foregoes regulatory treatment of
merger savings associated with NiSource, Inc. 's ("NiSource"),
acquisition of the stock of the Columbia Energy Group ("CEG"),
including Columbia Gas of Virginia, Inc., savings that Columbia
represents are approximately $3.9 million annually; (3) prohibits
the Company from seeking at the expiration of the five-year base
rate freeze recovery of these merger savings; and (4) allows
Columbia to request an increase in frozen rates in connection with
(i) any changes in federal, state, or local taxation of incumbent
11
.
natural gas distribution utility revenues, or (ii) any financial
distress of the Company beyond its control. Columbia states that
its last rate case was in 1998, and thus, its PBR Plan would freeze
base rates at their 1998 level until 2010. The Company concluded
that its fully adjusted cost of service study demonstrates a
cumulative revenue deficiency of approximately $66.5 million
during the five-year PBR Plan.
On November 9,2005, the Commission entered its
Preliminary Order in this proceeding. That Order docketed
Columbia's Application for approval of a PBR Plan as Case No.
PUE-2005-00098 and initiated an investigation docketed as Case
No. PUB-2005-00IOO into the justness and reasonableness of
Columbia's current rates, fees, charges, and terms and conditions
of service. Among other things, the Commission directed
Columbia to file the schedules required for a general rate
application in full compliance with the Commission's Rules
Governing Utility Rate Increase Applications and Annual
Informational Filings, 20 V AC 5-200-30.
On May 1, 2006, the Company filed Schedules 1-30
required by the Commission's Rate Case Rules with the
Commission. The schedules addressed the Company's cost of
capital, return on equity, and accounting adjustments and purported
to show an additional annual revenue requirement of$I9,288,735.
On May 8, 2006, the Company filed Schedule 31 (Proposed
Rates and Tariffs), Schedule 32 (Present and Proposed Revenues),
and Schedule 33 (Sample Billing) required by the Commission's
Rate Case Rules. The cover letter accompanying these schedules
advised that the Company proposed to forego any rate increase
pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company's proposed
PBR Plan and, further, did not intend to place its revised tariff
schedules in effect on an interim basis.
Columbia's proposed PBR Plan, if approved, will maintain
the Company's base rates at their current level and allow the
Company to focus on new capacity and infrastructure additions
necessary to satisfy increasing customer demand and economic
growth. The Company advised that it was pursuing: (1) the
acquisition of 50,000 Dth per day of Firm Transportation Service
(liFTS ") capacity to serve its Market Areas 33 and 34 (the area
around Richmond and extending southeasterly to Portsmouth), at
an expected capital investment cost of $1 million to $ 1.5 million;
(2) the acquisition of 40,000 Dth of Firm Storage Service ("FSS")
and Storage Service Transportation ("SST") to serve its growing
12
customer base in northern Virginia, at an expected capital
investment cost of$1 million to $2 million; (3) the acquisition of
40,000 Dth ofFTS capacity per day to serve the Gainesville area,
at an expected capital investment cost of$4.5 million to
$5 million; and (4) the acquisition of 40,000 Dth of capacity per
day to serve the Fredericksburg area, at an expected capital
investment cost of $10 million to $12 million. Columbia proj ects
that it will spend an additional $16.5 million to $20 million over
the next three to five years to attach the foregoing capacity to its
distribution system.
The Company's general rate investigation filing provides
for the revision of its tariffs, rates, fees, and charges. The
schedules included in the general rate investigation filing also
reflect an effective date of rates and tariffs of October 5,2006.
However, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Company's
PBR Plan, the Company proposes to forego any rate increase and
the Company does not intend to place the schedules submitted in
the general rate investigation filing in effect on an interim basis
during the pendency of the Application for approval of the PBR
Plan.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing incorporates
changes to the Company's rates, charges, rules and regulations for
its sales, transportation and other services, including new
operational requirements for large volume transportation
customers. The filing also includes changes to the Company's Rate
Schedules, General Terms and Conditions, and Form of Service
Agreements.
Specifically, the general rate investigation filing includes
revisions to Rate Schedules RS - Residential Service,
R TS - Residential Transportation Service, MPS - Metered Propane
Service, PDS - Propane Delivery Service, SGTS - Small General
Transportation Service, SGS - Small General Service, ACS - Air
Conditioning Service, ACTS - Air Conditioning Transportation
Service, UGLS - Unmetered Gas Light Service,
UGLTS - Unmetered Gas Light Transportation Service,
LGS - Large General Service, TS IrrS2 - Transportation Service I
and 2, L VTS - Large Volume Transportation Service,
L VEDTS - Large Volume Economic Development Transportation
Service, EDS - Economic Development Service, DES - Distributor
Exchange Service, CSPS - Competitive Service Provider Service,
and AS - Aggregation Service. Columbia's general rate
investigation filing also closes the curtailable service option under
Rate Schedule LOS to new customers. The following new Rate
13
Schedules were also included in the general rate investigation
filing: Rate Schedules SS - Standby Service, BBS - Banking and
Balancing Service, DPS - Demand Polling Service, and
DGTS - Daily Gas Transfer Service.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing also modifies
the following provisions of its General Terms and Conditions:
Definitions; Measurement; Quality; Possession and Warranty of
Title; Discontinuance of Service; Billing and Payment; Installation
of Distribution Facilities; Daily Curtailment and Interruption of
Service; Volumetric Limitations and Curtailment Provisions; Rate
Schedules RS, RTS, SGS, SGTS, MPS, PDS, VGLS, VGL TS,
ACS and ACTS - Additional Terms and Conditions; Taps On High
Pressure Lines for Service to Rural Customers; New Space
Heating Service; Transportation Service Rate
Schedules - Additional Terms and Conditions; First/Last Gas
Through the Meter; PGA Terms and Conditions; Transition Costs
Recovery Mechanism; Service Agreement General Terms and
Conditions; and Special Services Charges. Columbia also adds a
provision to the General Terms and Conditions entitled Alternative
Price Index.
Columbia's general rate investigation filing modifies the
Form of Service Agreement for Large General Service, the Form
of Service Agreement for Gas Transportation Service, the
Competitive Service Provider Service Agreement, and the
Aggregation Service Service Agreement. Columbia's filing
eliminates the generic Form of Service Agreement, and adds a new
Appointment of Agent and Acknowledgement of Service Form
(for Rate Schedules TS 1/TS2, L VTS and L VEDTS), a Banking
and Balancing Service Agreement (for Rate Schedules L VTS and
L VEDTS), and a Standby Service Agreement (for Rate Schedule
LVTS and LVEDTS).
The Company's request for a PBR Plan is docketed and
assigned Case No. PVE-2005-00098. The Company's general rate
investigation filing is docketed and assigned Case No.
PUE-2005-00100. In accordance with the Commission's findings
made in its orders, Columbia's PBR Plan cannot be implemented
unless and until approved by the Commission, and the Company's
general rate investigation filing revisions cannot be implemented
on a permanent basis unless and until approved by the
Commission.
Interested persons are encouraged to review the proposed
PBR Plan, the general rate investigation filing, and the supporting
14
.
documents for these filings. The evidence in these proceedings
shall be received concurrently in Case Nos. PUE-2005-00098 and
PUE-2005-00lDO. If the PBR Plan, for example, is not approved
or is modified by the Commission in a manner the Company does
not choose to accept, the Commission, without additional notice,
may take action in the general rate investigation filing docket and
establish just and reasonable rates for Columbia. Interested
persons should be advised that, after considering all of the
evidence, the Commission may approve, reject, or modify the PBR
Plan, may approve an annual revenue requirement, or implement a
decrease in revenues and adjust rates, fees, charges, and terms and
conditions of service that are the same or different from those
appearing in either the general rate investigation filing or the PBR
Plan. Further, the Commission may apportion revenues among
customer classes in a manner that is the same or different from
those in the general rate investigation filing or PBR Plan.
Interested persons may review a copy of the Application
for the PBR Plan and the general rate investigation filing, as well
as the Commission's Order for Notice and Hearing, in the
Commission's Document Control Center, located on the First Floor
of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219, between the hours of8:15 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. A copy of these documents may also be obtained
at no cost by interested persons by making a written request to the
Company's counsel, Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, McGuireWoods
LLP, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia
23219-4030. If acceptable to the requesting party, the Company
may provide these documents, with or without attachments, by
electronic means. In addition to the Commission's Order for
Notice and Hearing and other orders entered in these dockets, the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as other
information concerning the Commission and the statutes it
administers, may be viewed on the Commission's web site:
http://www,scc.virginia. govl caseinfo .htm.
A public hearing will be convened before one of the
Commission's Hearing Examiners on November 29,2006, at
10:00 a.m., in the Commission's Courtroom, located on the second
floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East Main Street, Richmond,
Virginia, to receive comments from members of the public and to
receive evidence in Case Nos. PUE-2005-00098 and
PUE-2005-00 1 00. Any p'erson not participating as a respondent as
provided for below may present oral testimony concerning these
cases as a public witness at the hearing.
15
.
.
Public witnesses desiring to make statements at the public
hearing need only appear in the Commission's Second Floor
Courtroom in the Tyler Building at the address set forth above
prior to 9:45 a.m. on the day of the hearing and register a request to
speak with the Commission's bailiff.
Any interested person may participate as a respondent in
this proceeding by filing, on or before July 28, 2006, an original
and fifteen (15) copies of a notice of participation with the Clerk,
State Corporation Commission, c/o Document Control Center,
Tyler Building, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23218-2118,
and shall simultaneously serve a copy of the notice of participation
on counsel to Columbia at the address set out above.
Pursuant to Rule 5 V AC 5-20-80 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure, any notice of participation shall
set forth: (i) a precise statement of the interest of the respondent;
(ii) a statement of the specific action sought to the extent then
known; and (iii) the factual and legal basis for the action sought.
Interested parties shall refer in all of their filed papers to Case Nos.
PUE-2005-00098 and PUB-2005-00100. Interested persons should
obtain a copy of the Commission's Order in this proceeding for
additional information about participation as a respondent.
On or before July 28, 2006, any interested person desiring to
participate as a public witness may file with the Clerk of the
Commission, at the address set forth above, written comments in
this proceeding and shall simultaneously serve a copy of the same
on counsel for Columbia at the address set out herein. On or before
July 28, 2006, any interested person desiring to submit comments
electronically may do so by following the instructions found in the
Commission's web site: http://www.scc.virginia. gov/ caseinfo.htm.
COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA. INC.
(18) On or before July 5, 2006, Columbia shall serve a copy of its Application, its
general rate case filing, and this Order for Notice and Hearing on the Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors and county attorney of each county and on the Mayor or Manager of every city and
town (or on equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternative forms of
government) in which Columbia provides service, Service shall be made by personal delivery or
16
,
. .
.
first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the customary place of business or residence of the person
served.
(19) On or before November 6,2006, Columbia shall file with the Clerk of the
Commission proof of the notice and service required on Ordering Paragraphs (17) and (18).
(20) The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 5 V AC 5-20-260,
Interrogatories to parties or requests for production of documents and things, shall be modified
for this proceeding as follows: (i) answers shall be served within ten (10) calendar days after
receipt of interrogatories or requests for production of documents; (ii) objections shall be served
within seven (7) calendar days after receipt of interrogatories or requests for production of
documents; and (iii) motions on the validity of any objections shall be filed within ten (10)
calendar days of receipt of any objection.
(21) These matters are continued pending further Order of the Commission.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to:
Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, Bernard L. McNamee, Esquire, and Kristian M. Dahl, Esquire,
McGuireWoods LLP, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030;
James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, Senior Attorney, and T. Borden Ellis, Esquire, NiSource
Corporate Services Company, 1809 Coyote Drive, Chester, Virginia 23836; C. Meade Browder,
Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Ashley C. Beuttel, Assistant Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; Louis R. Monacell, Esquire, Christian & Barton, L.L.P., 1200
Mutual Building, 909 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; and the Commission's
Office of General Counsel and Divisions of Public Utility Accounting, Energy Regulation,
Utility and Railroad Safety, and Economics and Finance.
,,,..-,..O,'-.-.----O"_.~,-
~?~~4~~~i!~-::.;-'f#~ _,.Jff~; ~:'g~__. {~~~?J '7 ft,
~-_'" ~~;;/lI?l..f"7,'I!f:-w
17 ci~'lt:~~;~:::'
. ....,;<."'~~""""' ~~"".BtL!""".,._._-- '-.-
,
r
. .
, (
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
~..... 'Ji---E;.JT COHTf:OL
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
AT RICHMOND, MAY 25, 2006
lOOn y 2c 'J ,. r- 2
,.. J'~:
APPLICATION OF
COLUMBIA GAS OF VIRGINIA, INC,
CASE NO, PUE-2005-00098
For approval of a performance based rate
regulation methodology pursuant to
Va. Code S 56-235.6
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex reI.
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION
CASE NO. PUE-2005-00100
Ex Parte, In Re: Investigation of the justness
and reasonableness of current rates, charges,
and terms and conditions of service
AMENDING ORDER
On May 19, 2006, the State Corporation Commission ("Commission") issued its Order
for Notice and Hearing in the captioned proceeding. In the last paragraph of the prescribed
public notice appearing on page 16 ofthe May 19, 2006, Order for Notice and Hearing, the date
by which interested parties may file written comments should be revised from July 28, 2006, to
September 15, 2006, as is currently provided for in Ordering Paragraph (14) of the same Order.
Therefore, we find that the last paragraph of the public notice prescribed in Ordering
Paragraph (17) at page 16 of the May 19, 2006, Order for Notice and Hearing should be revised
as follows:
On or before September 15, 2006, any interested person
desiring to participate as a public witness may file with the Clerk
of the Commission, at the address set forth above, written
comments in this proceeding and shall simultaneously serve a copy
of the same on counsel for Columbia at the address set out herein.
l J
.
. .
"
.
On or before September 15,2006, any interested person desiring to
submit comments electronically may do so by following the
instructions found in the Commission's website:
http://www.scc.virginia.gov/caseinfo.htm.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT the last paragraph of the prescribed public notice
appearing on page 16 of the May 19,2006, Order for Notice and Hearing shall be revised as
provided herein, and that all other provisions of the May 19,2006, Order for Notice and Hearing
shall remain in effect.
AN ATTESTED COPY hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to:
Edward L. Flippen, Esquire, Bernard L. McNamee, Esquire, and Kristian M, Dahl, Esquire,
McGuireWoods LLP, One James Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030;
James S, Copenhaver, Esquire, Senior Attorney, and T. Borden Ellis, Esquire, NiSource
Corporate Services Company, 1809 Coyote Drive, Chester, Virginia 23836; C. Meade Browder,
Jr., Senior Assistant Attorney General, and Ashley C, Beuttel, Assistant Attorney General, Office
of the Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 900 East Main Street, Second Floor,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; Louis R. Monacell, Esquire, Christian & Barton, L.L.P., 1200
Mutual Building, 909 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219-3095; and the Commission's
Office of General Counsel and Divisions of Public Utility Accounting, Energy Regulation,
Utility and Railroad Safety, and Economics and Finance.
2
.
Page 1 of 1
Diane Mullins
From: Diane Mullins
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 4:28 PM
To: Bob Tucker
Subject: Jake Washburne
Bob....1 have posted below a copy of the press release that Lee did on Jake Washburne. Is this enough
information for your introduction to the BOS on July 5th or would you like to have a few more details?
Release
New Registrar Begins Tenure at Albemarle County
6/21/2006
The Albemarle County Electoral Board is pleased to announce the hiring of Richard "Jake" Washburne as the
new County Registrar.
Lntil his hiring as Registrar, Washburne was employed by the :\ational Legal Research Group providing legal research for
attorneys practicing throughout the United States. Prior to that position. he was in private law practice in Nonh Carolina and
Virginia.
Washburne is a graduate of Duke University and the Washll1gton and Lee University School of Law. He and hi" wIfe Molly
and their family have residents of Albemarle County ,ince 1988. where he enjoys music, baseball and history.
The Electoral Board is delighted that Washburne has accepted the position of Registrar and believe that he will do an
excellent job in serving the voters of Albemarle County.
Diane B. Mullins
County Executive's Office
County of Albemarle
Phone: (434) 296-5841
Fax: (434) 296-5800
6/29/2006
..
.
, r.1....Aii.1 Municipality of Silistra
~m~
WrI ~33 Simeon Veliki Str V(086) 824243 Fax: (086) 82 33 43
7500 Silistra E-mail: ssmayor@infotel.bg
29.06.06
City of Silistra
TO
City of Charlottesville
Virdginia, USA
Dear Sirs and Madams,
My name is Yordanka Slavova. I work as an expert of economic development and marketing in
LED department of the Municipality of Silistra. The LED department is a part of the municipal
administration structure, The main objective of the department is to carry out the strategic
economic planning, to work for favorable business environment, competitive infrastructure and
adaptive workforce. Our team consistently works to the achievement of the municipality priorities
and particularly to the overall process of business retention, expansion and attraction. My
responsibilities and duties as a specialist is to participate in the implementation of the Municipal
plan for Development; to develop the projects under the various grant schemes and funds; to keep
in touch with representatives of local businesses; to works with other departments in order to
attract new businesses; to update the information on the municipal web page.
Our municipality - municipality of Silistra is located in the Northeastern part of Bulgaria. It
comprises the city of Silistra, which is the regional center as well and 18 adjacent villages. During
the years the city has picturesquely spread on the right bank of the Danube river and borders
Romania on land and water.
Silistra's competitive advantages are:
. Port on the Danube River connecting 11 countries from Central and Eastern Europe
. Immediate access to Russia and the Middle East through the Black sea ports of Varna,
Bulgaria and Constanca, Romania
. Quick access to the international airports in Varna, Bulgaria and Bucharest, Romania within
an hour and a half drive an hour away from the international highways E83 and E87
. 33% of the labor force is highly educated
. 7 vocational schools and two universities
. Advanced level of foreign language education
. Safety and high quality of life
Form of government
Municipality - Elected mayor and City Council
City Council - 33 City Councilors
.
.
. '.1..1..'...1 Municipality of Silistra
~m-U
~. [8133 Simeon Veliki Str 2(086) 824243 Fax: (086) 82 33 43
7500 Silistra E-mail: ssmayor@infotel.bg
Municipal Administration - managed by the Mayor, the Municipal Secretary and 5 Deputy
Mayors, elected by the City Council
There are 7 Administrative Departments:
- Municipal administration
- City Planning
- Economic development
- Healthcare and social policy
- Humanities
- Municipal Property
- Financial Department
I hope and expect by the internship to be able to improve my work in the field of business research
and relationships; to compare the planning process in Bulgaria, which will help me to propose
improvements in this process in our municipality; to learn more about the communication with other
people involved in ED activities of the community (like banks, real estate agencies, etc.) and to try
to improve the local marketing materials for business attraction. I would like to know more about
development of the city marketing strategy and the process of its implementation.
Yours sincerely,
Yordanka Slavova
Economic Development Department
Silistra Municipality
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Ordinance Amendment - Elections - Rio Magisterial July 12, 2006
District - Northside Precinct - Change of Polling
Place ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Public hearing to establish Earlysville Volunteer Fire ACTION: INFORMATION:
Station as the polling place for the Northside
Precinct in the Rio Magisterial District.
STAFF CONTACT(S): ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~~
Tucker, White, Davis, Kamptner, Helf,
Schermerhorn REVIEWED BY: I
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code ~ 24.2-307 requires that the Board of Supervisors establish polling places by ordinance. Albemarle County
Code ~ 2-1 02(C)(4) establishes the Buck Mountain Episcopal Church as the polling place for the Northside Precinct in the
Rio Magisterial District. The Albemarle County Electoral Board recently recommended that the polling place be changed to
the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.1 Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers.
4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
The Buck Mountain Episcopal Church, the current polling place in the Northside Precinct, has limited floor space for polling
place purposes. It is used to its capacity when voting machines are in place on voting days. Due to the growing population
in the precinct, an additional voting machine will be needed for future elections. It will be difficult to fit this additional voting
machine into the available space while meeting the Virginia Code requirements for spacing voting machines. Handicap
access required by the Americans with Disabilities Act for the current site is provided by an uncovered 36" wide temporary
ramp. The vehicular access to the parking lot is problematic because it is located at a dangerous curve on Earlysville
Road. Despite police and VDOT assistance at the site on voting days, there are often near-collisions.
Because of the limitations of the existing polling place, the Electoral Board has desired to find an alternative location. The
Electoral Board became aware that the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station was being expanded with an additional room in
the rear of the building. This room has more than adequate floor space for the needs of this polling place. The building is
well known and easily identified in the community. It has safer vehicular access, better handicap access, better parking,
better lighting, air conditioning, a covered entrance, a lobby area, and greater potential to accommodate the future space
needs of the polling place. The Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department has agreed to make the space available for this use.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance to change the polling place from the
Buck Mountain Episcopal Church to the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station in the Northside Precinct of the Rio Magisterial
District.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Proposed Ordinance
I 06.097
ORDINANCE NO. 06-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I,
ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork
Rivanna River and its intersection with the northeastern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River to
its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then northeast along Seminole Trail
to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering along the North
Fork Rivanna River northwest to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606);
then south along Dickerson Road to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route
743); then northwest along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road
(State Route 663); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State
Route 665); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its
intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south along Bleak House
Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then south along Reas
Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering
southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road
(State Route 743); then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic
Road (State Route 743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with
Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier
Drive; then east on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route
29); then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the northern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then following the limits of the City of Charlottesville east to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
I 1 I
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (5) voting
precincts, as described herein:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Beginning at Seminole Trail (US. Route 29)
and its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then northeast along Seminole Trail to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering west and south along
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743);
then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route
743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road;
then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then east along
Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail, the point of origin,
2. Branchlands Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on Rio Road East to its intersection with
Seminole Trail (US. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to the northern city limits
of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way and Rio Road East, the point of origin.
3. Dunlora Precinct: Beginning at Rio Road East (State Route 631) at
its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of way; then northeast along the
Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River;
then meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with
the Charlottesville City limits; then following northwest along the Charlottesville City
limits to the intersection with Rio Road East and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the
point of origin.
4. Northside Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail
(US. Route 29) and the South Fork Rivanna River; then northeast on Seminole Trail to
its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to
its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville
Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then northwest
along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its intersection with Buck Mountain
Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to
its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route
662); then south along Bleak House Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State
Route 660); then South along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering eastward to its intersection with Seminole Trail (US.
Route 29), the point of origin.
5. Woodbrook Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern Railroad right-of-way
to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with
2
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29);
then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631);
then southeast on Rio Road East to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-
way and the northern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of origin,
C. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, 3201
Berkmar Drive,
2. Branchlands Precinct: Senior Center, 674 Hillsdale Drive,
3, Dunlora Precinct: Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education
Center, 1000 East Rio Road.
4. Northside Precinct: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station, 283 Reas
Ford Road.
5, W oodbrook Precinct: W oodbrook Elementary School, 100
Woodbrook Drive.
(8-19-71, S 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, S 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1),1-11-95; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, S 2-100(1), S 2-101; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 06-2(2), 7-12-06)
I, Diane B. Mullins, Acting Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting
held on July 12, 2006,
~. ~~
~'(MW .
Acting Clerk, Board of C ty Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd X
-
Mr. Dorrier X
-
Mr. Rooker -X.
-
Mr. Slutzky -X. -
Ms. Thomas -X.
-
Mr. Wyant -X. -
I 3
I
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNlY OF ALBEMARlE David L Slutzky
Rivanna Rio
Undsay G. Domer, Jr. Office of Board of Supervisors Sally H. Thomas
Scoftsville 401 Mcintire Road Samuel Miller
Dennis S. Rooker Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 David C. Wyant
Jack Jouett (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 WhiteHall
July 18, 2006
Mr. Richard J. Washburne, Registrar
536 Pantops Center
Charlottesville, V A 22911
RE: Change of Polling Place
Dear Mr. Washburne:
At its meeting on July 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance to change the
polling place from the Buck Mountain Episcopal Church to the Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station in
the Northside Precinct of the Rio Magisterial District. We have attached that ordinance for your
information/files.
Sincerely,
AX~\U 4 ~
Diane B. Mullins
Acting Clerk
DBM
06.004
Attachment
pc: Larry W. Davis, Esq., County Attorney
*
Printed on recycled paper
ORDINANCE NO. 06-2(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I,
ELECTIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia,
that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, Elections, is hereby amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District
Chapter 2. Administration
Article I. Elections
Sec. 2-102 Rio Magisterial District.
The Rio Magisterial District shall be bounded, and contain voting precincts and
polling places, as follows:
A. Description of district: Beginning at the intersection of the South Fork
Rivanna River and its intersection with the northeastern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then meandering north and west along the South Fork Rivanna River to
its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then northeast along Seminole Trail
to its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering along the North
Fork Rivanna River northwest to its intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606);
then south along Dickerson Road to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route
743); then northwest along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road
(State Route 663); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its
intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 664) to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State
Route 665); then southwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its
intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route 662); then south along Bleak House
Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State Route 660); then south along Reas
Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering
southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road
(State Route 743); then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic
Road (State Route 743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with
Whitewood Road; then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier
Drive; then east on Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route
29); then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with the northern limits of the City of
Charlottesville; then following the limits of the City of Charlottesville east to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River, the point of origin.
1
B. Voting precincts: The district shall be divided into five (5) voting
precincts, as described herein:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Beginning at Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29)
and its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then northeast along Seminole Trail to its
intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering west and south along
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743);
then south along Earlysville Road to its intersection with Hydraulic Road (State Route
743); then southwest along Hydraulic Road to its intersection with Whitewood Road;
then east on Whitewood Road to its intersection with Greenbrier Drive; then east along
Greenbrier Drive to its intersection with Seminole Trail, the point of origin.
2. Branchlands Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northwest on Rio Road East to its intersection with
Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29); then south on Seminole Trail to the northern city limits
of Charlottesville; then east with the city limits to its intersection with the Southern
Railroad right-of-way and Rio Road East, the point of origin.
3. Dunlora Precinct: Beginning at Rio Road East (State Route 631) at
its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of way; then northeast along the
Southern Railroad right-of-way to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River;
then meandering southeast along the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with
the Charlottesville City limits; then following northwest along the Charlottesville City
limits to the intersection with Rio Road East and the Southern Railroad right-of-way, the
point of origin.
4, Northside Precinct: Beginning at the intersection of Seminole Trail
(U.S. Route 29) and the South Fork Rivanna River; then northeast on Seminole Trail to
its intersection with the North Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest to its
intersection with Dickerson Road (State Route 606); then south along Dickerson Road to
its intersection with Earlysville Road (State Route 743); then northwest along Earlysville
Road to its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663); then northwest
along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 663) to its intersection with Buck Mountain
Road (State Route 664); then northwest along Buck Mountain Road (State Route 664) to
its intersection with Buck Mountain Road (State Route 665); then southwest along Buck
Mountain Road (State Route 665) to its intersection with Bleak House Road (State Route
662); then south along Bleak House Road to its intersection with Reas Ford Road (State
Route 660); then South along Reas Ford Road to its intersection with the South Fork
Rivanna River; then meandering eastward to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U .S.
Route 29), the point of origin.
5. Woodbrook Precinct: Beginning at the northern city limits of
Charlottesville and its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631) and the
Southern Railroad right-of-way; then northeast with the Southern Railroad right-of-way
to its intersection with the South Fork Rivanna River; then meandering northwest with
2
the South Fork Rivanna River to its intersection with Seminole Trail (U.S. Route 29);
then south on Seminole Trail to its intersection with Rio Road East (State Route 631);
then southeast on Rio Road East to its intersection with the Southern Railroad right-of-
way and the northern city limits of Charlottesville, the point of origin.
e. Polling places: Each voting precinct shall have a polling place at the
location identified below:
1. Agnor-Hurt Precinct: Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, 3201
Berkmar Drive.
2. Branchlands Precinct: Senior Center, 674 Hillsdale Drive,
3, Dun/ora Precinct: Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education
Center, 1000 East Rio Road.
4. Northside Precinct: Earlysville Volunteer Fire Station, 283 Reas
Ford Road.
5. Woodbrook Precinct: W oodbrook Elementary School, 100
W oodbrook Drive.
(8-19-71, S 1; 9-5-72; 7-15-81; Code 1988, S 6-1; 5-15-91; Ord. 95-6(1),1-11-95; Ord.
98-A(1), 8-5-98, S 2-100(1), S 2-101; Ord. 01-2(1), 5-9-01; Ord. 06-2(2), 7-12-06)
I, Diane B. Mullins, Acting Clerk, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a
true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting
held on July 12, 2006.
~.(Mv d. 1Yk~
Acting Clerk, Board of Ch.unty Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd L -
Mr. Domer X
-
Mr. Rooker L
-
Mr. Slutzky L -
Ms. Thomas L
-
Mr. Wyant L -
3
l
.
,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 29, 2006
Jose Gaona or Elpidia M. Gaona
3808 Monacan Trail Rd
North Garden, V A 22959
RE: SP 2005-008 Tortilleria Y Panaderia La Michoacana (Sign #31)
Tax Map 99, Parcel 27Al
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gaona:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 20, 2006, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2005-08 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled
'Gaona Home Occupation' (Attachment A.) and dated June 8, 2006. However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 18' x 20'.
3. The entrance from Route 29 South shall meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to
Private Street requirements.
4. No more than two employees other than persons living on the property are permitted to come to
this site for any work-related purpose.
5. The hours of operation of this home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 am until 6:00 pm.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to one panel truck
and one trailer.
7. The applicant shall plant and maintain a 100' long continuous buffer adjacent to the southern
parcel boundary. The buffer shall begin 15' from the westernmost trunks of the existing cluster
oflarge deciduous trees located at the intersection of parcels 27 AI, 27 A2, and Route 29 South.
The plants comprising the buffer shall be evergreen trees or large shrubs (6' tall minimum upon
planting; 8' minimum mature height); mixed species or a monoculture. The trees/shrubs shall be
planted a minimum of 8' on center for the continuous 100' length. Suggested species include:
Juniperus virginiana (Virginia red cedar) and Ilex opaca (American holly). The approximate
location of the buffer is indicated on the concept plan (Attachment A.).
,
,
Goana
Page 2 of2
June 29, 2006
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12,2006.
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,
~ 1?a~St~~
Amy Ransom Arnold
Planner
Planning Division
ARA/aer
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
I
f
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 20, 2006
Damon R or Nadejda V Galeassi,
5066 Giannini Ln
Schuyler, V A 22969
RE: SP-2006-005 Damon R. or Nedejda V. Galeassi - Home Occupation Class B
(Signs #32,44) TM 126 Parcel 31 H5
Dear Mr. and Mrs, Galeassi:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 13,2006, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2006-05 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled
"Plan 'B'" amended by Damon Galeassi in April of2006 (Attachment A.) However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance with
the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 10' x 15'.
3. Employees shall not report to this property for work assignments, equipment, or materials.
4. All materials associated with this home occupation shall be stored in the proposed shed.
5. No deliveries of materia Is associated with this home occupation shall be made to this site.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to two pickup
trucks and one small dump truck.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12, 2006.
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,
~ e.~
.
Amy R. Arnold
Planner
Planning Division
Galeassi
Page 2 of2
June 21,2006
ARA/aer
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
. Proposal: SP _2006-05 Damon R. or Nedejda V. Staff: Amy Ransom Arnold
Galeassi
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 13, 2006 July 12, 2006
Owner: Damon R. or Nedejda V, Galeassi Applicant: Damon R. or Nedejda V. Galeassi
Acreage: approx, 4.6 acres Special Use Permit: Sections 31.2.4.1,
10,2,2.31, 5,2 allow for special considerations for
the operation of a Home Occupation, Class B
under Special Use Permits in the Rural Areas.
TMP: TM 126 Parcel 31H5 Proffers/Conditions: yes EC:no
Location: 5066 Giannini Lane, Schuyler
Existing Zoning and By Right Use: Rural Areas: Magisterial District: Scottsville Magisterial
agricultural, forestal, and fishery; residential, District
game preserves; wayside stands; electric, gas, oil,
and communication facilities; accessory uses
including home occupation class A, temporary
construction uses; public uses, etc.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a DA RAX
Proposal: The applicant has requested a Special Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA -- Rural
Use Permit for a Home Occupation Class B, Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
proposing the construction of one shed for residential density (0,5 unit/acre)
. material and equipment storage to support a
roofing business. The proposal includes parking
two pickup trucks and a small dump truck in the
driveway. Employees do not report to this
property for work assignments, equipment, or
materials. (Attachment A.)
Character of Property: The property includes a Use of Surrounding Properties: The
single family residence and circular drive; the surrounding properties are single family
remainder of the site is primarily wooded. residences.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable:
1. The use proposes minimal impacts on the site; Staff has not identified any factors
no reduction in the surrounding woodland will unfavorable to this application.
be necessary,
2. The 10' x 15' shed needs no footing, requiring
minimal earth disturbance,
3. The use will not demand increases in local
infrastructure or services.
4. Supports the economy of the County provided
by low impact, small businesses
5. The proposal is fully supported by the Quarries
neighborhood association.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends
approval of Special Use Permit 2006-05 Galeassi Home Occupation with conditions.
.
1 I
Character of the Area:
The immediate context is comprised of mature, mixed deciduous / evergreen woodland with scattered
residences. The Galeassi property is part of 'The Quarries', a residential housing development
established seven years ago. The town of Schuyler is located approximately two miles to the southwest
in neighboring Nelson County at the intersection of Route 617 and Route 800. Near-by clearings are
characterized by pasture, hedgerows, agricultural buildings, and quarry sites. In addition, a trucking
company is located on Route 800, approximately .2 miles away from this parcel.
Plan nine and Zonine History:
Mr. Galeassi currently has a Home Occupation, Class A, (HO 2006-26). The proposed construction of a
shed for the storage of materials associated with the home occupation requires a Home Occupation,
Class B.
ST AFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The applicant has provided the minutes of a meeting of the Quarries home owners association indicating
full approval of the construction ofa 10' x 15' shed, in the location indicated in Attachment A., for the
purposes of operating a home occupation on the Galeassi property. Giannini Road (Route 613) serves a
total of seven parcels, most of which are heavily wooded. Staff visited the site in March; even without
leaves on the trees, visibility of the nearest residence was difficult. (Attachment B.)
The impacts on adjacent properties from this home occupation depend on the manner with which
materials are stored, the absence of employees on site, and the expected low intensity of any traffic
produced. With the construction of the shed, any materials stored on site should be located out of sight.
The applicant does not expect any delivery of materials to this site; any traffic generated would be within
the range expected with a residential use. The applicant has indicated that there will be no employees
located on site.
Given the wooded context and the expected low intensity of the use, staff feels that the proposed home
occupation will have minimal impact on adjacent property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
While the establishment of a home occupation supports the economy of the County provided by low
impact, small businesses, the scale and invisibility of home occupations is critical to maintaining the
character of the Rural Areas.
The Comprehensive Plan suggest that home occupation uses be limited to a scale and intensity that will
not diminish the character or quality of life in the Rural Areas, encourage suburban development, or
significantly impact natural or cultural resources. The Plan suggests that impacts from home
occupations be reversible, scaled and sited to cause minimal impacts on their rural surroundings, and
viable with no increase in public infrastructure or services, either at the time of approval or later. The
impacts of the proposed home occupation are minimal on the surrounding area and will not demand
increases in local infrastructure or services because it primarily depends on work located off site.
The change proposed in the configuration of the site by the applicant is minor, The visibility of the shed
will be minimal from both the adjacent public travelways and near-by property. In addition to two pick
up trucks already owned by Mr. Galeassi (seen in site photos, Attachment B.) a single small dump truck
will be parked on site. The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor does it constitute
activity of a scale and intensity that is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Areas. The applicant
has indicated that employees do not report to this property for work assignments, equipment, or
2
materials. Large scale material deliveries are made to the site of the roofing project, not to the Galeassi
. home.
The surrounding context is primarily open woodland. Because this proposal relies on placing the
proposed shed on an existing gravel pad adjacent to the residence, no site clearing will be necessary.
The 10' x 15' shed needs no footing, requiring minimal earth disturbance.
The applicant currently parks two pickup trucks in the driveway and in addition proposes to park a small
dump truck associated with Roofcrafters, Inc. There is a trucking company located .2 of a mile from the
Galeassi property. The applicant has indicated that a neighbor .5 of a mile away also parks a small dump
truck on their property. There are currently two pickup trucks parked on an adjacent property,
Staff feels that the overall intensity of use on this parcel will not change and that this home occupation
will not impact the character of the surrounding district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
A purpose of the Rural Areas District (Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance) is "Conservation of natural,
scenic, and historic resources." The low intensity of use, the preservation of the surrounding woodland,
and the minimal earth disturbance inherent in this proposal directly supports the conservation of natural
and scenic resources.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
This parcel and the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas. Staff opinion is that the addition of a
storage shed to the Galeassi property would not affect the uses permitted by right in the district.
. with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.2 of the Ordinance applies to Home Occupation, Class B. The following sections are of
particular relevance to this proposal:
5.2.2.1. a. 'Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory structure, or
both, provided that not more than twenty jive percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in
the conduct of the home occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory
structure, or both, devoted to such occupation, exceed on thousand jive hundred square feet,' provided
that the use of accessory structures shall be permitted only in connection with home occupation, Class
E.: '
5.2.2. J.b. 'Accessory structures shall be similar in far;:ade to a single family dwelling, private garage,
shed, barn, or other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically
compatible in design and scale with other development in the area in which located. '
5.2.2. J. d. 'No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would
normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. and any need for parking generated by the conduct
of such home occupation shall be met off the street: '
The accessory structure proposed by the applicant is a 10' by 15' shed, to be located on an existing
gravel pad immediately adjacent to a screened storage area beneath an open porch extension on the
house. The applicant has indicated that the shed would be constructed ofa material and color palette that
coordinates with the existing residence. The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor
does it constitute activity of a scale and intensity that is inconsistent with the character of the Rural
Areas. [t is the opinion of staff that the proposed home occupation is in keeping with the additional
. regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance
3
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
Comments from the Virginia Department of Transportation included realignment of the skewed
intersection of Route 613 (Giannini Lane) and Route 602, closing one of the existing entrances to the
Galeassi circular drive, upgrading the remaining entrance to a private street entrance, and assuring at
least ISO feet of separation between the entrance and the intersection, These comments were offered as
advisory rather than required. Giannini Lane is a public right of way that serves a total of seven parcels.
Both staff and the County Engineer feel that this proposal does not represent an increased level of
intensity that warrants these changes to the adjacent intersection or to the Galeassi circular drive. Staff
recommends that the suggested alterations to intersection of Route 613 and Route 602, as well as the
Galeassi circular drive, not be incorporated into the conditions of this Special Use Pennit. Overall, staff
feels the Home Occupation proposed and associated traffic expected to be generated does not pose a
negative impact to public health, or safety.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The use proposes minimal impacts on the site; no reduction in the surrounding woodland will be
necessary.
2. The 10' x IS' shed needs no footing, requiring minimal earth disturbance.
3. The use will not demand increases in local infrastructure or services.
4. Supports the economy of the County provided by low impact, small businesses
5. The proposal is fully supported by the Quarries neighborhood association.
Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this appl ication.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit
2006-05 Galeassi Home Occupation with the following conditions:
I. Special Use Permit 2006-05 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled "Plan
'B'" amended by Damon Galeassi in April of 2006 (Attachment A.) However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to allow compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 10' x 15'.
3. Employees shall not report to this property for work assignments, equipment, or materials.
4. All materials associated with this home occupation shall be stored in the proposed shed.
5. No deliveries of materials associated with this home occupation shall be made to this site.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to two pickup trucks
and one small dump truck.
A TT ACHMENTS
Attachment A - Plan 'B' by Damon Galeassi; site topographic drawing, site parcels, and site aerial
Attachment B - Site photographs
4
Attachment; -l
.
~,
k.
>
,.~.
LOr .if33
s~ _02 I, AG
,. ... ~__ ~ ~ C<.JC"(( t"''''G- .
lJ.. ')t' I" ~. .. "~-: . .
.. -- ,,(lFD ~ ~
. i7P eyrr.,...-6-,' .." ~ bil i "... tvl'-I'
~p I" "~
6Mi!l :'A- ,II f ,
.;. ~
i . \
~'1 ' .
. . ..v~ . ~
. .!/
. ..~
~.;.~ .
>'
"
pc.. A\y 13 :;
I
~~ fC!
.~
....~....
. ------.. .
""-'.~
...-,.,.,-
C;;
- ------ -- -- - -- - - -- - - -- - - --- --- -
0 - - Miles
0 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Tax Map /26, parcel3IB5 ~
Note: Tilis map isfor display purposes only and silows parcels as of /2/3112004. See Map Book Introductionfor additional details.
126-31H3
126-31H6 (~',
'v/
126-31 J
126-39
126-48
126-311
126-31 J1 126-48
126-31J2
126-40
126-43
126-42
0 - ...;.. Miles
0 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06 0,08
Tax Map 126, parcel 31H5 I
Note: This map isfor display purposes only and shows parcels as of 12/31/2004. See Map Book Introductionfor additional details.
-- - ------ - --
~It
I
I
0 - -
0 0.0] 0.02 0.04 0.06
Tax Map 126, parcel 31H5
Note: This map isfor display purposes only and shows parcels as of 12/31/2004. See Map Book Introductionfor additional details.
.
.
.
I
---- ---- - --
B
-
-
I
,.-.
-
')
~_....--- "
~ J
'- J \D
- - -- - ......
. g
.
.
I I
.:)
--..
\~
I
I
I
i
I
" .:)
I
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 13, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, June 13,
2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Jon
Cannon and Marcia Joseph, Chairman. Absent were Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton. Julia
Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman,
FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Juan Wade, County Transportation Planner; Jack Kelsey, County
Engineer; Amy Arnold, Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
SP 2006-005 Damon or Nadeida Galeassi (Sians # 32 & 44)
PROPOSED: Home Occupation 'Class B': roofing business; one shed 10'x15'; parking two pickup trucks
and one small dump truck; helpers off site
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
SECTION: Section 10.2.2.31 Home Occupation 'Class B'; 5.2 Home Occupations
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre)
LOCATION: TM 126 Parcel 31H5; 5066 Giannini Lane, Schuyler
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
STAFF: Amy Arnold
Ms. Arnold summarized the staff report.
. Currently, Mr. Galeassi has a Class A, Home Occupation. He has requested a Special Use
Permit for a Home Occupation Class B, proposing the construction of one shed for material and
equipment storage to support his existing roofing business. The primary focus of his business is
repairs rather than full scale roofing projects. The proposed shed will be located adjacent to the
house on the southwest side, taking advantage of an existing gravel pad. The finished shed will
measure 10' x 15', which is too small to require a footing. The proposal includes parking two
pickup trucks and a small dump truck in the driveway. Employees do not report to this property
for work assignments, equipment, or materials. The proposed work will occur primarily off site.
The shed building is proposed to be constructed from the same material and color palette as the
main house. The applicant brought several photographs of the dump truck this evening, which
was one element that remained undefined. It appears to be a dump truck with an extended bed
and wood panel siding.
. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The use proposes minimal impacts on the site; no reduction in the surrounding
woodland will be necessary.
2. The 10' x 15' shed needs no footing, requiring minimal earth disturbance.
3. The use will not demand increases in local infrastructure or services.
4. Supports the economy of the County provided by low impact, small businesses
5. The proposal is fully supported by the Quarries neighborhood association.
. Staff has not identified any factors unfavorable to this application.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 1
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
0 Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of
Special Use Permit 2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church with the conditions listed in
the staff report.
. There are two corrections in the summary portion of the staff report. The first is an error
stating the incorrect project in the introductory sentence of the conditions. The second is a
change in condition 2. Zoning has requested that the following portion of the condition be
removed. That portion is "in a manner consistent with and of similar materials and colors to
the primary residence." Zoning has cited difficulty involved with enforcing such a condition.
The applicant is present to answer any questions that the Commission might have.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, she opened the public hearing
and invited the applicant to come forward and address the Commission.
Damon Galeassi, owner of Roof Crafters, said that he had been a roofing contractor for 31 years. He had
no intentions of growing into a major roofing company because he did that in Florida for a number of
years. He noted that he has some other investments and things that he does.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Galeassi.
Mr. Morris commended Mr. Galeassi for getting together with his neighbors and getting that settled right
up front. He said that was a good neighbor.
Mr. Galeassi said that it was a nice neighborhood. There are terrific neighbors down there. It is a
fantastic place to live.
Ms. Joseph invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the item
before the Commission.
Mr. Morris said that it was pretty well straight forward. It looks like a good logical request.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SP-2006-005, Damon or Nadejda
Galeassi with the recommended conditions, as modified by staff.
1. Special Use Permit 2006-05 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan,
titled "Plan 'B'" amended by Damon Galeassi in April of 2006 (Attachment A.) However, the
Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to the concept application plan to
allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 10' x 15'.
3. Employees shall not report to this property for work assignments, equipment, or materials.
4. All materials associated with this home occupation shall be stored in the proposed shed.
5. No deliveries of materials associated with this home occupation shall be made to this site.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to two pickup
trucks and one small dump truck.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Craddock and Edgerton were absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-005, Damon or Nadejda Galeassi would go to the Board of Supervisors
on July 12 with a recommendation for approval.
SP 2006-006 Mount Calvary Baotist Church (Sian # 54)
PROPOSED: Construction, new church building
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); VR Village Residential
SECTION: Section 12.2.2.15
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 2
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
F
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 20, 2006
Dex Sanders
16102 Raccoon Ford Road
Culpeper, V A 22701
RE: SP-2006-006 Mount Calvary Baptist Church (Sign #54) - TM 58A1 Parcel 20
Dear Mr. Sanders:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 13, 2006, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2006-06 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan dated
May 31, 2006, prepared by Dex Sanders, architect, and titled "Masterplan Mount Calvary Baptist
Church" (Attachment F,) Important elements of the concept plan include the following:
. The church shall be located as close to Route 738 as possible to maintain the overall
hierarchy of buildings along Morgantown Road and their placement related to one
another and to the street.
. To protect the adjacent dwelling to the east, no parking shall be located in the area
labeled mixed trees and shrubs adjacent to the dwelling on the east side of the church
property.
2. The ingress/egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) shall be consolidated into a single
entrance that meets VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street requirements.
"l A 12' wide by 48' long right-turn taper shall be constructed for access to the entrance from
.J.
eastbound Morgantown Road.
4. Two, 10 foot, one-way travel lanes shall be required to access the parking area to the south of the
new cemetery. In order to reduce as much as possible the amount of retaining wall needed, the
specific length of these travel ways, their configuration, and the arrangement of the parking area
shall be determined at final site plan review.
5. The existing 1890's church building shall be documented using the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historical Documentation prior to any disturbance of the site. Copies of the
documentation of the building shall be provided to the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources and the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Planner.
6. Permanent fencing shall be installed on the portion ofthe perimeter of the cemetery known as the
. 'Cooper Family Cemetery' that is located on the property known as Tax Map 58A(l) Parcel 20.
The location and extent of the boundary of the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' (labeled 'Old
Cemetery' on the concept plan) on Parcel 58A 1-20 shall be located in the field and fencing shall
Sanders
Page 2 of2
June 21, 2006
be fully installed as approved by the Director of Planning direction before any site disturbance
occurs.
7. Any area of platted cemetery that is proposed to be used as parking area shall be formally
abandoned prior to site plan approval.
8. Construction of the church as shown on the concept plan shall commence within five years of the
date of approval of this special use permit or it shall expire.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12, 2006.
Additionally, the Planning Commission took action on four (4) site plan waiver requests associated with
SP-2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church.
Regarding Site Plan Waivers #1. #2 and #4, the Planning Commission approved these site plan waiver
requests by a vote of 4:0.
1. Waiver of Section 18.4.12.15,a. (parking lot surfacing).
2. Waiver of Section 18-4.12.15.g. (required use of curbs in the parking areas).
4. Waiver of Section 18-31.2.4.4. (to be allowed five years from the date of approval of the Special Use
Permit to commence construction.) (Condition 8. under SP-2006-06 would permit the requested time
extension for this Special Use Permit.)
Regarding Site Plan Waiver #3, the Planning Commission denied the request for Waiver of Section 18-
4,12.17.c.1 (required 20 foot wide two-way travel lane for parking areas), and voted to approve the waiver
for 10' dual one-way access aisles, associated with SP-2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church.
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,
Au1 tz.~
Amy R. Arnold
Planner
Planning Division
ARA/aer
Cc: Mt Calvary Church
POBox 466, Ivy, V A 22954
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
.
Comments made by David Burnette on behalf of Rev. Daniels:
Hello. My name is Reverend Tracie A. Daniels and I currently serve
as Pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Ivy, VA. I stand representing
about 75 people- a unified body of Christian believers who are convinced
through God's Word that "we can do all things through Christ who gives
us strength." With that, it is our desire to erect a new worshipping facility
to not only meet our current physical and spiritual needs, but also the
future needs of this growing church family,
The majority of the members in our congregation grew up in the Ivy
community. For this reason, it is our desire to continue worship and
progress in ministry -right in the Ivy area, Our current facility was built in
1890. It replaced the original building which was destroyed by fire. After
much prayer and consideration on how to correct the current state of the
sanctuary, we believe that we are empowered by God and that he has
directed us to "plant" a new worship facility. Then, we can watch him
continue to "grow" it though "His water" (the Holy Spirit) and "His sun"
(Jesus Christ) along with the support of this ever-changing community.
As we reflect on the technological advances in the 21 st century, we
are reminded that as history evolves, the church has growing concerns
and desires as well. In order to reach the lost, transform lives, and change
.
this generation, which consists of illegal drugs, alcoholism, gang violence
and poverty, we need a structure to support our desire and committal to
God's calling which commands us to "go and do."
We have an active missionary group at Mt. Calvary as well. We
give money monthly to the local food bank and we feed the hungry by
supporting the Piedmont District Baptist Association in the effort to feed
the homeless, Many of our members work to cook and transport meals to
the homeless population in Charlottesville and the surrounding areas. In
addition, Mt. Calvary proudly adopted Morgantown Road and is
responsible for roadside cleanups twice a year or as needed. Families are
adopted during the Holiday seasons in addition to the nursing home
ministry which is active and thriving. The list of outreach opportunities
could go on and on at Mt, Calvary. We are truly a giving church and we
love our community and strive to be a good neighbor.
Over the years, our congregation has worked to keep the building
as modernized as possible to allow worshipers to further enjoy their worship
experience at Mt. Calvary. The church had a major renovation done in
the 60's. During this renovation a furnace and AC was installed. An
addition was added to the rear and the interior was redone replacing all
of the woodwork that previously adorning the sanctuary. In the 80's siding
.
was installed on the church. This was necessary because of the
deteriorated condition of the external boards. The siding covered all of
the decorative features that have been noted about the church. We
had to replace the furnace and AC in the 1990's. When the old furnace
was removed, part of the outer wall (including the foundation) caved in.
The church has been advised some years ago by an engineer that the
cost to correctly fix the current building would exceed the cost of a new
building. After many discussions, we decided to follow the engineer's
recommendation. We researched the availability of land and purchasing
such in the Ivy area, but found the cost to prohibit these actions.
Let me take a minute and show you some of our current concerns.
,"" ..
Thank you and may God Bless you for allowing us to present to you
tonight. We hope that you will consider or needs and offer to us a Special
Use Permit, Thank you.
. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: Mount Calvary Baptist Staff: Amy Ransom Arnold
Church, SP 2006-06
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 13,2006 July 12, 2006
Owner: Mount Calvary Baptist Church Applicant: Mount Calvary Baptist Church
Acreage: 1.46 acres Special Use Permit for: the construction of a
new church building and additional parking in
accordance with Sections 31.2.4.1, 10,2.2.35 and
12.2.2.15 from Zoning Ordinance.
TMP: 58Al Parcel 20 Proffers/Conditions: yes EC:no
Location: 3045 Morgantown Road, Ivy Depot
Existing Zoning and By Right Use: Village Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Magisterial
Residential and Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, District
and fishery; residential; game preserves; wayside
stands; electric, gas, oil, and communication
facilities; accessory uses including home
occupation class A, temporary construction uses;
public uses; etc.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: nla DA RAX
Proposal: The parcel IS located at 3045 Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA -- Rural
. Morgantown Road and IS zoned Village Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
Residential. The applicant has requested a Special residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
Use Permit to allow for the construction of a two
story, approximately 6,640 square foot (70' x
45 '), church building and expanded parking area
to support an increase in sanctuary seating from
135 to 200. The proposal includes the demolition
of an 1890's church building currently located on
the site (Attachement A.).
Character of Property: The property contains an Use of Surrounding Properties: Small scale,
1890's frame church, a gravel entrance and single family residential buildings and small
parking area, a modem cemetery to the south of farms to the north, east and west, with the
the parking area, and a wooded area that includes railroad tracks along the south edge of the
a portion of an historic cemetery identified as the property.
'Cooper Family Cemetery'.
Factors Favorable: The retention of this Factors Unfavorable: The demolition of the
congregation on this site, with its relationship to existing 1890's church,
the surrounding community, its physical place
within the crossroads community of Ivy Depot,
and the historic significance of the congregation
exemplifies support of Rural Areas goals that is
integral to the fabric of the local community.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends
. approval of Special Use Permit 2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church with conditions.
1
Character of the Area: The segment of Morgantown Road (Route 738) where Mount Calvary Baptist
Church is located is included in the area identified as the village of Ivy Depot. Among twelve villages
included in the Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages by Dames and Moore, Ivy
Depot is an important example of an historic crossroads community (Attachment B,). The
Comprehensive Plan identifies crossroads communities as fundamental to the fabric of rural Albemarle
County. Morgantown Road, is one of the remnants of Route 39 (east/west precursor to State Route 250)
that is still in use. The primary ways the history ofthis portion of the village ofIvy Depot is expressed is
through narrow lots, buildings and site elements located close to the road, the scale of buildings and site
elements, and in the narrow width of Morgantown Road. Small residences, small farms, and Mount
Calvary Baptist Church occupy this length of Morgantown Road (Attachment C.)
Mount Calvary Baptist Church has served and continues to serve as a focus for both the local community
and the physical village of Ivy Depot. The congregation has been an active voice in the Ivy Depot
community since it was established in 1869. As the visual focus of this portion of Morgantown Road,
the placement and scale of the church building has been an integral part of the historic patterning of this
crossroads community since the mid 1890's,
Plan nine and Zonine History: Tax Map and Parcel 58A 1-20 is the result of several transactions
throughout the years. In early December 1894, the congregation of Mount Calvary Baptist Church
purchased approximately .3 acres of land immediately adjacent to Morgantown Road on which the
existing church was built.
In February of 1985, Henry Hughes made a gift of the parcel formerly known as 58AI-19, totaling
approximately I acre, to the congregation of Mount Calvary Baptist Church. One of the boundaries
described in the deed describes the church property based on a property to the west owned at that time by
E. (Ephram) Cooper. Parcel 58A 1-19 contains a portion of the 1800's Cooper Family Cemetery, with
the remainder of the cemetery extending into parcel 58A 1-17 which belonged to the Cooper family as
early as the 1870's. (Attachment D.)
In February of 2006, a property exchange between neighbor Oneida Smith and Mount Calvary Baptist
Church consolidated and clarified the western property boundary in preparation for the proposed
construction of a new church (SUB 2005-379).
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in tltis ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
Staff usually asks for rural areas churches to comply with Section 21, Commercial standards for setbacks
and buffers. However, in this case there are identifiable circumstances that would warrant lesser
setbacks on the west side. There is a retaining wall on the west side of the existing church with a grade
change of approximately two or three feet, placing the parcel to the west of church property at a higher
elevation. Given the difference in elevation and the fact that there are no parking setback requirements
in Village Residential zoning district there does not seem to be a public benefit in imposing a parking
setback in this area.
The vehicular entrance into the site and parking are proposed along the eastern side of the new church
building near the parcel boundary of the residence located immediately to the east. Staff is concerned
about the proximity of the proposed parking to the neighboring house. In order to minimize the impacts
of parked cars on the house located immediately to the east, staff recommends that the parking along the
east property boundary begin no closer to Morgantown Road (Route 738) than the south face of the
neighboring residence and that a mixed planting of trees and shrubs be located in place of the proposed
parking area from the south face of the building north to Morgantown Road.
2
The Planning Division has been contacted by a near-by property owner voicing concern over an ongoing
. drainage issue that involves the church property, It is clear that the local topography includes a large
swale that initiates near the church site and directs the flow of water to the southeast and across
neighboring parcels. Current Development has indicated that existing drainage conditions are not
addressed during the site plan review process, but that stormwater run off requirements do address any
increase in runoff onto neighboring property. Staff has suggested to the applicant that the concerns of
the neighbors to the east regarding stormwater run-off be addressed as part of their stormwater
management plan.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The south side of this portion of the village of Ivy Depot is characterized by narrow lots, small scale
residences (primarily wood frame) and site elements constructed of local materials, all arranged close to
the edge of a narrow Morgantown Road. A few residences and a farm occupy the north side of this
portion of Morgantown Road (Attachment C.). The church property contains an 1890's frame church
with a standing seam metal roof and a stone foundation located 15 feet from the edge of Morgantown
Road, a gravel entrance and parking area that is currently accessed from both the east and west sides of
the church, a modern cemetery to the south of the parking area, and a wooded area between the modern
cemetery and the railroad tracks that includes a portion of an 1800's cemetery identified as the 'Cooper
Family Cemetery'.
Since the initiation of the Special Use Permit process for this proposal, both Preservation Piedmont and
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources have expressed concern over the proposed demolition of
the 1890's church building and preservation of the Cooper Family Cemetery (labeled 'Old Cemetery' on
the concept plan).
. The applicant has indicated that the congregation of Mount Calvary has spent several years discussing
options and raising the funds needed to build a new structure, or renovate the existing building in a
manner that would support what is an active, growing church community. The importance of the history
of the congregation on this site and in the existing 1890's church building is acknowledged by the
congregation. The congregation indicates that the decision to demolish the existing 1890's church has
not been an easy one for the congregation, though they have decided to pursue that course of action. The
applicant has indicated that the existing church building has serious structural problems and has
emphasized the need for a safe and accessible meeting place for the church congregation.
Rural Areas Section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the importance of preserving rural districts and
emphasizes the importance of cross roads communities in the overall fabric of Albemarle County. While
the existing church building contributes considerably to the character of the site and to this section of Ivy
Depot, it is staffs opinion that continuing the use on this site, with this historic and thriving
congregation, and within the village of Ivy Depot is important to the local community. It is staffs
opinion that maintaining the overall hierarchy of buildings along Morgantown Road, their placement
related to one another and to the street, and their overall scale and material palette is of equal if not
greater concern than the preservation of one building. Construction of the new church building will
allow the congregation to remain on this site, preserving the historic relationship between the church and
the local community.
Mount Calvary Baptist Church has been active on the site for 137 years and has served as a focus for the
community for much of that time. A church in this location, with its relationship to the surrounding
community, its place within the crossroads community of Ivy Depot, and the historic significance of the
congregation exemplifies support of Rural Areas goals that is integral to the local community.
. In order to minimize disruption in the overall village pattern of Ivy Depot, to avoid featuring a parking
lot at the Morgantown Road edge and to allow a church building to continue its predominant presence in
the village, staff recommends that the new church building be located as close to the footprint of the
3
existing church as zoning setbacks will allow. The standard Village Residential setbacks cannot be waived
or modified without a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. However, Section 4,11.1 will allow a
stairway or porch to project 4' into the front and side setbacks. The setback from Morgantown Road under
Village Residential zoning is 25 feet measured from the edge of the prescriptive easement. This setback and
allowance for front porch projections, when applied to the proposed church building, places the face of the
new church 10 feet to the south of the face of the existing church. It is staffs opinion that the resulting
building placement falls within an appropriate range for maintaining the physical continuity of the
village of Ivy Depot.
Given the proposed parking and drainfields located in the southern portion of the site, confirming the
exact location of the Cooper Family Cemetery has been of concern to staff. The portion of the site that
contains the cemetery is wooded, making the location and extent of the cemetery difficult to clearly
determ ine. Dr. Lynn Rainville an anthropology/archeology faculty member of Sweet Briar College,
specializing in identifying and mapping early African-American cemeteries in Virginia donated her time
on behalf of the applicant and Albemarle County to locate the Cooper Family Cemetery.
With the permission of the applicant and a neighboring property owner, Dr, Rainville has mapped not
only the Cooper Family Cemetery, but the 20th century cemetery on this site, as well as the historic
Mount Calvary Baptist Church Cemetery located on a parcel adjacent to Murray Elementary School. Dr.
Rainville's report on the Cooper Family Cemetery is included in this report (Attachment D.). Dr.
Rainville has identified and mapped 50 graves on site and has indicated that there may be as many as
over 100 individuals buried in the cemetery, but that the intensity of the undergrowth in April / May
when the mapping occurred made total numbers difficult to assess.
In order to preserve the Cooper Family Cemetery staff recommends that permanent fencing be installed
on the portion of the perimeter of the cemetery known as the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' that is located
on the property known as Tax Map 5 8A( 1) Parcel 20. Staff also recommends that the location and
extent of the boundary of the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' on Parcel 58A 1-20 be located in the field by
Dr. Lynn Rainville and that the fencing be fully installed and functioning before any site disturbance
occurs.
tltat suclt use will be in Itarmony witlt tlte purpose and intent of tit is ordinance,
A purpose of the Rural Areas District (Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance) is "Conservation of natural,
scenic, and historic resources." Allowing the congregation of Mount Calvary Baptist Church to continue
its relationship to the surrounding community and maintain its physical presence within the crossroads
community of Ivy Depot directly supports the conservation of both historic and scenic resources in the
County.
witlt uses permitted by right in tlte district,
The property and the adjacent properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The uses permitted by right under
RA Zoning directly support agriculture, forestry, and the conservation of rural land. The Rural Areas
Section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the achievement, maintenance, and improvement of rural
land patterning, including crossroads communities. Part of this vision includes the support of
agricultural and forestal communities through community meeting places, at rural scales, that provide the
opportunity to take part in community life. The construction of a new church building on this site will
allow the congregation of Mount Calvary Baptist Church to continue to support local community life at a
rural scale, as it has since 1869.
witlt tlte additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of tit is ordinance,
There are no regulations in Section 5.0 of the Ordinance that apply to church buildings and adjunct
cemeteries.
4
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
. The concept plan includes both primary and reserve drainfields and parking spanning a new cemetery
and the wooded portion of the site that contains the Cooper Family Cemetery. The Health Department
has indicated that in order to be approved, any portion of a parking area located above a primary or
reserve drainfield must be paved and include a construction cross section unique to this condition.
Drainfields must be located 5' minimum from the property boundaries, but there is no minimum distance
required between a cemetery and a drainfield.
Due to the increased traffic volume expected for Sunday services, Virginia Department of Transportation
and the County Engineer have required that the ingress/egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) be
consolidated into a single entrance that meets VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street
requirements, which includes a 24' minimum travelway at the entrance. The concept plan includes an
entrance measuring 20' wide. Staff recommends that the entrance width be adjusted to meet VDOT
standards during site plan review. VDOT and the County Engineer have also required the addition of a
12 'wide by 48' long right-turn taper for access to the entrance from eastbound Morgantown Road. The
required taper is included on the concept plan.
Route 738 lies within a 30' prescriptive easement centered on the roadway. The County Engineer has
recommended the dedication to public use of a 15' right-of-way along the front of the property in
anticipation of future improvements along Morgantown Road. However, after researching the
conditions along Morgantown Road and determining that there are no other existing dedicated right-of-
ways from Route 250 west to Murray Elementary and that there are no future plans to increase the width
of Morgantown Road, both the County Engineer and planning staff has concluded that no public service
will be served by dedicating a public right-of-way and recommends that the parcel remain as currently
configured.
. Under section 4.12.6, the zoning administrator detennines the number of parking spaces required for
churches in the rural areas of the comprehensive plan. Based on the parking study submitted by the
applicant, Zoning has established that required parking will fall somewhere in the range of 56 to 88
spaces. Zon ing has suggested reducing the length of the parking spaces from 18 feet to 16 feet in any
area where the parking will overhang grass, such as adjacent to the cemetery. The reduction in parking
space length will not be appropriate when adjacent to areas containing required site plantings. Zoning
has also suggested that the parking be angled, which is more space efficient. All of the parking shown on
the final site plan will have to meet the standard determined for required parking.
Waiver Requests:
1. The Albemarle County Code requires parking lots be surfaced (l8-4.12.15,a.). The applicant has
requested a waiver of this requirement and proposes to use gravel as the primary surface for the
parking areas on the parcel. The applicant has indicated that their primary concern in making this
request is reducing stormwater runoff, consequently reducing the need for storm water management
facilities on a small site. The primary parameters for the VDOT computation method (specified in the
Code) for designing the parking lot surface are the traffic volume (average daily trips) and the soil
support value. Due to the lower average traffic volumes in rural area churches, the use of compacted
gravel is generally an option, The specific design (type & depth of material) will be determined
during final development plan review. Staff recommends approval of this waiver.
2. The applicant has requested a waiver from the required use of curbs in the parking areas (18-
4.12.15 .g.). The omission of curbs from the parking lots for small rural area churches is generally
deemed to be in keeping with the rural character and therefore appropriate for this use. Approval of
this waiver is recommended, except where curb is deemed necessary to capture runoff for stormwater
. management. This will be determined during final development plan review.
S
3. The applicant has also requested a waiver for the required 20 foot wide two-way travel lane leading to
the south parking area (18-4.12.l7.c.I.). Moving from the northern to the southern parking area
requires passing between two grave sites, with clearance at that point of only 12 feet. Section
4.12.2c. of the ordinance indicates that the Zoning Administrator may modify or waive a design
requirement if they find that public health, safety or welfare wouldbe equally or better served through
the modification and only after consultation with the County Engineer. Both the Zoning
Administrator and the County Engineer have indicated that the reduction of the two-way travelway to
12 feet is too narrow to serve the parking spaces for 14 to 37 additional vehicles. However, the
County Engineer could support a reduction of the passage to 18 feet. The Zoning Administrator and
County Engineer have indicated that two, 10 foot wide, one way travelways would also be
appropriate as an alternate.
4. The Zoning Ordinance allows 24 months for both construction and start of the use of a Special Use
Permit (18-31.2.4.4.). Staff has found that churches often need more time to accomplish their
fundraising prior to building. Staff recommends that the time allowed for construction and start of the
use of this Special Use Permit, should it be approved, be increased to five (5) years.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: The retention of this congregation
on this site, with its relationship to the surrounding community, its physical place within the crossroads
community of Ivy Depot, and the historic significance of the congregation exemplifies support of Rural
Areas goals that is integral to the fabric of the local community.
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application: The demolition of the existing
1890's church.
Waivers:
1. The applicant has requested a waiver from Section 18-4.12.15.a, requires parking lots be surfaced.
Staff has no objections to this request.
2. The applicant has requested a waiver from the required use of curbs in the parking areas (18-
4.12.15.g.). Staff has no objection to this request.
3. The applicant has also requested a waiver for the required 20 foot wide two-way travel lane leading to
the south parking area (18-4.12.17 .c.I,), Staff does not recommend support of this waiver.
4. The applicant has requested a waiver from 18-31.2.4.4. to be allowed five years from the date of
approval of this Special Use Permit to commence construction. Staff has no objections to this
request. Condition 8. under SP 2006-06 would permit the requested time extension for this Special
Use Perm it.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit
2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church with the following conditions:
I. Special Use Permit 2006-06 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan dated May 31,
2006, prepared by Dex Sanders, architect, and titled "Masterplan Mount Calvary Baptist Church"
(Attachment F.) Important elements of the concept plan include the following:
. The church shall be located as close to Route 738 as possible to maintain the overall hierarchy of
buildings along Morgantown Road and their placement related to one another and to the street.
. To protect the adjacent dwelling to the east, no parking shall be located in the area labeled mixed
trees and shrubs adjacent to the dwelling on the east side of the church property.
2. The ingress/egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) shall be consolidated into a single entrance
that meets VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street requirements.
3. A 12'wide by 48' long right-turn taper shall be constructed for access to the entrance from eastbound
Morgantown Road.
6
4. Two, 10 foot, one-way travel lanes shall be required to access the parking area to the south of the new
. cemetery. In order to reduce as much as possible, the amount of retaining wall needed, the specific length
of these travel ways, their configuration, and the arrangement of the parking area shall be determined at
final site plan review.
5. The existing 1890's church building shall be documented using the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historical Documentation prior to any disturbance of the site. Copies of the
documentation of the building shall be provided to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and
the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Planner.
6. Permanent fencing shall be installed on the portion of the perimeter of the cemetery known as the
'Cooper Family Cemetery' that is located on the property known as Tax Map 58A( 1) Parcel 20. The
location and extent of the boundary of the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' (labeled 'Old Cemetery' on the
concept plan) on Parcel 58A 1-20 shall be located in the field and fencing shall be fully installed as
approved by the Director of Planning direction before any site disturbance occurs.
7. Any area of platted cemetery that is proposed to be used as parking area shall be formally abandoned
prior to site plan approval.
8, Construction of the church as shown on the concept plan shall commence within five years of the date
of approval ofthis special use permit or it shall expire.
Waiver Requests:
J. Staff has no objections to a waiver of Section 18-4.12.15.a. (parking lot surfacing).
2. Staff has no objection to a waiver of 18-4, 12.15.g. (required use of curbs in the parking areas).
3. Staff does not recommend support of a waiver of 18-4.12.17.c.1. (required 20 foot wide two-way
travel lane for parking areas).
4. Staff has no objections to a waiver from 18-31.2.4.4. (to be allowed five years from the date of
approval of this Special Use Permit to commence construction).
. A TT ACHMENTS
Attachment A - Excerpts from Virginia DHR file numbers 002-0274-0001 and 002-0274-0002
describing the existing 1890's church building
Attachment B - Excerpt from 'Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages' by Dames
and Moore
Attachment C - Morgantown Road and Route 39/250 alignments (close up of village portion)
Attachment D - 'Cooper Family Cemetery' report by Dr. Lynn Rainville
Attachment E - Site photographs: Mount Calvary Baptist Church
Attachment F - Existing conditions drawing prepared by Dex Sanders Architect
Attachment G - Concept application plan dated June 5, 2006, prepared by Dex Sanders Architect, and
titled "Masterplan Mount Calvary Baptist Church"
Attachment H - Email from adjacent property owner.
.
7
0 ,
Attachment A
Department of Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Level Survey
Albemarle DHR Id#: 002-0274
Resource Identification
Property Name(s): ....... ..... Mt. Calvary Baptist Church {Historic/Current} National Register Eligibility Status
Property Date: .................... ca 1890 Property is Historic (50 years or older)
Address(s): .......................... Morgantown Road {Current}
Route 738 {Alternate} Property has not been evaluated
County/Independent City: A]bemar]e
City:................................. Ivy
State, Zip: ............................Virginia 22945
Magisterial District: .......... Samuel Miller This property is associated with the Ivy Historic
USGS Quad Name: ............. CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST District[ district]
Surrounding area: ............. Village
Restricted location data? No
Resource Description
Ownership Status: ............. Private
Acreage: .............................. 0.]
Resource is open to the public
Primary Resource Exterior Component Description:
Component Comp TypelF orm Material Material Treatment
Roof Roof - Gab]e Asbestos Roof - Asbestos Shingle
Structural System Structural System - Frame Wood Structural System - Weatherboard
Windows Wood Windows - Arched
Foundation Foundation - Solid Stone Foundation - Stucco
Site Description: ................ Church sits on a slight rise facing north close to the road in the village ofIvy.
Secondary Resource Desc: There is no parking lot, and the cemetery associated with this church stands about a 1/2 mile to the
west.
WUZIT Count: NR Resource Count:
No. Wuzit Types Historic? !1 NR Resource Type Contributing Status
I Church Contributing I Site Contributing
1 Cemetery Contributing ] Building Contributing
Contributing: 2.00 Total: 2.00
Individual Resource Information
WUZIT: .. .......... ....... ... ... ............ Church
Est. Date of Construction: .... 1890 ca {Site Visit} Accessed? ................................ No Not accessible
Primary Resource? ................ Yes Number of Stories: ................. 1.0
Architectural Style: ............... Gothic Revival Condition: .............................. Good
Interior Plan Type: ................ Threats to Resource: ............ Demolition
Description: I-story, gable-roofed frame church built on a raised stone foundation. Church covered with weatherboard siding with
fish-scale shingles on the gable ends. Windows are round arched with saw-toothed heads and 2/2 sash. Small
wooden pinnacles with wooden finials frame the central steeple. The steeple has a shingled bell tower with louvered
windows, a metal roof and a finial depicting a hand pointing heavenward. Beneath the eaves of the steeple are
wooden cut-outs of a man's head in profile, crying tears.
Cemetery Information
Report generated 4/] 2/2006
B
It
Department of Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Level Survey
elbemarle DHR Id#: 002-0274
Bridge Information
National Register Eligibility Information (Intensive Level Survey)
NR Areas of Significance: ................. Religion
Historic Context(s): .......................... Ethnic/Immigration
Funerary
Religion
Period of Significance: ..... ............... ca. 1890
Historic Time Period(s): .................. P- Reconstruction and Growth (1865 to 1914)
Significance Statement: This church is probably the most significant example ofvemacular
church architecture in the county, certainly from the late 19th
century period. The architect/carpenter is so far unknown, as is the date of construction. This church
replaced an earlier church at this location. It has historically been associated with a black Baptist
congregation. Both the history of this church and its congregation merit further intensive investigation.
Bibliographic Documentation
Reference #: I
. Bibliographic RecordType: ............ Map
Author: ........................ .......................
Citation Abbreviation: .................... Peyton map of Albemarle County (1875)
Noles: ............... ....... ................ .........
Ownership Information
Graphic Media Documentation
Mpdium np.nnr:ilnt:)J Tn # Phnln np.nndlnry nn/p F'ilp Nnmp
B&W 35mm Photos 4413 DHR 1978/08/99 Jeff O'Dell
B&W 35mm Photos 13984 DHR 1994/02/99 GeoffHenry
Cultural Resource Management (CRM) Events
.
Report generated 4/12/2006
q
< It
Department of Historic Resources
Reconnaissance Level Survey
Albemarle DHR Id#: 002-0274
CRM Event # I,
Cultural Resource Management Event: ....... Reconnaissance Survey
Date: ................................................................... 1988/04/27
Organization or Person: ................................. Helen P. Ross
CRM Event Notes or Comments: .................... John Milner Associates, Inc.
Alexandria, Y A
CRM Event # 2,
Cultural Resource Management Event: ....... Reconnaissance Survey
Date: ................................................................... 1995/01/10
Organization or Person: ................................. Geoff Henry
CRM Event Notes or Comments: ......... .......... Dames & Moore
CRM Event # 3,
Cultural Resource Management Event: ....... Reconnaissance Survey
Date: ......... ......................................................... 1978/09/99
Organization or Person: ................................. Jeff O'Dell
CRM Event Notes or Comments: .................... Comprehensive architectural survey of Albemarle County, 1978- I 981 (no report).
CRM Event # 4,
Cultural Resource Management Event: ....... Survey: Indeterminate
Date: ................................................................... 1976/03/99
Organization or Person: ................................. Lapsley & Thomsen
CRM Event Notes or Comments: .................... Three Notched Road Survey- Project by students under the direction ofK. Edward
Lay, School of Architecture, University ofYirginia
Report generated 4/12/2006
ID
I ---
" < 11
i ,-
I'
i ..J, ;>. 77 ProJect documented by stud,...... In the SCHOOl. OF
I ARCHITECruRE at the 1Jj'. i'Y Of VIRGINIA
under the direction of K. EOw JU(j) LA Y, Assistant Dean
!
THREE NOT C H E D R 0 A 0 SURVEY
I
,~ Bldg. NO. 36 Date j,ar 1976 Researchers Lapslev and Thomsen
'-.. '
j Name Fount Calvary Baptist Church County Albemarle
i Location Ivy; S side of Three Notch'd Rd(Rt738). .40 mi W of the Ivv Depot.
Date of ,,/ Original
I Erection c. 1890 OWner Congrega ti on
i Original Use Baptist Church Present Use Baptist Church
,
No. of Acres Present Condition: House Good Grounds Good
; Present OWner Congregation
,
Source of Information Nrs. Earia Jones
I
i Historic Description
I I
I ~.~. Calvary Church was bui1 t around 1890 to replace an earlier church
, building on the same site. f~S. Jones remembers going to the church as a
I
small girl, aged about 5 or 6 years, to witness the festivities surrounding
! the laying of the cornerstone. She is presently 92 years old. \~'111iam (1)
Kinney, father of Spurgeon Kinney, was the carpenter ,.rho built the building.
The church was founded as a negro congregation and remains so.
I ,
; I
I
I
i
i I
I
i
, !
i Architectural Description
I l~t. CalValJT Church is a beautiful example of the vernacular Virginia
"carpenter gothic" style church. Construction is wood frame covered .-li th
! weatherboard on a high stone basement. Gable ends and steeple are,covered
;
! i I with butt end shingles. \dndows are double-hung, sinele pane ,wi th super-
; i imposed head of a pediment over arch (Photo 2). A front extention tower
i I , covered with a gable roof serves as an entrance foyer and supports a small
! , steeple. The steeple terminates in a wooden hand pointing to heaven
i (Photo 1). The pointer finger and thumb have since been blown off and is
Ii ! : being held for repair by i-ihi tney Smi th, Ivy. Corner brackets supporting the
. i octaGonal steeple roof exhibit a strikingly African-looking head profile,
:' I ~ ' crying a large teardrop (Photo 2).
i. I
'II ; I
.
'. I : !
. ,
,
I I
! ! i i1
i f
I,
i ~
~. n
.... _.,....'..... ft.. ;\-
._~ '-'. ...
"- ---- ,..--..--.
.",,"' " -.., ,......1.......... ..... ...... c'r_..~.,'O!"... ''''Jr'''~, ......." ~.'.
.~; ..~: ~~~:"i;'1~7<r(~:..:I;t:"f:..,,: ~....>:.: "" .' ~~~../-1.~:t... .:: 7'''.', '.,'. ." ,
". 'o'<~' i!t" ':'J!j""". ,~."'-' ,~..~t_.. .!,~"".t '$"""""~" ,. '.. __. ,.. .
. "~qr::~' ')~:' ':'C" X,;:l;.f~~: \: \"~~~7 ";, ,-. .., '" ......
...~ OK', '" - .,..... .'.......... ..,_.... 1.,.1_ .,~:a..,.~.... '. ". _..~..,~ ......
.,~, . "~"-'" ~.."'''.. .., ..... """'~.....~.,~..,~.,.., .""~\ "" .. '-.
. ~&.. ""i':'~',.". '~,:"',' .;.' '\..;il:'", 'f"'..,'t'?,~. : """'..i ""'. ....!."...... . '": "",_ ....
I" I ~"R' . ""-.... <C.., .' <. " -.. ..~, "JoV~~, .~"" .., ""h .. '.' ..,.. .... .
.!; ..JI:~:_ 'C..\:.;....:'~:.~,:,:.::.~.;,.:.~":..,.,~.:~':.~..~:""!"l.;>~~t... ::"'",'.' "," '_d
'I: ~:!' "'~~1'-I'r~",,,~ "''''';-'' , .... ..~$l...-t,....'" .... ',.' ... '.:;
I
.. . -~ . .'<..... '.,
'. H'.....~.j
'-~ ~ . ~,<';:: :1?;
..". " ~. , "
.H" 0,
J
"" ". ?A
.:~~\,.'; .....,
'~t' ~' / /' _, !
:;8:' .f:.. "'!;\'~., ,.'
'" ~ " . , , " '. ~""~"""--
)~~~': - ":' :~"\:..~. ,"
1~'; : '7 I ~"
,~,;: ') .
" "'C','.,<. ',-.
" ..J!;':.... .: .
.'~..~;,
";i'
] I
;\<
: ~~.'-
..
/ :1
, I
I
'i
.,
\
,2.-
.k
I I c";~~i~~~ "~t'#;1kS~;0'i . . " ,.:::!1"';
I ., '. ~,.PftjJect dOcumented ~rudents in the;SCff.~t. 0/
I ~"" ,
ARCHlTECI1JRE e UN'" . .'. . ry OF VlRGlN~;,~.:.
I I under the EDWARD LAY, As.sistn;Dean .
! I '. .' ". )t~~.~
: I : I I
, I I
';'.:" ,:..
,. ;,,{,/:::,~,:'
.< I ~ ~'.
" "-. '..
.... ~I
',,": il
i '
1 I ~..,~ . ,
I I
, I " ~ ",
i r:'"
I . -
.i .: - ';'
I . -."'!"
'.
I J
j
I J~,
! , I i '. .,
! )
. .
.,.
' . ; J . '1-".
i ...,.... ...."!~~!"~!1 " .
,..
. ! "'i
;i l!i! ,
I I
,
i; ;t~
I' !,:
I; ff
.Ii ~ ..:.~'
'i' "
I ,.
,
,
i
i I
I r . .,'
j, ,-:: ....
. ..
i '.,; .
I
I i
I
I 'r. .;
i I
, I
I
: I i
!
!/
'Ii
:11
II I
' I I
III I
I
I
i i i ~
I
I
I , i
fi I
I \
I \;
" I.
! ~ j,
Ii .,
13
, ~:.t.';' .,"~'
I.,
;,
J
.,~, Ii-
/t!7~ \. . '^"i~'::, VIRGINIA
I,?l, ~
~I l~~ '.. File no. 2-274
<, . :.~-_ ~~i HlSTOIUC LANDMAllKS COMMISSION Ne!!,ltive no(s). "c",~".
....~.. 'l'1lo "I
:,,~,"h'y
I.'.....,'.{,;.,:. ...",':_. SURVEY FORM
"~:~-~~~' ~
I Iiistork nume Mt. Calvary Bapt. Church Common /lame same
I COllnty/I!lt'<<~~ Albemarle
i Street uddress or route number Rt 738 at Iv
l lISGS Quae! Charlottesville West 7. Da te or period ca. 1890
Original owner congregation Arch i tectl bu ilderl era ftsmen KJQ.(?) Kinney
Original use church (Negro;Baptist)
Present owner congregation Source of /lame traditional
Present owner aduress Source of dale oral testimony
Stories 1
Present use church Foundation and wall consr'n frame on cement
Acre,lge basement
Roof typc qable
State condition of structure anu environs Church is in good condition; it standsoonly about
10 yards back from the paved road.
St.ite potential threats to strllcrUf(~ __
Note any archaeological interest --
Should be investigated for possible register potential'! yes -X- no
Architectural description (Note signifkant features of plan, structural system and interior and exterior decor,ltion.
taking care to point out aspects not visible or clear from photographs. Explain nature and period of all alterations
and additions. List any outbuildings and their approximate ages. cemeteries. etc.)
This church is remarkable f~r its decorative (e~terior) details, which include
scrollsawn-wood urackets in the form of stylized human faces (reminiscent of
some African sculpture, and featuring a single large tear below the eye on each
face).
(and wood. st<j.ngles; .!
Church: frame with weatherboardingi' I-story; modern cement foundations forming
split-level basement; ~4-bay lateral facades; projecting2-story front
tow'.er/conta~ning vestibule and supporting belfry with polygonal spire-like roof;
gable roof; one-room plan sanctuary;
Interior: NA
Additions: 2 small extensions at rear.
Alterat1ons:
Exterior detaiU.ng includes: wood shingled gable of tOWEr, and belfry;
pediment-like heads over windows; pierced brae. .kets at eaves; . brackets
in form of human faces (all similar) at x.px.x belfry eaves; (formerly) a wooden
hand pointing upwards, on top of spire; small pinnacles at corners of facade.
Inl~rior inspcctL'd?xrn
Historical significancc (Chain of title; individuals. families, evcnls, elc.. associatt'd with the property.]
The church is said to have been built ca. 1890 to replace an earlier church
structure on this same site. A local woman, Mrs. Jones, recalled attending
the opening ceremonies aB t~*s church ca. 1890, attage 5 or 6.
Established as a Megr;~ ijregation, Mt. Calvary remains so, and continues
to be housed in the ". 1890 building.
The builder was WIn. (?) Kinney, father of Spurgeon Kinney.
hmn No. ViiI.( .1)1.0004
/1
~ DIVISION OF ~I~';-,(;~t LANDMARKS ~hli1~;,-__.,<.. _~ ~arcl
---'."9L<I;!!~~_~(_~,,_'J -2 -It
'\. ~.." HISTORIC DISTRICT/BRIEF JMA #20112
SURVEY FORM Al t. 15
. -City, Town. VillagciHaml~t-----fVy------------ COUnty A I bema r I e -_..~---
. Street C1ddn:ss or route number R te, 738 U.S.G.S.Quad Charlottesvi lie West
Hlstori~ name Mt. Calvary Church Commonnarne Mt, Calvary Church
Present use re I ig rous----.---------- BuildingStyle Gothic Revival-------.
Originai use reI igious Building Date(s) 1 ate 19th c________ ____
-----------.-.---------.------,-
I. Construction Materials I I
J Stories (number)
I o low basement C raised bascment
I
tJ wood frame I
-----
o brick 4. Bays (number): front ----L_ side (,hIJrch) ..6 __
bond: C English Ilil symmetrical o asymrnctri~al
o Flemish . _.~'_."_n'
C _~ourse American 5. RoofType
o stretcher o shed o hipred
o other ____________ I o parapet'? o pyramidal'
:: "tone I 6Ugable o mansard
::J random rubble ; o pediment? C false mansard
::J coursed rubble o parapet'? o gambrel
::::J ashlar o dressed D clipped end? Dflat
o rock-faced i C cross gable'? o pariip<:t"
I
o log: I C central f rOn! gable? C roof not visible
C squared o unsquared ~ 0 other ---.---.____.._ - _" __ H. _"_
notching: ________m______..__.._ .,~___
CJ V -notch o half dovetail I 6. Roofing Material
::J sadd Ie o full dovetail
:; sq uare o diamond j o shingle
o concrete block o composition (asphalt, asbeslOs, etc.)
C tefTa cotta , o wood
,
o steel frame I 6<l metal
o other I [i) standing seam
-- !
~--------------------~ g~=~ (simulated shingles)
2. Ciaddmg Material I 0 tile
o pan tile 0 l1at L glaJ:cd
Gi wehtherboard 0 composition siding t 0 slate
. ~ vcnical siding 0 stuceo .. . I 0 not visible
~-' board & bancn 0 alummum or vmyl sldmg ,_ ___.___________ ..______
:J shinl!le: 0 cast iron I 7. Dormers (number): fronl _side_
c: w7)"d 0 sheet metal I 0 gable 0 pedirnent'!
9 asbestos 0 enameled metal I 0 ~ed
'--' a.\phall :J glass '0 hipped
=: hrkkte;o; -.--.....----. .
[: f)ther ____. 8. Primary Porch
style ---.--....-
stc'ries ._----
levels' bays__ ________________.
materials . -.---...
description and decorative details
-.-------.-.--. ...- -~-.
--.-- --- -------------
...-
9. General SUfcplementarydescription and decoration: or i g i na I
building oundation has 6 over 6 1 i~ht, double hun2
sash in basement wal Is, pointed arc Window sur
rounds on upper story. steepl~ has cube-l ike lant,rn,
covereJ in wood fish scale, shingles, polygonal spire
10. Major ac:kllllons and alterations is topped by a ca rved wood
hand
2 rear additions, both are frame, 1 is 2 stories and
rests on concrete block foundation, the other is I
Ho" nnd hI'S a c:encrete !'lad _. .____n ___. _ .
II. Outbuildings:
none
~-_.._--_.- .-------..-
12. Landscape Features:
~ gravel parking area, evergreens
_._'._'_ _.__________u. .._. .
III SigniJicance: typical expression of its type ~nd
I period. This property is recommended potentially
. I eligible for the National Register as a contributing
I f d' ,
I resource 0 a IstrlCt.
I
c________ _____ _____~_.________..__ _ Dall.4/27/88
i Sllr.c~cd by: Helen P. Ross
I John Milner Associates, I~c.
-.. -, -'-"'--'--"'-'-'-'-~--'- -.- --. ---.. -- .-..- -'-- ..--------------~A_ElT_i-a,--\l-A---
IS
I.
: ~. Ir
'Ii ~ V\
j'
1; O~-~
00 :. .
, / z"r. Wj c.- _ .
i : C 0 -~ CJ~ <9
"
II
4 <.. i.j c./., ,'"- ~;; "'_) L~.. oR....- 7.lF
:. r . _ I
i I ~./ 4 ~'J -$- '-k,~
;
; I
! ~ J IK. '? c!- ..(.,; ", ./ -t'''?)/- ~ ~~
.': ~ J 4 /-i ~e. .rah,,/_
I' // .
! ik'" ) ~ _ 4,,.,,,,, - "'--).A~ C"r.':"" L..
r4 ~ t.... MJlro~. .!f{.,'''-J './n.... <::? ....'<le ~ r;z-.,....,'..'-~ , "" /"-;;.- '""-~."L
" ,/ (j./ c7
i
I.
,
, .
!
1ft
.-.---..""
J+
Page No. 1 VDHR 09/13/199:
~ECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FORM
IDENTIFICATION
===================================
VDHR IDENTIFICATION #: 002-0274~
Property Names ~W:rL~ ~ 11 q..,.<...J
----------------------------------------------------------
Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Historic
NR Resource Type: Building
VDHR Historic Context: Religion
ADDRESS/LOCATION
================================:==
Addresses
----------------------------------------------------------
Route 738 (Morgantown Road) Current
Vicinity of: Municipality: Ivy
County/Independent City: Albemarle
State: VA ZIPCode 22945-
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
411fGS Quad Name: CHARLOTTESVILLE WEST
Local Tax Code: Section Parcel
Location: South side of Route 738, 1/2 mile southwest of U.S. 250
Name of Historic District:
Name of Potential Historic District: Ivy Historic District
SITE DESCRIPTION
~==================================
Site plan on file at VDHR? Yes
Physical Character of General Surroundings: Village
Physical Character of Immediate Setting: Residential Lot
Site Description Notes/Notable Landscape Features
------------------------------------------------------------
Church sits on a slight rise close to the road. There is no
parking lot or cemetery, although a cemetery associuated
with this church stands about a 1/2 mile to the west.
CLASSIFICATION AND COUNT
~--------=--=---------------------
-------- -- ---------------------
NR Resource Type: Building Ownership Categories: P
/1
A-
Page No. 2 VDHR 09/13/199!"
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FORM
NR Resource Count
lof Resource Types C/NC/NE
-----------------------------------------------------
1 Building Contributing TOTAL: 1
Contrib: 1
Non-Contrib: 0
Wuzits Type Count
lof Wuzits Type C/NC/NE
------------------------------------------------------
1 Church Contributing TOTAL: 1
Contrib: 1
Non-Contrib: 0
INDIVIDUAL RESOURCES DATA
~===================================
WUZIT: CHURCH C/NC: Contributing
Name:
Estimated Date of Construction: 1890s Source: site Visit
Physical Status: Existing
Condition: Good Threat: None
PRIMARY COMPONENTS AND MATERIALS
Component # Type or Form Materials Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Door o Arch Wood Painted
Foundation o Solid stone stuccoed
Roof o Gable Asbestos Shingle
Walls o Frame Wood Weatherboard
windows o Arch Wood 2/2
# of stories: 1.0
# of Bays Wide: 3
Architectural Style/Derivation: Gothic Revival
Additions and Alterations Description
------------------------------------------------------------
The 1 1/2-story I-bay deep 3-bay wide rear addition is
recent (1970s).
Interior Description
------------------------------------------------------------
Interior Plan Type:
Accessed? If not, why not?:
18
k
Page No. J VDHR 09/13/199:
~ECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FORM
Interior Description:
Architectural Description
------------------------------------------------------------
1 story, gable-roofed frame church built on a raised stone
foudnation. Church covered with weatheboard sifding with
fish-scale shingles on the gable ends. Windows are round
arched with saw-toothed heads and 2/2 sash. Small wooden
pinnacles with wooden finials frame the central steeple.
The steeple has a shingled bell tower with louvered windows,
a metal roof and a final depicting a hand pointing
heavenward. Beneath the eaves of the steeple are wooden cut
outs of a man's head in profile crying tears.
SECONDARY RESOURCES DESCRIPTION
=======:===========================~
None.
SIGNIFICANCE
====================================
411bar Built: 1890 Source of Year Built: Site Visit
ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL STATEMENT
=====================================
This church is probably the most significant example of vernacualr
church architecture in the county, certainly from the late 19th century
period. The arChitect/carpenter is so far unknown, as is the date of
construction. This church replaced an earlier church at this location.
It has historically been associated with a black Baptist congregation.
Both the history of this church and its congregation merit further
intensive investigation.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
============================;====~===
Map
Peyton map of Albemarle County (1875)
GRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION
==========================:==========
&~ Media ID# Frame(s)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
14
j}
Page No. 4 VDHR 09/13/199:
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FORM
CURRENT OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
===---===============================
SURVEYOR'S NOTES
==============================:=====
CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
====================================
Date CRM Event Agency/Individual Assoc 10#
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1/10/1995 Reconnaissance Henry, Geoff/Dames &
Survey Moore
2-D
--
..",.--
~.~ ~4- A
~.,. GA-W~
CH-~ l,tJ lV")
3/c,.J'
-- 'F"Nc.,c
N ~el VE:'
~
1\T. 1-3~ (~0\4AWn>l.\.h0 ~~)
22--
Attachment B
FINAL REPORT
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SURVEY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY VJ[LLAGES
Submitted.bY:
Dames & Moore
7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 700
Bethesda, Maryland 20814
SulmliHed to:
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
221 Governor Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Prepared for:
Department of Planning & Community Development
County of Albemarle
Charlottcsvillc, Virginnia 22902
Octobcr 1995 z,f
B
.
. 6.8 IVY .
6.8.1 LOCATION .
Ivy is a crossroad community located on the north and south sides of U.S. Route 250 at .
its intersection with Routes 678 and 738. The tracks of the CSX (formerly C & 0) Railroad run .
roughly parallel to Route 738. The oldest part of the village is located along Route 738,
formerly the main east-west road through Ivy. This road runs south of the present U.S. Route .
250 which dates only from 1932-1934.
.
Ivy is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Its historic resources are located
entirely within the Charlottesville-West USGS Quad. The Ivy survey area is shown on Map .
6.8.1
. .
6.8.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
.
One historic resource in Ivy, Spring Hill (VDHR #02-202) is listed on the National
Register of Historic Places. Ten historic resources within the Ivy survey area have been .
surveyed previously by VDHR. These resource, and the applicable VDHR historic themes, are:
.
02-209 Valley Point Farm Domestic
02-0274 Mt. Calvary Baptist Church Religion .
02-0277 Stevens, A.L. House
(Shifflett House) Domestic .
02-0278 Butler-Dunn House Domestic .
02-0281 Ivy Store Commerce
02-0283 Hughes House Domestic .
~"
. .
6-128 Ivy .
1-C:; .
I
I B
i MAP 6.8.1 IVY SURVEY AREA
Source: USGS
I
....,
I ~'J
:.{: '-/.1f(!-'''~ - .~- -~ '-::~~.
, -jij'~'" 0 '-..:.....
-l ,.. - ~..
\ I / _ ... ,', ...
I }0.,~-__ I' -.. . \~
... '. "west-I:
I C) - . "-
- I
I
J
I
I
~
I
~
I ~
,_--_/,,_1 ) )
I -
r ~.' : ,- /: n . I ~.,,- ~
~\ ... ...."1:/ v . \ ~ -
\> ' \, . / ,\ Oo!? .'\, ,-'-' ~
i ,,-~, :' , '\.. ''','' .~ \ 0
...... " .,' 1 _~ (.) , I
...... ..., \ \:. ".........-=-"' -.:'"::-I __ _ '_ ,
J ~ T;:~~~--tt.T:i=--~.~~~~._
0" - " ~ _ _ _ , >~
_-,-' r~\ -:, /~ ~ ~~:.;~~~--- __
I
l ~1~ ~y
I ~
13
.
. 02-0289 St. Paul's Episcopal Church Religion .
02-0809 Kirklea Domestic JI
02-0816 Johnson House Domestic
02-1180 Ivy Motor Court Domestic .
During this project, these resources were resurveyed. An additional six resources were .
surveyed. They are:
02-1825 C&O Railroad Bridge, Ivy Transportation .
02.:2144 Velimirovic House Domestic .
02-2145 House, Dick Woods Road Domestic
02-2146 Hen House, Dick Woods Road Agriculture .
02-2147 Cemetery, Ivy Religion
02-2143 Footbridge, Ivy Transportation II
.
6.8.3 ORIGIN OF NAME .
Ivy Creek flows through this area of western Albemarle County. It was cited in deeds .
for land in the Ivy area as early as the 1750s. The village at the present location of Ivy was
known as Woodville (for the locally prominent Wood faI)1ily) between 1826 and 1851. After the II
arrival of the railroad in 1851, the rail stop at this location was known as Woodville Depot
(Woods 1901: 22, 218; Jones 1950: 172-176; Turner 1956: 28). By 1859, the name had been \-
-
~
-
. I
6-130 Ivy I
2-1 'I
i' B
II changed to Ivy Depot, probably after Ivy Creek. The village's name was shortened to Ivy in
II the 1950s.
-- 6.8.4 SETTLEMENT TO SOCIETY (1607-1750); COLONY TO NATION (1750-1789)
It The Ivy area was one of the first to be settled in Albemarle County. The Scotch-Irish
settler Michael Woods crossed over the Blue Ridge Mountains to Albemarle County from the
- Shenandoah Valley by way of Wood's Gap (now more commonly called Jarman's Gap) in the
1730s. He was accompanied by his sons-in-law, the brothers Andrew and William Wallace.
_! The Wallace brothers purchased 2,000 acres on the headwaters of Ivy Creek shortly thereafter.
This land had been patented in the early 1730s by Charles Hudson, although Hudson probably
II never lived on his land. In 1737 Michael Woods patented 1,300 acres along Meechum's River
and Lickinghole Creek; he also bought the former Hudson lands from his Wallace sons-in-law.
- Woods is generally acknowledged to be the first settler in western Albemarle County (Woods
1901: 351).
,
Andrew Wallace remained on part of the property acquired from Hudson. This farm is
- now known as Spring Hill Farm and is located at the southern end of the present village of Ivy.
~ William Wallace built a house at Piedmont, his family farm near Greenwood, at the eastern foot
of the Blue Ridge Mountains (Woods 1901: 336; VDHR # 02-0140).
- The Lewis family was another early and prominent family in the Ivy area. Robert Lewis,
- owner of Belmont near Keswick, patented 6,500 acres in the Ivy area in 1740. At the time,
Lewis was one of the largest landowners in Albemarle County. His son, William Lewis married
- Lucy Meriwether and lived at a house on this property known as Locust Hill. It was located
just north of the present village of Ivy. Their son, Meriwether Lewis, was born in 1774 at
- Locust Hill. He achieved lasting fame as Thomas Jefferson's private secretary and leader of the
Lewis and Clark Expedition (Woods 1901: 252-254). The Lewis house at Locust Hill burned
- around 1838. The present house on the property is of a later date (St. Claire 1932: 90).
, 6-131 Ivy
- Zg
B I
. Other families lived on mostly medium-sized farms, growing mostly tobacco in the rich -
Piedmont soil. By the end of the eighteenth century, wheat and other cereal grains had become I
the dominant crops in Albemarle County.
Population growth in many parts of Albemarle County was tied to the existing road J
system. One of the most important colonial-era roads in the county was the Three Notched (or II
Three Notch'd) Road, which generally followed the route of present U.S. 250 and Route 240
between Richmond and the Blue Ridge Mountains. The road passed through the Ivy area and I
encouraged the establishment of several taverns and way stations. Probably the best known was
the so called D.S. Tavern, located to the east of Ivy. II
Although the Anglican faith was the official religion in Virginia during the colonial era, J
there were sufficient numbers of Presbyterians living in the Ivy area that they issued a call to the
Rev. Samuel Black of Pennsylvania to be minister of a Presbyterian meetinghouse near Ivy, a \I
. charge he shared with Mountain Plains Presbyterian Church (Moore 1976: 78).
I
6.8.4 EARLY NATIONAL PERIOD (1789-1830)
I
William Lewis of Locust Hill died in 1780. His wife Lucy remarried and moved to
Georgia in 1787. After her second husband's death, she returned to Locust Hill where she died II
in 1836. One of her sons, Reuben Lewis, was trained in medicine. He lived on part of the
Locust Hill property now known as Valley Point Farm. The two-story brick Federal style house ,I
(VDHR #02-283)(Figure 6.8.2) on this farm is significant as one of the earliest houses still
standing in Ivy. Dating from the early 1800s, it is located north of Route 250 about a half mile I
east of the railroad crossing (Woods 1901: 254). Another house from the early 1800s is Home I
Tract (Figure 6.8.2), which, like Valley Point Farm, is a brick Federal style dwelling.
I
. I
6-132 Ivy -
~4 I
Attachment C
....
:::
~
E
:::
.~
-
l::l
Q\.
~
~
:::
~
=:c:
.;:
~
~
~
~
(j
....
:::
~
E
..:::
~
~
~
..:::
~
:...
:::
C3
....
.~
~
~
C.
l::l
..a
a
....
:::
:::
~
\Q
~
~
~
~
~
~
~D
Attachment D
Report on the Cooper Family Cemetery (Morgantown Road, Ivy) .
Dr. Lynn Rainville, 30 May 2006 (lrainville@sbc.edu)
- ~.fi
:.! ~
r\
" \
,-~i
. ....1
--tt
,',
~,
t
t'
I:iI
. n _ ~
B:lck of tl~e 20th Gentury Mt. Cal.\"ary B:iptislChurch Cemetery
.... ~ __ a_ _.. _ ,...,
The Cooper Family graveyard lies about 53.5 meters / 171 feet behind the Mt Calvary
Baptist Church. The Cooper Cemetery lies about 12 meters (39 feet) behind the rear edge
of the late-20th Century Mt Calvary Baptist Church Cemetery. The Cooper Cemetery has
a fragmentary, barbed-wire and wooden fence around its northern edge that once
enclosed approximately 37.5 meters running East/West (120 feet) by 21 meters running .
North/South (67.2 feet) Because of a cut for the railroad, the southern edge of the
cemetery is at the edge of a steep hill. Originally, the cemetery may have extended past
this modem-day edge. The majority of the burials are marked with locally available
fieldstones, some carved and some unaltered. In addition there is one pink quartz stone
(number 21) and one metal marker (number 42). The metal marker had a fragmentary
piece of paper in it. The paper was highly eroded and ripped. The legible letters read
Am] and [initial] Co[]per. Although hard to prove, the paper may be associated with
the burial of Alice Cooper who died in 1937 (age 100). The on-line J.F. Bell Funeral
Home database lists her as being buried in Ivy Depot.
Figure 1: Gravestone 42 Figure 2: Piece of Paper associated with gravestone
42. It ma read Alice Coo er.
~1 #.c'.....,~, '''1 --
~-~- , -" ...
. -' , t'!~~...=. .. ~
.....'"f - ~ f-- f'- --
> - f!.;.' iA:.~ '- >!.
.... . CI: . ., ~ '
, "'=e. .
'. .~ ~~-"'-' r.
. J....-~.i:... r} --~.__.,~
~ ~~~'"' y;r
~~ . ~u, ~. '1;
.
~2.--
- - -
- -
- -
- --
-
- ---
-
-
-
-
- 3'
.
I ,
.
D
. Unfortunately, no other marker in the cemetery contained a legible inscription. Given that
the other markers were naturally occurring fieldstones, they were probably never
inscribed. There is some diversity among the fieldstones: some are flush with the ground,
others are carved into a two-dimensional headstone (reminiscent of 19th Century
gravestones), and others are upright blocks. Figure 3 illustrates an upright marker, while
Figure 4 is a carved fieldstone that lies beneath a fallen tree.
Figure 3: Upright marker (gravestone 35)
.
While some of the stones are carved into rough semi-circles (Figure 5), many are
unmodified, boulder-like stones (Figure 6). While this type of stone is common in
African American cemeteries throughout Albemarle County, the only way to prove that
they mark a grave is to do below-ground probes or Ground Penetrating Radar. Given the
overall layout of the cemetery I would expect that most of these stones mark a grave.
On the day we visited the cemetery, there were eight clear depressions. A visit to the
cemetery in the winter, without the dense undergrowth, would certainly reveal more
.
S1
--- -- ----- - - - -
p
...-
depressions and, most likely, more stones. Given the roughly four dozens visible
gravestones and the rough perimeter of the cemetery (partially enclosed by fence posts), I
would estimate that the cemetery had a capacity of about 288 burials (more if it continued
to the south before the railroad was built). Of the visible stones, some may be paired
head- and foot-stones, thus we may have located less than 50 individual burials. On the
other hand, there are almost certainly more stones in the cemetery that are currently
buried by vegetation, so the total number of individual burials may range from about 45
to 250.
In addition to the gravestones, depressions, and barbed-wire fence, there was a piece of
crockery lying on the ground (Figure 7). Since there was not a lot of trash associated with
-
A search for the family name Cooper in the J.F. Bell Funeral Home database pulled up
25 hits. Of these, several refer to spouses or informants, not burials. There are 18
individuals with the last name Cooper in the database; of those, 9 are buried in
Oakwood, 2 in Charlottesville, 1 in Esmont, 3 in the Lincoln Cemetery, 1 in Palmyra, 1
without a place of burial indicated (Alberta Cooper, died 1925), and I in Ivy Depot
(Alice Cooper, died 1937). It is somewhat surprising that the database does not list more
Coopers. Perhaps the cemetery began as a very small family cemetery, and was later used
by a larger neighborhood (to account for the large number of burials). It would be
unusual for a family cemetery to contain dozens of burials, even ifit were a large family.
So the most plausible scenario is a neighborhood burial ground.
I
-
:Sf
Cooper FamUy Cemetery \)
.
Key:
fence
Nt . gravestone
d I.
c:::) epresslon {small)
I I- e::) I .
dep.-ession
r. 5 meters
...
r ...................
-.".
..
..
I ..
. ..
. ..
. . ..
. ..
. . C:::J ..
..
. I c:::> .
..
. C:::J ..
. ..
. . ..
. .c:::> .
. II
. I ..
. C:::J ..
. I ..
.. ..
.. . I ..
.. ..
.. . ..
.. C=> ICD .
.. I ..
.. I ..
.. I . . ..
.. ICD ..
.. I . I . I ..
.. I I ..
.. . . I. .
. I . .
. I II ..
. . . ..
. . I I ..
. .
.. I I ..
.. . I ..
. ..
. - ..
# ~
#
# . . '
. . ,
. ,
I , , .
f;'dgE" I , . t , ' . edge
. . t . ,
. I I .
I . . . . . , , . I .
I . I .
I i',,'l~tCiI rrJc:1rke-i: "Alice Co.::"pt?t" (?)
.
t.~apped 20 April 20G6 '1t;;
C'l Lynn Rainville (Ir ~in\'ille @sbc.edt:)
I
- --- -- - ----
Cooper Family Cemet,ery \)
--
Key:
fence
Nt I gravestone
c:::> depression {small)
I I- e=> depression
0 5 mete rs
r ...................
.....
.
.
..
~~) I ..
211 ..
4~.I1 ..
. J~I ..
.. ..
.. 22 I 'i c::::, .
.. ~,,-
.. .HI :r;rl 1(' c::::, I c?
.
.. ..
.. .
.. 42 . .
.. 20 ..
. ..
. -IJ I ..
. 11 c::::, ..
. 2~ I ..
.' ..
. -151 ,.
. -1-11 ,.
.. -If.' ..
. 'I"I~ " IC:> ..
.. 471 ..
~ ..
.. .
.. ~(,I ~.: I 12 I ..
.. ..~ ..
.. 5(11 251 191 11:'0: I~ I ..
.. ~I '1 ..
.. 4s1 y,1 1711 - I. ~I ..
.. ,~I ~ ~ I I ..
.. "1 1(, I .
.. -l ~JI . .\) ~. 1-1 ..
.. ~~I 3~1 2~ 151 ..
.. ..
.. 29' xl ..
.. ~ II ~I:'I ..
. .
# - ..
# ~
, ,
, I I
, , ,
, , I I
I
, . I , Mae
e;odgE' , , , , ,
. I . . , J
. . I . . . I .
, . . . . . . , . .
. Metal m~fke(: "Alice Cc-oper'f(?j
,..
I
-
Mapped 20 April 20Ct3 '30
Dr Lynn Rainville (lrainville@Sbc.edu)
Cooper Family Cemetery D
.
Key'
fence
II gravestone
N t .1 , I'
e:::> depreSSion (sma l)
.r--\.' .1
r ._ ~ oe.oresslon
o 5 meters c=) depreSSibr., hypcthetical
I
................~....
...
.
.
.
.
r )') c:::) :J C::J :
· -10:"1 -==:Jx.r-----. :
· " ""-J ~~~ ...
. -I f c::) ~ 7"'---"" ..:..: c:::, 1 e:::> :
~ JI.I .
. .
. .
: -1~ ~ : .e:::> :
· ol1, r--\ 'I c:::, fI
· ' -----.; ~ 1 .---... J ..
. _. '-----' ..
. ..
: -1ol~~ :
· -"--:+1.~ :< .e:::, .
. ~ ..
· ol i '--......J .
: ',1I.~ i:' c:) ..c::b :
: ~.~ ~ ."Ic:::DI,9:
· olX ----.J l' a:::. 7~ ..
. . .... . . .
. ~~. .
· ol'.1 -==:J -:'-' .. .
~ ... ...-,"", ...
. ,', I. _.... "~.
. ~~.., .
~.'CJ ,<,I
. ~j - .
. .
. ~
# -
# l '
' , I I
' 1 '
' , , . ,
· , . t eaqli
J " ,1'_
I;>(JgE":' , I , , , . . 1 1 ,
"""""'"
. M etClI ma r ker: "Alice Coo pe r" (?)
. ,
I 17
r...lapDed 20 April 2006
Dr LYnn Rainville (Iraiiwilc:gsbc.eduj
-.
--/
~
,
--
_.
~
,
'-/
"
Mt Calvary Baptist Church Cemetel
Rear of Church
Key: Nt
I -
fence 0 5 meters
. gravestone
alignment with Cooper Map
,
. . I . I,
I . .
I
,
I
,
.. .
.
I
.
I
Key:
,,~ TOOCO
Nt . gravestone
tilt depression (small)
, - .. depression
0 5 meters
alignment with Church
r ....................
....
..
.
.
, . .
..
I .
.. . ..
. .. ..
.. . ..
. - ..
. I . .
. .... ..
. ..
.. ..
. . - ..
. ..
. ..
. . .
. .... ..
.. , .
.. .
.. I I ..
.. I ..
.. - '.. .
. .
.. . .
.. . . . ..
. I" ..
.. I . I .
.. I . I . I .
.. , .
.. I I, ..
.. . . .' .
.. , . ..
.. .
.. . . I ..
.. I I ..
.. . ..
. I ..
.. .
t -
, , '
~ ., t ' '
, , I '
0<:2 ' , t '
edge ' · , , . . , . , . , t , ' ' e-dge
J . . . , , , , , , . , . . , ,
V
!
,
i
D
. \:.. .u.... ....... ................. ............. ....... ....... r.. ... ...... ....... T.. ......... ... .....
\. ...... !! .,.....,
\ \" Mt C..jvary Baptist ~
": .... Churcf Cemetery ~
. "-. ~:
.. ~:
Key: ". ~:
. '.
. . "'.
. . ".
_fence -:... ~:
. . ...
. gravestone ~ ... ~:
c:> depression (small):. ... ~:
" '. ~ Nt:
'=' depression .. "'.
~ .. "'.
.. "'.
":..... I ~ ~
:.... 0 ~ 5 meters :
S8Al.18 \ 58A1-18A .....:.... ~ ~
\ ......... .... ~ ~
..':0 ... S8Al-21 :: :
00 o. :: :
\ ~ ~
......... . ~ i
.... ~ ;
~ Due to possible ~1UVey;error and/or
~ the lUlcertain (\Dlfence~ bolUl~'11ies
-: of the newer cemetery Olay fit mto
.. 001 ~ the property boundary ~ Jittle tighter
· . · · ... ~ and it may lie about 2 ~elers fa the
. ~ south (the measured pqicts were the
I ~ back of the church but 1he rear shape
· ~ of the church does not tOlTespond to
the base map used in tl~s drawing).
I
.
. ( ..........................
'I I
." '.
~ I
. I I
I
I I ~
I I
" ~
I I I
I .. . .
. . I II
. '."
I I I
I I I
. , \ Thi!;. may be a slanted edge l ' .
. I , . . I . I :...to lbe cemetery. I I , I t I , . 1 .
. 'e.:. .: .""".. ,
This map 11. ant)' fOl use as;t guidp 10 tht. .. . . . . .
,)pptnxirn.nefocilllonoflhe9folYl!1O.No ". ................... f1
pl'rmdnenc d.nulfl was IOU1ed W) alllO(,)lions ". .........o....... Mapped 20.Aprif 2006
.Ire e'\llmitlro. ..................... Or Lynn Rainville
- -- - - - --
SP 2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church Attachment E: site photographs -
-
Existing 1890's church building
-
Existing 1890's church building, view of south elevationfrom new cemetery ...
4b
E
.
.
........
--
--
;..,.-
-,~
-~
--
-,-
,
- ..... -,...
, ,. ; . ::r: c;.
I' ~"_
"rc r ~ ... 11 I :~
""'"'. ..t.~: ...:::.0. ,
' ~:....-
~~ ._-'....:o.'~ ). ~.:
.. = 1 ~fi ~:~
~,..."'5: ...
...,~ I ,.~~
~ A; '_~ '~... ~
- . --- , , . ,
~~-,.~ "'",. '. .!' At!~.... .
'<, ;0;. . ~ ". '~i:'c:--,_, ~
~- ~~~~~,~,.-
'.. ". '~~~...,.,-
"''M~~_ "..,~. ~.,.~.:~.%sc;-- " .
- ."~ -. C_-~_ _,_~
iIo ~.
.... ~ .
'.-~~-j
-~;,::~._. 2
. ....;:;.. . west side
Existing access, 41
- - - - - - - - - -- - --~
~
-
-
.--
.- -
------
- --
- - -~--
-
- -- -
-- --
--
-
-
--
..
- -.''':
:'".~
.;;
~rt'
.:I
~~~~_A.I~~t~~.~t:~I~~A~~ -
Existing access, east side
-
Church interior I
I 3
42..
~
. . ;
Existing church, basement level
.
. Morgantown Roadfrom in front of the church
4
4'3
..--- ---- ---- - ----.--
E
-
I
Survey flags marking graves in the Cooper Family Cemetery
-
-
Historic Mount Calvary Baptist Church Cemetery, adjacent to Murray Elementary
5
I
If4
-..--
SP 2006-06 Mount Calvary Baptist Church Attachment F: Existing Conditions
. --- ----
I ---- ----.--- -~~~-----,_____ S tot e R
/ --- --------- 0 u t
CL 30' prescripTiYii--L__.._ ~ '_ -\1'9"OJ'2' _ .' e 738 670
Easement ----___ FI' __ 7] ,9'E --_____
I ------. e . ..~ 9 --
------_ <") ~ ...-EDGE OF . __ ---~
~~....(' PAVEMENT]iil ~ S7Be20'41"E _____ -'. . "__.
Q" ~ ------__ 40,0)'_____
;---:---..---- --- -----.------
I \ ' --=------ ;r- ---- -~
'?OPI:: -- I\J -_
(;-~ ~/i'SCRIPTIV~_ (,00, --
EASEMEN ~ ___
1M? 5811j1J.18 ~ .- =----_______ I __
I N\F SM'IH, WHiTNEY 8 II ~ BLDG '"l -____
tI. ONEIDA t~'b~~(lOp . tFSAC I ___
0831,701,01 \ ERTyllNEJ ______
EX"T. REJ. WAll"." \ jl'3J.. 1"5
I 'I I I! /Wi"
I
I ''''~:~"~, I ,I I I, I
~.i i ) j
I f i,'; \ \ \1 / r I 6JO
I g '\ \\ / -1 '
~ \ ,'--_/ N i;j
-' '-. \ '/" I
~ \ ./ tJ
-~\- \ ---- ,', -
I \--\-/ . g. .~
-$) I \ lPAVED DRIVE 9' I I
O~,.l.. ~ TM? SSA/ll.:n
.;s\.C:;or-~ \ ~ N\F CHl:H Y. KEITH F
- -- , ~ I'-~o-')~ " I 'OR M^~; ~~~;E~~6JENSEN
- . \ DS 2245 P 639
- - _ ____ \ \ I D52" POlllO'OIII
. '\ \
'7 \
.-~ \
.-0 ~ I ,
.;JS "-,,,;?- \ t-e.':" \ . I I
~'Q '. \
.1\!;:' \ TMP 5BA:pl.n
( ';P/I . \ ~\F '1ICKE~Y, !:;!:VIN l,EE
,oj ~ OR =!OB~Rr lEE ViCKER'\'
/ GrO'lel PCl'ti"9 \ \ DB 18930304
:"100 \ ./
\ ~ 1 \.
19" i \ \ I
~.., I \
~ '\1 \
\ ! ----- \
\ . /,- ---- I
\ I ,.--- --- "".
\\ ':~:~---- ~'/., \
~ r ~
\ ~
\, Q
o .
\ \ I
~\
\ \ I
\\
\ \ I
~
\
\ \ I 005
r!;\P5BA[1I.17 (,15. ~\
t)\~ SMiTH, WHlT~jEY ~ \ \
&rnIOOA I
DB271 P 182 \
DB n p 175 \'.
D~ 66 D01~7(pI01) .... \\
\\ . .\
\ .'
\~ I
~\ \
<,..
\
~ .~
\\ ~"
\ \~
.r<'", ,TMP 58M1)-24
~. b1D '-:.~ NY' IVORY, bANIEL J.
\\ ~. '0: j~'t'~NJ~9
\ \
TMP 5BACIl-20
~\ MT. CALVARY BAPTIST
~ OB 'i~~R;H227
\ 1.45 ACRES \
'\ \
lIJS '\
\
\ a
\
\ \
O:dCtlmOICl:Y
595, \
\
~O. . ...,......,..'."..
'\ 7O'REAP. BLDG, SET!3ACK .
500 L
l - - - - - -
- 5(0 Dnllo ~ 1~.JO'38"
R '" 5005.51
A" 131.91
ca,"" ~86'!7"~5'W
C '" i31,96'
.--.-----. --------.--.---:--
-_..,--- ~-~._-_..--_.._-_. --_.~- ..--
~,~ ,~~:;'N - EXISTING -$--- c & 0 RAIL WAY
m~ )>
NORTH r+
r+
D)
n
:T
3
(I)
~
r+
~ ~
~~_.~
~
C)
-
c
Q)
E
.c
(.)
ns Hl~ON
~ .~
<(. . . u~_~~ l,I~:~~. O._~_?_.,...._,. .-" ch ,,0',0< = ,.I'3lVJS
------.'"-'--.'. --.-.-,- W NYld 311S
IN
,
.9t/lt! = :J
NI.Sv,li.99S 0:11:)
l6'1Cl =v
1S'"!;ro;"tJ
"eC.OC';l=DH<lO 'OLS' ____ _
-r- 77 / r--/ /T/ /' 7/,rr;:-
- - ~/' 7// //o' /,///00<" // /,/// ~""OJ01'W~Il"~
/ // / /// / /// /// / /' '7 / '''X''O.'~Y XO"dY
/ / ' / / / / / / / / ./ /\
'//'/ / jllV96..601""Y"p'-/,// ,;//,/7/,.LL~
, /'/ / /' ,/ / 7, 2L!.'!--~~-
V / _/,/ ~j_./-. - ,
'I / L.L--L--- ~\ \
/.;.- . S'6S'
. . " .' \>.. NOIQWO:)PIO
\ . "'\ \
\
00, \
\ "- 0131;N'..0 ","'",,," \
'" '.. ",.
/./... /~y/\~. " '
./., /'. \~
\ ~. .. . '/' 013I;NIV'O'^,";>'>!-- r <--~'..;'. '__
, . /.y~\ . ----lWM ~NINIV13~
. ...-::\ ~
. ,/--\./\ ,...-:6'90 /. eg ~\'
\ . J'.'.'/ 'I ./......... ...-)..-- .
--'(/,.~\ ('.. .
66f d rrr 80. ' /~.\J'//~. '\'
H NVI11I1 'Ii " /' --;. \ ........-.: ' /' \
'r 131NVQ '^~o^' J\N /, ,..:./6'~ /'"'"\ 019 / ,/ ~\
H-(IN9S drli \-- / /-"C / 'I
riO' /. '/
./~-:>/'; . . --\..--- ,./,
,\" ..------ ../ ;.),\ 0
. .......- -- . -- \\\
/-'. //~/// -- ')'
~ . /~ .~
..../ mYd'" \ ".;; ./ \, (<C,
/'~/~>);/: />:/x>- '<\
/" ' \\ t. IIOldlt.I'IOtl 99 eo
I (' . ',,' 'L1 d " '0
lei d ILlaa
. \ . a ^3N~19~';?ti~IS :l'\N
~ '" S3'~:;lV Stl \\ !i'i9 l1-11)Y~<J""1l
I ,~ \ mHg~~~ 80 ,'I
,~)., \ \"S~dV8 .~V^"VO ""' \"
\ O~-(I)V9S drll, '\
\ \ ,', ,\
I '\~\. \
, ~ \ 'I
\y " ",,', \
\.. \ ' . . 'I
I \). "\ \ ' 'I
\--p} \ \\\ 'I
\ \ \ \\\ -t) ~
I ' ''I '\ \, \ """13:) ~ ' 'I
, \ \ '>'J. \
0""""'0"01/ \, \ \ \ "I, ,\
llVM :JNi',IV13ti JQ INIL):J' '\ \\-u~ \ \\ \ \ '?~ \
.~ \~ \ \ \\ _ -' Cl9
I ,~\\~}\trrFfI~1 \
I " \. \ I '____ \
, . \ 7
~ ~.. . \ 1"~VJSWI0I9'1 _.__-1
I · \. _. ;j
~ d 1:691 so . --.----1 ----- ---____.>
m~~~~,'1;i~i~~',~~ ~'., ___ . . /.:: )
tl'liJVtiSdWl I ~-._- (-, ',~
I' S3~sa .~ .~~
, - I /4' ~ ." ,P.
(IOlal\,lad 'Quse -',~--- -- "'}'"J. 9i ~
;~~i~i~:g f' .- --1.:_ \".>>'
i3sN3r H1.3SVlJ13 ,l,ilVW ~I '~- ---- ,--
':l'Hm);''''H3H:)~\N - ; , \ __
u-llliVlX.m! _.. ___. ---.i...._--.. . \. __ __
, S~!1:)~'lVH~SV'lNO\ I '.-- ...' II "-N1'1'l'1,3(iOl _
. J. -; S331H :JNld 'iSIX;)' fc)
I "~~~;~;';~':;'~~----:- ----- ..._....d-'J
, r; :)H , I '.
f---,- -.-
::;VMS . ~ . -"'.-
- j,. . :JH
'lSlX:JOIMQ)~lJ10, .' 1_ ~l ;
I 03108iNO::J .' -- L~-'
. 3t:!nDmus dWS - ---- ./' _.-5<:-
Din 01 TO MOl'S -JF:jFl---L.L~_ -~ .........
. ----i._~/ ,.o"~ .
/ / ~
019 / ,':!
~
i!i
i;
:"""-4#15
SS'3t:!!)3 ~OIt:!31X3 DN301S]i!j )'~Oi!; ltJ
3QIM,I' :)NISiX)
- IlNIt:!dlOO~ .:1$ OZC',;; 'XO~d.NI
Ai!jV!11:JNVS i V:JS COt
(3:)NVNI0~0 SNOIl:)3i0~d ~31VMI Ll ~3idVH:) 300:) HlIM "tM ~~;~~~~;d~.~d"~'WlSllI
!. ldVVOJ 111M !.lIlIJV, ~31VMVV~10S SIH1,0 N81S30 WNI, 3Hi '\
:310N ~3iVMWHOiS ,
~ "11VM'J.3i:1'lSJX3
----
--- -- ------------ --o3AO'tljH ii13 01 lOv d z:;rC eo
--r. 3::JNV/HN3 'lSIX3 VOl3NO ow
~ 's ).)IUlHM 'HU\"J5 :f\N
tH-(llv~<JWl
-- ':"e
~I.f--
-- , Sl~ ---------
3. :0(."1:/ -- .:::, -____ '-...... }UQl/JQ803
019 .ol.C0"6.(S ______ . -~dIJOS&Jd ,or 1:)
'., ---- --- /
CJ f 0 f S -------------------_____ ----- . ---- _
---------- -
UV1J JdtJ:Juo:J :9 JUtJUltf:JVUV tf:J.lnlf.:J JS!Jdvfl MVtllv:J JunoW 90-900'l JS
Page 1 of 1
Attachment H
. Amy Arnold
-.
From: thomas looney [Iooneystune@earthlink,net]
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 1 :30 PM
To: Amy Arnold
Subject: Mt Carmel Church
Dear Ms. Arnold, I am the owner of the land directly across Morgantown Road from Mount
Carmel Church, I want to express my support for the Special Use Permit the Church is
seeking in order to replace the old building with a new one. Sincerely, Thomas C. Looney
3132 Morgantown Road
.
.
41
f)/<:;nOOf)
\
o Based on the findings contained i this staff report, staff recommends pproval of
Special Use Permit 2006-06 Mount alvary Baptist Church with the con 'Ions listed in
the staff report.
. There are two corrections in the summa portion of the staff report. 1: e first is an error
'{>tating the incorrect project in the introdu tory sentence of the conditio s, The second is a
cn,ange in condition 2. Zoning has requ sted that the following port' n of the condition be
rernQved. That portion is "in a manner co sistent with and of simil materials and colors to
the p'r~JT1ary residence," Zoning has cited difficulty involved with forcing such a condition.
The app.l!cant is present to answer any q stions that the Com ssion might have.
Ms. Joseph asked i('tq,ere were any questions for aff. There being one, she opened the public hearing
and invited the applicant to come forward and addr ss the Commis Ion.
\
'\ I
Damon Galeassi, owner of'~oof Crafters, said that e had bee a roofing contractor for 31 years. He had
no intentions of growing intb.. a major roofing co any bec se he did that in Florida for a number of
years, He noted that he has s~e other investmen sand th" gs that he does.
, ,
Ms. Joseph asked if there were a~uestions for . G~assi.
Mr. Morris commended Mr. Galeassi ~etting to ~~er with his neighbors and getting that settled right
up front. He said that was a good neigho r.
I
Mr, Galeassi said that it was a nice neigh1~~ . There are terrific neighbors down there, It is a
fantastic place to live. /"\.
\
Ms. Joseph invited public comment. There bein the public hearing was closed and the item
before the Commission.
Mr. Morris said that it was pretty well ~aight forwa d. It 10 ks like a good logical request.
I
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, M(~annon seco ded, to a rove SP-2006-005, Damon or Nadejda
Galeassi with the recommende%nditions, as mo ified by sta .
/
1. Special Use Permit 7006-05 shall be de loped in genera accord with the concept plan,
titled "Plan 'B'" ameflded by Damon Galea si in April of 2006 ttachment A.) However, the
Zoning Adm in is)icJtor may approve r visions to the co ept application plan to
allow complianc;e with the Zoning Ordinan .
2. The proposeq".shed shall be constructed n larger than 10' x 15'.
3. Employees 'all not report to this property or work assignments, equi
4. All materi associated with this home oc pation shall be stored in the roposed shed.
5. No deliv ies of materials associated with t is home occupation shall be m de to this site,
6. Vehicle parked on site associated with th home occupation shall be limit d to two pickup
trucrand one small dump truck.
The motio!passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commission s Higgins, Craddock and Edgerton w e absent.)
Ms. JO/.Ph stated that SP-2006-005, Damon or N dejda Galeassi would go to the Board of Supervisors
on ~ 12 with a recommendation for approval.
SP 2006-006 Mount Calvarv Baptist Church (SiQn # 54)
PROPOSED: Construction, new church building
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre); VR Village Residential
SECTION: Section 12.2.2.15
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 2
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit! acre)
LOCATION: TM 58A1 Parcel 20; 3045 Morgantown Road, Charlottesville
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
STAFF: Amy Arnold
Ms. Arnold summarized the staff report.
. The congregation of Mount Calvary Baptist Church is requesting a special use permit to allow for
the construction of a two-story approximately 6,640 square foot church building and expanding
parking area to support an increase in the sanctuary seating from 135 seats to 200.
. The proposal includes the demolition of 1890's church building currently located on the site.
Excerpts from the Virginia Department of Historic Resource file describing the significance of the
existing church building are included in Attachment A of the staff report,
. The property contains an 1890's framed church with a standing seam metal roof and a stone
foundation located approximately 15 feet from the edge of Morgantown Road (Route 738) and a
gravel entrance and parking area that is currently accessed from both east and west sides of the
church. There is a modern cemetery to the south of the parking area and a wooded area
between the modern cemetery and the railroad tracks that includes a portion of a historic
cemetery identified as the Cooper family cemetery.
. As a center in an historic village of Ivy Depot, Mount Calvary Baptist Church is adjacent to small
scale single-family residential buildings and small farms to the northeast and west with the
railroad tracks along the south edge of the property.
. The congregation has been active on the site for 137 years and has served as a focus for the
community for much of that time.
. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application.
0 The continuation of this church on this site with its relationship to the surrounding
community, its physical place within the cross roads community of Ivy Depot and the
historic significance of the congregation exemplifies support of rural area goals that is
integral to the fabric of the local community.
. Staff has identified a single factor unfavorable to this application.
0 The demolition of the existing 1890's church.
. Based on the findings contained in the staff report staff recommends approval of SP-2006-06,
Mount Calvary Baptist Church with conditions listed in the staff report.
. The applicant has also requested several waivers, which are included in the summary and
recommendations sections of the staff report.
. Staff has also received a letter from Gina Haney and Arin Wonch, President and Vice-President
of Preservation Piedmont including their positions regarding the demolition of the 1890's church.
(See Attachment) Representatives from Preservation Piedmont are present this evening to
address these concerns. The applicant is also present. Also present is the architect of the
project as well as representatives from the congregation.
Ms. Joseph noted that the staff report says that there are structural problems with the building itself, She
asked if staff has received any documentation from an architect or an engineer on that.
Ms. Arnold replied that she has not.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other questions for Ms. Arnold.
Mr. Cannon asked if there would be steps taken if this project were to precede that would document the
existing church and preserve a record as to what it looks like and how it was built.
Ms. Arnold replied absolutely. That is one of the conditions of approval. Preservation Piedmont has
volunteered to play that role to do the documentation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 3
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and asked if the
applicant would like to speak.
Reverend Tracy A. Daniels, Pastor of Mount Calvary Baptist Church, said that she stands representing
about 75 people, a unified body of Christian believers who are convinced through God's word that they
can do all things through Christ who gives us strength. At this time she would like to ask that all of the
Mount Calvary members that are present be recognized. (A large amount of people stood to be
recognized as church members.) With that it is our desire to erect a new worship facility to not only meet
our current physical and spiritual needs, but also the future needs of this growing church family. The
majority of members in our congregation grew up in the Ivy community. For this reason it is our desire to
continue worship and progress in ministry right in the Ivy area. Our current facility was built in 1890. It
replaced the original building, which was destroyed by fire. After much prayer and consideration on how
to correct the current state of the sanctuary they believe that they are empowered by God and that he has
directed us to plant a new worship facility. Then they can watch him continue to grow it through his water,
the Holy Spirit, and his son, Jesus Christ along with the support of this ever changing community. As
they reflect on the technological advances in the 21st century they are reminded that as history evolves
the church has growing concerns and desires as well. In order to reach the lost, transform lives and
change this generation, which she would remind them consists of illegal drugs, alcoholism, gang violence
and poverty, they need a structure to support our desire and committal to God's calling which commands
us to go and do. They have an active missionary group at Mount Calvary as well. They give money
monthly to the local food bank and they feed the hungry by supporting the Piedmont District Baptist
Association in the effort to feed the homeless. Many of our members work to cook and transport meals to
the homeless population in Charlottesville and the surrounding areas. In addition, Mount Calvary proudly
adopted Morgantown Road and is responsible for road side clean ups twice a year or as needed.
Families are adopted during the holiday season in addition to the nursing home ministry, which is active
and thriving. The list of outreach opportunities could go on and on at Mount Calvary. We are truly a
giving church and they love our community and strive to be a good neighbor. Over the years our
congregation has worked to keep the building as modernized as possible to allow worshipers to further
enjoy their worship experience at Mount Calvary. The church had major renovation done in the 60's.
During this renovation a furnace and an air conditioner was installed. An addition was added to the rear
and the interior was redone replacing all of the woodwork that previously adorned the sanctuary. In the
80's siding was installed on the church, This was necessary because of the deterioration and the
condition of the external boards. The siding covered all of the decorative features that had been noted
about the church. They had to replace the furnace and the air conditioning again in the 1990's. When
the old furnace was removed part of the outer wall, including the foundation, caved in. The church has
been advised some years ago by an engineer that the cost to correctly fix the current building would
exceed the costs of a new building. After many discussions they decided to follow the engineer's
recommendation. They researched the availability of land and purchasing such in the Ivy area, but found
the cost to prohibit these actions. Let me take a minute and show the Commission some of their current
concerns.
She presented a power point presentation noting the following:
. The building has a notable lean to the right. The picture was taken standing from the rear of
the church. One also feels this slant when walking down the aisles.
. All of the exit doors in the sanctuary appear to be slanted. If you notice in the picture there is
less space on the right corner of the door, which indicates the shifting of the building.
. The floors creak when people walk, stand or when they rock to music.
. Rain run off continues to enter the basement through different ways. One rain will flood the
basement on any given day. The ceiling is showing signs of leakage as well.
. This large drafty building is costly to heat and cool.
. Some other problems she noted were erosion and critical structure errors. That picture is taken
from the basement and the camera was straight, but you will notice the lean to the right of the
stairwell and the wall. There is deterioration in the wood poles that tend to hold up the structure
from the basement.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13, 2006 4
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
Reverend Daniels thanked the Commission and said may God bless them for allowing this presentation
tonight. She hoped that they would consider the church's needs and offer approval of the special use
permit.
Ms. Joseph invited public comment.
Bryan Broadus, resident of Ivy, said that he was a Board member of Preservation Piedmont, which was
the organization to which Ms. Arnold referred. They respect the congregation's mission. They respect
their continued good work in Ivy Depot. They respect it to the point that they are willing to help them
document their building before it is demolished. They believe that their ongoing mission is not well served
by the church and that it is incompatible with the church that they have now, albeit the 1890's church.
They respectfully disagree. They recognize that the work of this church in its community is a public good.
They recognize the independence and pride that this congregation has and that it takes in its work and it
will take in a new building. But they think that the public good of the modern congregation that its labors
are not incompatible with the public good of sustaining the memory of the 1890's congregation. In fact,
they think that they old building testifies that those good works are long lived and that they are part of the
Albemarle County tradition. They think that the congregation will miss its building when it is gone. They
think that Albemarle County is going to miss it a lot more because when this church disappears with it
forever goes the chance to have a national historic district at Ivy Depot. What disappears is a chance to
honor the Ivy Depot community in the way that the communities up in Advanced Mills, Profit, Batesville
and Covesville have been honored. Mount Calvary Baptist Church is one of only two or three public
buildings in the Ivy Depot. It is the peg on which the history of this community hangs. The lost of this
church is a blow that will overcome any attempt to list this place on the National Register and it is a strike
against those neighbors who might use tax credits to subsidize their private historic preservation labors.
The lack of any kind of architectural control district here, he might add, means that the new church might
not be at all complimentary to what will remain of the Ivy Depot that use to be. This episode is the latest
and one of the most important illustrations of exactly why Albemarle County needs an historic
preservation ordinance that would demand that the demolition of a structure of such importance as Mount
Calvary Baptist Church be an act of absolute last resort, even compelling the congregation to consider
moving the church instead. The history of Albemarle's communities has made manifest in its buildings
and its places should be wiped away only with all other options for continuing the life and growth of the
County have been exhausted. Thank you.
Jim Willis said that his wife owns Millstone Preschool, which is located just up the road from Mount
Calvary Church. Also, they own a home close to Ivy Depot. They have attended services at Mount
Calvary on several occasions. He felt that the thing that strikes you most when you are there besides the
spirit of the people is that it is crowded. It is really crowded with standing room only. It certainly has an
historic value. But, he felt that if that historic value has meaning to anyone certainly it would be the
families that attend the church and have attended the church for generations long before most of us
arrived in Albemarle County. He thought that if the congregation feels that they need a new church and
to demolish the old one to move forward that he thought that the people who built the church would be
thrilled to death to know that this church is thriving and moving forward today and in fact needs to expand.
His opinion is that the church should be given the opportunity to do what they want to do. He hoped that
the Commission would share that opinion. Thank you very much.
David Burnett, a fourth generation member of Mount Calvary Baptist Church, said that he wanted to stand
and acknowledge the historical society for their efforts. It is really a matter what is more important the
planning of a church that is more functional for the community or the preservation of a building that some
people can pass by and say look at that. This has been a long process for the church to get to this point.
It was not easy to get to this point. They were advised by professionals. They did get a letter from an
engineering group making the recommendation. He asked that the Commission not think that it was a
light decision. As far as the character of the community, he felt that it was all members' intent that any
new building that is planted there would retain a lot of the personality of the current building. They are
just looking for something that is more functional for our congregation and is more affordable to maintain
and grow in. That is what the church is trying to do here.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 5
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Morris said that this had to be a very difficult decision for the congregation and his heart goes out to
them. But, it is a beautiful piece of history out there. He visited the site today and it is gorgeous.
Mr. Strucko noted that driving down Morgantown Road that the most prominent feature of the church is
the hand at the top of the steeple pointing upwards. They were concerned about the character that
building brings to this community. Certainly when Mr. Broadus was speaking what struck him was the
fact that replacing this structure may jeopardize the notice of an historic district in that area. So that was
probably the one issue that caused him pause. However, what was truly compelling was the slides the
Commission saw and how that structure is struggling to stand up right with all of the leaning. He was one
that believes in the history of Albemarle County and certainly when it comes to churches and places of
worship in the African American community in this county that is a history that he personally wants to see
ever effort made to preserve. However, this particular structure was the subject of renovations and
additions in the 60's, 80's and the 90's. Again, he felt that given all of the tough issues that were
weighing here and the wishes of the congregation to stay a congregation and to remain at Mount Calvary
Baptist Church in that location to him prevails. The last speaker, Mr. Burnett, he takes his comments to
heart that the character of the new structure would do its best to retain the character of the church and
continue the history of this congregation that started before 1890 when the original building suffered from
fire. So weighing all of those options in the end he too comes out in favor of the renovation.
Mr. Cannon agreed. The historical value is significant, but he understands that value can't be preserved
entirely if the building is demolished. But, some elements of it can be brought forward. He has a strong
feeling that the people who started this church would be very proud of the step that the congregation has
prepared to take now. So he supports the renovation.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the Commission invite Reverend Daniels back to answer some questions.
When reading through and it discusses the physical attributes of the church there are some wonderful
details on that building. She was wondering if the church plans to incorporate any of those details in the
new building. She asked if there was some way that the church could preserve some of the integrity of
the building that stands today in the new building.
Reverend Daniels replied absolutely. What they had discussed was that in the foyer of the new building
they would like to have some type of museum dedicated to the old building where they could take artifacts
from the existing building and just have a showcase of perhaps the finger or the siding. It would include
things that are special about the old building, which would be on display as people come into the new
building to document how things use to be.
Ms. Joseph said she was hoping that they would put the hand on top of the new building. It is such a
wonderful artifact.
Reverend Daniels said that could be a plan, too, but they have not discussed that.
Mr. Strucko asked if the church was agreeable to Preservation Piedmont at least documenting the church
throughout this process to make at least a photographic record.
Reverend Daniels replied absolutely the church would agree to that.
Ms. Joseph noted that this was very tough and painful. She looked at the tiny site and there was not
much the church can do recognizing the land cost in the area.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SP-2006-006, Mount Calvary Baptist
Church with the conditions as recommended by staff.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 6
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
1. Special Use Permit 2006-06 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan
dated May 31, 2006, prepared by Dex Sanders, architect, and titled "Masterplan Mount
Calvary Baptist Church" (Attachment F.) Important elements of the concept plan include the
following:
. The church shall be located as close to Route 738 as possible to maintain the
overall hierarchy of buildings along Morgantown Road and their placement related
to one another and to the street.
. To protect the adjacent dwelling to the east, no parking shall be located in the
area labeled mixed trees and shrubs adjacent to the dwelling on the east side of
the church property.
2. The ingress/egress from Route 738 (Morgantown Road) shall be consolidated into a single
entrance that meets VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street requirements.
3. A 12' wide by 48' long right-turn taper shall be constructed for access to the entrance from
eastbound Morgantown Road.
4. Two, 10 foot, one-way travel lanes shall be required to access the parking area to the south
of the new cemetery. In order to reduce as much as possible the amount of retaining wall
needed, the specific length of these travel ways, their configuration, and the arrangement of
the parking area shall be determined at final site plan review.
5. The existing 1890's church building shall be documented using the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Historical Documentation prior to any disturbance of the site. Copies of the
documentation of the building shall be provided to the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources and the Albemarle County Historic Preservation Planner.
6. Permanent fencing shall be installed on the portion of the perimeter of the cemetery known
as the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' that is located on the property known as Tax Map 58A(1)
Parcel 20. The location and extent of the boundary of the 'Cooper Family Cemetery' (labeled
'Old Cemetery' on the concept plan) on Parcel 58A1-20 shall be located in the field and
fencing shall be fully installed as approved by the Director of Planning direction before any
site disturbance occurs.
7. Any area of platted cemetery that is proposed to be used as parking area shall be formally
abandoned prior to site plan approval.
8. Construction of the church as shown on the concept plan shall commence within five years of
the date of approval of this special use permit or it shall expire.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Craddock and Edgerton were absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission needs to take an action on the four requested waivers.
Mr. Kamptner noted that staff has a new recommendation regarding waiver 3.
Ms. Joseph stated that the Commission would first take action on waivers 1, 2 and 4, which staff has no
objections to.
MOTION FOR SITE PLAN WAIVERS #1, #2 AND #4.:
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Mr. Strucko seconded, to approve site plan waiver requests #1, #2 and #4
associated with SP-2006-006, Mount Calvary Baptist Church.
1. Waiver of Section 18.4.12.15.a. (parking lot surfacing).
2. Waiver of Section 18-4.12.15.g. (required use of curbs in the parking areas).
4. Waiver of Section 18-31.2.4.4. (to be allowed five years from the date of approval of the Special
Use Permit to commence construction.) (Condition 8. under SP-2006-06 would permit the
requested time extension for this Special Use Permit.)
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Craddock and Edgerton were absent.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13, 2006 7
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
The site plan waiver requests for #1, #2 and #4 for SP-2006-006, Mount Calvary Baptist Church were
approved.
Ms. Joseph stated that the next waiver request was for #3, which was for the travel way. Instead of being
20', the applicant is proposing a 10' travel way.
Ms. Arnold said that the applicant is proposing two 10' travel ways. The original request was to allow a 12'
clearance from the front parking lot to the back to clear two grave sites to access the back parking. Both
Zoning and the County Engineer were not comfortable with that waiver.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was some solution that staff felt they could come to between now and the
Board of Supervisors meeting.
Ms. Arnold replied no. Staff met with the applicant, County Engineer, and Zoning and worked out the
drawing that was attached to the staff report that contains an alternative plan, which includes two one-
way travel ways to access the back parking that avoids the problem altogether.
Mr. Cannon asked if that requires a waiver.
Ms. Arnold replied no, that it does not.
Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission needs to act on that waiver. If they are requiring a 20' travel way
and the applicant is only doing 10', do they need to go ahead and allow for a reduction in that travel way.
Mr. Cilimberg said what they have is an applicant that requested a less than 20' travel way. Although at
this point they seem to have accomplished what needs to be accomplished for two ten foot travel ways, if
the Commission does not recommend the waiver then they keep on the course of the two ten foot travel
ways. He felt that the Commission should act on what is here before them.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff was recommending denial.
Mr. Cilimberg replied yes, to not grant that particular waiver. The remedy will be the two-ten foot travel
ways, which has been discussed with the church's designer.
Ms. Joseph noted that there is a solution.
Mr. Kamptner asked if the one-way travel ways have to be at least 12' wide. He noted that he was
looking at Section 4.12.17.c.2. that concerns one-way access aisles, He asked if it would apply in this
case.
Ms. Joseph invited Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, to review the question.
Jack Kelsey, County Engineer, replied that it would require a waiver from 12' to 10'.
Mr. Cannon asked if that could be done in one motion, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.
Ms. Joseph asked what action the Commission should take.
Mr. Kamptner said that the action would be to deny the request for the waiver for a 20' wide two-way
access aisle and to approve the waiver for the 10' dual one-way access aisles.
Motion on Waiver #3:
Motion: Mr. Cannon moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to deny the request for the waiver under Section 18-
4.12.17.c.1 (required 20 foot wide two-way travel lane for parking areas), and to approve the waiver for
10' dual one-way access aisles associated with SP-2006-06, Mount Calvary Baptist Church.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13, 2006 8
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0. (Commissioners Higgins, Craddock and Edgerton were absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-06, Mount Calvary Baptist Church would go to the Board of Supervisors
on July 12 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff has indicated to the applicant that if there is any problem in the site plan
stage regarding these two one-way aisles that they can always bring it back to the Commission.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 13,2006 9
DRAFT MINUTES PARTIAL FOR SP-2006-005 GALEASSI AND
SP-2006-006 MOUNT CALVARY BAPTIST CHURCH - SUBMITTED JULY 7,2006
F~
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 29, 2006
Jose Gaona or Elpidia M. Gaona
3808 Monacan Trail Rd
North Garden, V A 22959
RE: SP 2005-008 Tortilleria Y Panaderia La Michoacana (Sign #31)
Tax Map 99, Parcel 27 Al
. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Gaona:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 20, 2006, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2005-08 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled
'Gaona Home Occupation' (Attachment A.) and dated June 8, 2006. However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 18' x 20'.
3. The entrance from Route 29 South shall meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to
Private Street requirements.
4. No more than two employees other than persons living on the property are permitted to come to
this site for any work-related purpose.
5, The hours of operation of this home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 am until 6:00 pm.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to one panel truck
and one trailer.
7. The applicant shall plant and maintain a 100' long continuous buffer adjacent to the southern
parcel boundary. The buffer shall begin 15' from the westernmost trunks of the existing cluster
oflarge deciduous trees located atthe intersection of parcels 27 AI, 27 A2, and Route 29 South.
The plants comprising the buffer shall be evergreen trees or large shrubs (6' tall minimum upon
planting; 8' minimum mature height); mixed species or a monoculture. The trees/shrubs shall be
. planted a minimum of 8' on center for the continuous 100' length, Suggested species include:
Juniperus virginiana (Virginia red cedar) and Ilex opaca (American holly). The approximate
location of the buffer is indicated on the concept plan (Attachment A.).
Goana
Page 2 of2
June 29, 2006
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12,2006.
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,
~ ~bt^,^-~(LD
Amy Ransom Arnold
Planner
Planning Division
ARA/aer
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP2005-08 Tortilleria y Panderia Staff: Amy Ransom Arnold
la Michoacana
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 20, 2006 July 12, 2006
Owners: Jose and Elpidia Gaona Applicant: Jose and Elpidia Gaona
Acreage: Approx. 2.007 acres Special Use Permit for: Sections 31.2.4.1,
10.2.2.31, 5,2 allow for special considerations for
the operation of a Home Occupation, Class B
under Special Use Permits in the Rural Areas.
TMP: TM 99 Parcel 27A1 Proffers/Conditions: yes
Location: 3808 Monacan Trail
Existing Zoning and By-right use: Village Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Magisterial
ResidentiallEC: residential uses, guest cottage District
rental; electric, gas, oil, communication facilities;
accessory uses including home occupation class A,
temporary construction uses; public uses, etc,
Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a DA RA x
Proposal: Home Occupation Class B for the use Comprehensive Plan Designation: RA -- Rural
of an existing 18'x20' shed for a kitchen to Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
. support a catering business. (Attachment A.) The residential density (0.5 unit/acre)
applicant currently has a Home Occupation Class
A (H02004-140).
Character of Property: The property includes a Use of Surrounding Properties: The
single family residence; the remainder of the site is surrounding properties are single family
steep and primarily wooded. residences.
Factors Favorable: Factor Unfavorable:
1. Supports the economy of the County provided by Negative impacts expressed by the neighbor to
low impact, small businesses. the south due to the location of the shed and
2. The shed/kitchen is of similar scale and type as aromas from cooking.
other buildings in the near-by context.
3, The proposed use does not increase traffic on
near-by roads, nor does it constitute activity of a
scale and intensity that is inconsistent with the
character of the Rural Areas.
4. This proposal does not impact the wooded portion
of the Gaona property, which represents a
maiority of the parcel.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends
approval of Special Use Permit 2005-08 Gaona Home Occupation with conditions,
.
1
STAFF PERSON: Amy Ransom Arnold
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 20, 2006
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: July 12, 2006
SP 2005-08 Tortilleria v Panderia la Michoacana
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested a Special Use Permit for a Home Occupation Class B, proposing
the construction of one shed for a kitchen to support a catering business. The shed is located adjacent to the house on
the south side, and constructed on a concrete pad. (Attachment A.) The finished shed measures 18' x 20'. The
applicant currently has a Home Occupation Class A (H02004-140) that was approved on March 25, 2004.
Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow a Home Occupation Class B for a Catering business in accordance
with Section 10,2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is
described as Tax Map 99, Parcel 27 AI, contains 2,007 acres, and is zoned VR, Village Residential and EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay. The proposal is located at 3808 Monacan Trail (Route 29), south of the intersection of Monacan
Trail and Plank Road (Route 712/Route 692), in the Samuel Miller District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property Rural Area.
Character of the Area:
The immediate context is comprised of mature, mixed deciduous / evergreen woodland with scattered residences, The
site is located on the west side of Route 29 south, just beyond the intersection of Route 29 and Plank Road at North
Garden.
PlanniD!! and Zonin!!: History:
Mr. and Mrs. Gaona currently have a Home Occupation, Class A, (HO 2004-140) for a catering business, The Gaonas
prepare food that is delivered and sold at construction sites, local soccer games, and, for the past three years the
Albemarle County Fair. In response to demand for their food, the Gaonas constructed a shed to contain a larger
kitchen dedicated solely to the Home Occupation. A complaint was filed about the construction and the Gaonas were
found in violation for constructing the shed without a Special Use Permit, the proper building permits, or required
inspections. The violation was abated when the Gaonas applied for a Special Use Permit in February of2005. Due to
multiple complications with their well, septic system, and Health Department requirements for the kitchen, the
Gaona's application for a Special Use Permit was indefinitely deferred on March 24, 2005. Since that time, the
Gaonas have worked with the Health Department to comply with required standards by digging a new well,
establishing an adequate septic system, and establishing an appropriate kitchen configuration.
ST AFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4,1 of the Zoning Ordinance,
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The neighbor immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the property has expressed concerns about the location
of the shed in relation to their property and about aromas resulting from cooking. The applicant has agreed to ease the
concerns of their neighbor by planting a 100' long buffer of evergreen trees or tall shrubs, 6' tall on planting, along the
boundary between the two properties. The proposed location of this planted buffer is included in the concept plan.
(Attachment A.) The proposed buffer will not reduce cooking aromas, but will reduce visibility of activities resulting
from the Home Occupation.
2
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
. While the establishment of a home occupation supports the economy of the County provided by low impact, small
businesses, the scale and invisibility of home occupations is critical to maintaining the character of the Rural Areas.
The proposed out-building will be visible from both the adjacent public travelways and near-by property, but is not out
of character with the surrounding context. There are two panel trucks and a mobile trailer parked on the site. One of
the panel trucks and the trailer are used to transport food from the Gaona residence to construction sites where food is
vended,
The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor does it constitute activity of a scale and intensity that
is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Areas, The applicant has indicated that employees do not report to this
property for work assignments, equipment, or materials. The Gaona family will continue to serve as the sole
employees of the business.
Staff feels that the overall intensity of use on this parcel will not increase to a degree with this home occupation that
would impact the character of the surrounding district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
One purpose of the Rural Areas District (Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance) is "Conservation of natural, scenic, and
historic resources." The majority of the approximately 2 acre site is wooded, includes critical slopes, and is part of a
larger wooded area that spans several neighboring parcels. (Attachment A.) While the proposed use does not directly
contribute to the purpose and intent of the Rural Area ordinance, it is staff's opinion that the low intensity of the use is
not contrary to the purpose and intent. In particular, this proposal does not impact the wooded portion of the Gaona
property.
. with uses permitted by right in the district,
This parcel and the adjacent properties are zoned Rural Areas and Village Residential. Staff opinion is that the
addition of a kitchen/shed to the Gaona property would not affect and may compliment some of the uses permitted by
right in the district, particularly the Gaona's participation as a vendor at the Albemarle County Fair over the past few
years. This participation helps support the rural tradition of agricultural fairs,
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.2 of the Ordinance applies to Home Occupation, Class B. The following sections are of particular relevance
to this proposal:
5,2,2,], a, 'Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided
that not more than twenty five percent of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct of the home
occupation and in no event shall the total floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or both, devoted to such
occupation, exceed on thousand five hundred square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be
permitted only in connection with home occupation, Class B,;'
5,2,2,],b, 'Accessory structures shall be simitar infa9ade to a singlefamity dwelling, private garage, shed, barn, or
other structure normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and
scale with other development in the area in which located'
5,2,2,], d 'No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater volumes than would normally be
expected in a residential neighborhood, and any needfor parking generated by the conduct ofsuch home occupation
shall be met off the street,' ,
.
3
The accessory structure proposed by the applicant is a 18' by 20' shed, located on immediately adjacent to the south
side ofthe Gaona residence, The shed is constructed of sheet metal and is of similar scale and type as other buildings
in the Rural Areas. The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor does it constitute activity of a
scale and intensity that is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Areas, It is the opinion of staff that the proposed
home occupation is in keeping with the additional regulations provided in section 5,0 of this ordinance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the existing sight lines at the vehicular entrance to the
Gaona property are adequate. VDOT has recommended, however, that the Gaonas provide entrance conditions that
meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street. The applicant has agreed to comply with this
recommendation.
The Gaonas have worked with the Virginia State Health Department to comply with well, septic, and commercial
kitchen standards, Eric Meyer of the Health Department has confirmed the compliance of the building and systems
infrastructure with these standards.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1, Supports the economy of the County provided by low impact, small businesses.
2. The shedlkitchen is of similar scale and type as other buildings in the Rural Areas,
3. The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor does it constitute activity of a scale and intensity
that is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Areas.
4, This proposal does not include impacting the wooded portion of the Gaona property, which represents a majority of
the parcel
Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application: the negative impact expressed by the neighbor
to the south due to the location of the shed and aromas from cooking.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 2005-08 Gaona
Home Occupation with the following conditions:
1. Special Use Permit 2005-08 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled 'Gaona Home
Occupation' (Attachment A,) and dated June 8, 2006. However, the Zoning Administrator may approve revisions to
the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 18' x 20'.
3. The entrance from Route 29 South shall meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to Private Street
requirements.
4. No more than two employees other than persons living on the property are permitted to come to this site for any
work-related purpose.
5. The hours of operation of this home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 am until 6:00 pm.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to one panel truck and one trailer.
7. The applicant shall provide and maintain a 100' planted buffer (located as indicated on the concept plan) of
evergreen trees or large shrubs (8' minimum mature height, 6' tall minimum 011 planting), planted a minimum of8'
on center. Suggested species include: Juniperus virginiana (Virginia red cedar) and Hex opaca (American holly).
A TT ACHMENTS
Attachment A - 'Gaona Home Occupation'; site topographic drawing, site parcels, and site aerials
Attachment B - Site photographs
4
....~?9-. 0.J N - 2:
. If. CO.~ 0
.- '\.. -'t-1;} II. T ,M. 98- 4 :z ill p I - ~ p ~
...:{.... ~,~~ '-79J-~. R08ERT L, STf\INI, ET AL 0 . '~ ~ 8 g ~
:&..... g ~~'~... 0,8.1082-302 --l ~/Tl_ 0S:0:
+G:J ~ f---' tT1 \ \\ ~~ 0,8,781-543 PLAT r=i ~ ~ U> ~ ~ 25,
.~ I v) ~ ~ r-:" /Tl ~-j~ _zz
.. 7=J. 19 l.0 ~ ,'(, ~ .. 'c Y --I G)
.. <: {)\ '-';<; ~ ::r: .. j:g -1--l fTl :::::::: -<
· ~ ~ 0, 0: z Z Z lJ 000 0 lJ 6
.. 0 >- \~ "1). 0) '.J +:> 0 P < --lOp.
-. ,,? ~ ~~ . N a; +:> ~ m 0) ::u -0 )> --l -< :z -1
. () --n: · :--J +:> Ul CJl m 0'i --l -0 0 /Tl fll I
-.. \0-\'~ .a , 1O ~ en ~ ~ m 11 p. -1 :t> ' fll
_". ',;J ..- ~ 0 ~ CJl +: ~ C ~ P :i ::u Ul Tl
..... q CJl --,J ~ O' /Tl IJ 0 S
fTl fll fll (f) I \>0 IJ S 0 0
, I )>--l0 000
..... 0 /Tl Zrnr- m
....... ...... '!.....O "~"~ 0 -
OCD--l-- ........ ....... 0 /TlII OZ
o m 0 CIJ I ~ ,~-...;>--.f.SC ROAO_ _ - I' 0 -0 0.J ~
~r Cm 1J::u ~--.. ----~, ~ /TlO~ IN
---1::0::0 0 ........' -((-. 00- )::>U1::D
u m I 0 ---- - , . . Z - :t>
~ 11 < m C Z - -----. r--. :z OJ
r m m CD '"7 '.J r--..'" - .,., ~ UJ ~ _ :z
m ~ . +' "::U UO"
~~--l~rn-<-< 0 CJl m 00 Om CO--l~
\; mommo - N ZCz <, CI
CIJO - rn --l-::u
)>---l m (f)0. ~+'> (f)p
Z7 --l::o 0J. A../1O -
, O~OI-1 0 CJl 1O U>Ll-1
~ )><l1ml1 OJ 0 8 I r::ufll
-< < u -( -l 0 . N 0 0 s::
o - mN. m ~--,J OLl
ou-<::O-j N' S UI 0::::: p/TlP
\\J\C::07\OI 0)0. m (I)' ~'--j::u~lJ
't t ::0 0 Z u )> I -'.! r ,r. - fTl --j
11 m--l --'.! ~ fll 0
~mOJJ z 0J OU) N 0-<)::>
m CIJ :2:'-j 0 01 I P -l 0.J Z o--l
CIJr-<Z ~ u.; 0JO- I I OfTl
OmCf) 0 0 0JAJ N 0 0 N N/TlO
ZOIO I m fTl -. 0 fTl N o (f)_
G) I lJ 'oJ co I 0J :z N
)>mOo fTl en r(J))> :E '~<(f)--l fTlZ...!....
'- :2:U1 or m p - Z Nill' -. 00)
O-z r OJ-< -< -j CJl' ~fll;S: 0-1 I
uZ 1O . <: <: T] 0)0J::u m
V\ -110m 101> fll I O~. 1O '0
\::) Z 0 Z m ~ :-i ~ '1O N 0 I 1O /Tl
{ 0 Il 0J fTl s: rn 'n I ..!..... I
< -1 I ,., VI - N
Q Z)>I m::U' "m~<+,>
- 0) 1O m u ~ \.V /Tl J>
\S\ -1 -1 CIJ m po 1O '.J N' (f)
\ -Ou ~ OJI 0) O):r>--l
G Cf)Zr ON 1O--l
, m --,J 0
~ IX> ~ lOOJ OJ 1> +:> ~
. N
-0-<
'::u
p.
-1:I
C '.J
o 01
V CJl m
~ 0 1O (f)TlT +:>
,., Z - :E fll::U (f) 0J . ()
· fll fTl):> --l m ,CO 0
r s: 0 0 -0 rrJ -0 0) I'-:
- r ~fll::U ::Up q z):> ~ ~
1) (J) -1 · --l -< < < g ~ /Q) '1'
)<.' n I )> fTl Boo ~ o~
p rn r p Cv -b
1'1 (0)..,'1'
r I~~'
m ~ ~<
":::0 U)~
:D 0 ~
": gs u t'l'oo /' "oS\'
II C Sj '0;' /./ ~0 ~
_:D -l - / ~"o
r 1-1 /",\G ~
g m (J) 0 0 -< ,r \)~'<), \,.S ,/
o AJ - fTI Penn 0 T] ::u ,\,.'0 c.o
I 0 ;;: ;;: P 0 0 0 'k :) ,~
~ ~ c )> C s: -1 11 ~ 8 ~ Z 010 ;,,,,\\'-J'\
r ::u S; ::0 (Tl r fTl I :::r:: - 0 0 \-
0-< fll r- r (Tl 0 J> -< ,Q;G\ .s'(\
......,. =1:' po fTI :::u (J) . 00 '0
g-- fTl ::u S (J) 0 0 () <1.-/ \ (\0
· ~ U))::: P 11 () r 0 Z r r J> \,'?J\ :)\-
1\\ (). < --<, -0 0 0 r CeO 0 r 60
~~~ [=po 0::0 CfTI-1' -1
~ ...fTl p)> z :::u :::r:: 0 ~ _ (J)
~.\) U) G) -1 C
,,~<U))> -<OO:Opo:::U TlT 0.
1 -0 0 .. - ::oU> ~
~ ::00 Z (J) TJ 0 m < oo,::uC> P--l--l
'0 ~ G) .;)> < -I (J) C (Tl fTI OJ II II II II -s:: 0 ):>
~'-n z - - ::0 -1 -< II _ _ /Tl ::u r
::X \' ):> Z :0 - -1 fTI < (f) +:> (Jl OJ 0 -<
1.-- n 0 G) () . fTI N 1O 0 0) a 8
o :DZ-l:ON:O ~lDO~+: N I
G (('"\ r- 0J lD 0 .
*.... -1p -1~10 - -o+:> 0_l
, -tt'\) f1:1' -< 0 ~ ~ 0) 40,2' ~
.-JI OJ 1> +:> ,. 1:'-' f:.
, 0 1O. ~ /Tl
_ _ N <:: )>
o I <: _ =
~J 0 P : ~
~ 1O 01 I II ::T
~ I A Ul ~
\J\ W m q ::J
OJ ::0 -
- )>
t
0 - - Miles
0 0.025 0.05 0.1 0.15 0,2
Tax Map 99, parcel 27AI 6
Note: Tllis map is for display purposes only and sllows parcels as of 12/3112004. See Map Book Introduction for additional details. Attachment A'
- - - ~----
,..-
I
\
\
\
\
'\
I,
\,
\
98\~ 99-23
99-24
99-24A
99-27 A 1
I
.
, r-
'. I
, I
-
, 99-27A2
" "
,
'. "-
"
'.,
"
" "
,
I
/
~
/ 99-25
99-27 A / /
i...... /
.......-.......J
I
99-278
0 - - Miles
o 0.0050.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
Tax Map 99, parcel 27AI 7 Attachment A
Note: This map isfor display purposes only and shows parcels as of 12/3//2004. See Map Book Introduction for additional details.
I
r ~ .
l'"
':'!i -
.
""
~J~
'" . .~~/~~
r.&f~/ ,:.l~~;
. ..'.~ fu' '. ,,jl 1 -" :
~ -''ti -.fi .j-~.. p
~"~:~~~' "
" '.~ .", ~,_'" "r,' ,'J,iiE, '.
- SW 1J . _ . ~~i
;;t': . "'. ~ .' j
';~ ?-' .1
. ~ ' , ." ". "
,.f' ,
r;;/,
,ill<' '"
. il!i'"'---
""-
<
.,- r-~
. ..
'L'.- -
"'~~,,:" ;;,: c_J,~;;~~ ':
~ l' '""'" 'l~r-~
'..- :.02--A . ,-'
4.7'i";: r--;:I\ r.'....)~ft.., "". ,
.- ,!-
~ -- , '~ .,'.", ' r '-:1:."
l .~~..J"o..-_ ~___ ~'----'----
II II
, " , ,," " , , II-
-- ---
~\$7~~{'~_<,~~'~-~f""'~" _:
J;~~"I:': . ~,,~~. ~ ~ ~,d,
..~,' ~::~}\'. ". '
I
- - Miles
0 0,05 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Tax Map 99, Parcel 27Al q Attachment A 0
Note: This map isfor display purposes only and shows parcels as of 12/3112004. See Map Book Introduction for additional detaIls.
I
Attachment B
. SP 2005-08 Tortilleria y Panderia la Michoacana Attachment B.: site photographs
. Kitchen building with the Gaona residence to the right
. Former location of the kitchen building with adjacent Route 29 south
[0
- -
- Attachment B
- -
-
- :)
--
~
-
~ ~
!~c
~
.......:.--......
,.~
~~"::~-.-
.a2I.:
~
,
...
. 1
Mobile tortillerza
-~.,
I
'"
-
2
- . 2 ( I
Mobile tortillerza
I
Attachment B
I
. t\, ob-.:V1r-"J::'
:~' .~ ,. , I
TAC(9 I
EU
~ a
~
--'e ':TA((Q)~~<, , -
I
~!;) ~ ~1 I
t 'l~'~
f ~~~ 'j
1,."
lil
. . F'
~ l-
t .l'
t~
,p I
~ t' I
~ ii.
P " ,
.tI ~. ; !C'~
lI;l 0
.., ;;li ::l
~ 1 t~ .iii
." ;f;....;
.' \;.
o _,
. ~obile tortilleria detail
,
"
I
I
I
I
I
. 0"
Remainder of the site 3
I l1-
I
:)
)
:)
t
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 20, 2006
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, June 20,
2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman; Jon
Cannon, Pete Craddock, Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Jo Higgins and Bill Edgerton. Mr. Edgerton arrived at
6:05 p.m. Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David
J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Francis
MacCall, Senior Planner; Amy Arnold, Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney,
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP 2005-008 Tortilleria v Panderia la Michoacana (Sian #31) - Request for a special use permit to allow
a Home Occupation Class B for a Catering business in accordance with Section 10,2,2.31 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is described as Tax Map 99, Parcel
27 A 1, contains 13.68 acres, and is zoned VR, Village Residential and EC Entrance Corridor Overlay, The
proposal is located at 3808 Monacan Trail (Route 29), south of the intersection of Monacan Trail and
Plank Road (Route 712Route 692), in the Samuel Miller District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property Rural Area. (Amy Arnold)
Ms. Arnold summarized the staff report:
. The applicant currently has a Home Occupation Class A (H02004-140) that was approved on
March 25, 2004 for a catering business. They prepare food in their home and deliver and sell food
at construction sites, local soccer games and for the past three years at the Albemarle County Fair.
In response to demand for their food the applicant constructed a shed to contain a larger kitchen
dedicated solely to the home occupation. A complaint was filed about the construction of a shed
and the applicant was found in violation for constructing the shed without a special use permit, the
proper building permits or required inspections. The violation was abated when the applicant
applied for a special use permit in February, 2005. Due to multiple complications with their well,
septic system and Health Department requirements for the kitchen, the Gaona's application for a
special use permit was indefinitely deferred on March 24, 2005.
. Since that time the Gaona's have worked with Eric Meyers with the State Health Department to
comply with required standards by digging a new well, establishing an adequate septic system and
establishing appropriate kitchen configuration. The Gaona's have returned to the County to
continue their request for a Home Occupation, Class B proposing the use of one shed as a kitchen
to support the expansion of their catering business. The shed is located adjacent to the house on
the south side and constructed on a concrete pad with the finished shed measuring 18' X 20'. It is
located approximately 15' from the property line.
. The immediate context is comprised of scattered residence located between the eastern edge of
wooded ridge line and the west side of Route 29 south just south of the intersection of Route 29
and Plank Road at North Garden, The Gaona parcel is the southern most property in a pocket of
existing Village Residential zoning located along Route 29 south. The adjacent property to the
south is zoned Rural Areas.
. The neighbor immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the property has expressed
concerns about the location of the shed in relationship to their property and about aromas resulting
from cooking. The applicant has agreed to ease the concerns of their neighbor by planting a 100'
long buffer of evergreen trees or tall shrubs that will be 6' tall on planting along the boundary
between the two properties. The proposed location of this planted buffer is included on the
concept plan. The proposed buffer will not likely reduce cooking aromas, but will reduce the
visibility of activities resulting from the proposed home occupation.
. Staff has provided copies of a letter written by Pastor Smith who is the pastor of the First Baptist
Church in Covesville on behalf of the Gaona's neighbor, Ms. Rachel Walker, outlining her
concerns. (Attachment)
. Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. Supports the economy of the County provided by low impact, small businesses.
2. The shed/kitchen is of similar scale and type as other buildings in the Rural Areas.
3. The proposed use does not increase traffic on near-by roads, nor does it constitute activity
of a scale and intensity that is inconsistent with the character of the Rural Areas.
4. This proposal does not include impacting the wooded portion of the Gaona property, which
represents a majority of the parcel
. Staff has identified the following factor unfavorable to this application: the negative impact
expressed by the neighbor to the south due to the location of the shed and aromas from cooking.
. Based on findings contained in the staff report, staff recommends approval of the special use
permit for the Gaona home occupation with the conditions listed in the staff report, The applicant is
present to answer questions. Also, staff is happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for staff.
Ms. Higgins said that staff suggests a condition 3 entrance from 29 South shall meet VDOT minimum
standards for entrances to private street requirements. It is a public road. Therefore, is this suggesting a
commercial entrance? In the way it references this VDOT would only have a residential requirement. But,
when staff says private street requirements a public road is a commercial entrance.
Ms. Arnold replied no. VDOT's minimum standard for entrances onto highways has a drawing that is
specifically called Private Street or subdivision entrance, That is the one that they have been continuing to
reference for rural area projects and is this entrance.
Ms. Higgins noted that what the Commission has seen before they have not gotten into a more
commercial type entrance if just two employees are involved. That would mean that the level of traffic is
actually going to stay the same. That is why she questioned it.
Ms. Arnold said that the County Engineer is concerned about its proximity to Route 29 and wanted to
make sure that trucks had a good footing before entering in on that highway. The configuration of the
entrance is essentially what VDOT is requiring now, The primary thing missing is the paving. It is that
wide already and already has a culvert with a great big radius on the other side, but it is just that it is
gravel.
Mr. Edgerton noted that staff had said that the shed was put up without permits. He asked if the shed
respects the building setback line on the south side.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the applicant had gotten a permit for the shed.
Ms. Arnold said that it was located 15' from the property line. The building permit has been completely
signed off on.
Mr. Craddock asked if the 100' of trees assumes that there is enough space on this property to plant those
trees. He asked how far the 100' goes back past their shed. He assumed that Ms. Walker's house was
almost directly across from their shed.
Ms. Arnold replied that the Gaona's house and the shed are below Ms. Walker's house by quite a bit. She
visited the site and located where the buffer would go with the Gaona's to make sure there was enough
space to plant the trees and agreed on where it would start. It goes actually back to the rear face of the
main house, which is actually set back from where the shed is.
Ms. Higgins asked if staff is measuring it 100' from Route 29 as the sketch shows. The sketch shows the
buffer going underneath the power line, too, which means as the trees grow up somebody is going to
come along and clear the power line potentially and cut the trees down.
Ms. Arnold said that there is actually a stand of trees that would prevent that from happening. Before you
get to Route 29 there is a stand of big deciduous trees.
Ms. Higgins asked if the 100' was not measured from Route 29.
Ms, Arnold replied no, that it was measured from that deciduous group of trees.
Ms. Higgins suggested that staff make sure that the sketch is corrected because that is what would have
to be maintained. The zoning staff would only have this sketch to go by for enforcement purposes.
Ms. Arnold suggested that the wording be changed to say located at the deciduous trees.
Mr, Craddock said that it appears from the drawing that the Vess property that their driveway is on the
Gaona's property. He asked if anyone else had complained about the odor.
Ms. Arnold replied no that no one else has complained,
Mr. Strucko asked what the building requirements for a cooking operation shed are. What does that need
to have? He said that obviously it needs to have a ventilation system of some sort, fire suppression or
something like that.
Ms. Arnold stated that was correct. Eric Meyers, with the Virginia Department of Health, has been out
there helping the Gaona's walk through what their requirements are for a kitchen. What will happen
should the Board of Supervisors approve the home occupation is our Building Inspections Department will
go out and make sure that everything is as it should be.
Ms. Joseph said that the Health Department is the major concern here with the concerns about the well,
septic and the cooking area itself. The Health Department has been out there and they have complied
with a lot of things so far.
Ms. Arnold replied that they have completely solved the well by digging a new one. They have redone the
septic system so that it meets their requirements. There is a very short list that she received by email from
Eric Meyers of a few very small things they still need to do to the kitchen. But, the big ones were really the
septic and the well. The applicants have worked very hard to clear those two issues up.
Mr. Edgerton questioned the location of the shed on the photograph on page 10.
Ms. Arnold noted that photograph was part of the violation. The shed was originally built down under the
power lines very close to 29. That was not an appropriate spot for the shed. So not only was it built
without permits, but it was built in a place that it could not stay. So the shed has been moved up the hill
and placed on a foundation.
Mr. Edgerton asked if all of that happened before it came back to the Commission.
Ms. Arnold replied yes.
Ms. Higgins noted that the applicant currently has a Home Occupation, Class A permit. The only reason it
is before the Commission was the two employees.
Mr., Edgerton said that the shed requires a Class B, Home Occupation.
Ms. Arnold noted that the applicant is not asking for employees.
Mr. Strucko asked if they are cooking in the shed now.
Ms. Arnold replied no.
Mr. Strucko asked if the cooking odor complaint is from the residence.
Ms. Arnold replied that was correct. She suggested that they ask the applicant.
Mr. Strucko asked if the shed itself was not functional, and Ms. Arnold replied no that it is not.
Ms. Higgins asked what the applicant could do with just the Class A, Home Occupation.
Ms. Arnold said that they can cook in their house.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they could not have employees, but they are not proposing employees anyway.
Ms. Higgins asked if they could still run their catering business out of their house.
Ms. Arnold replied that was correct. The use of an accessory building kicks it into a Class B, Home
Occupation.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant
to come forward and address the Commission.
Ms. Deais said that she would be translating for Mr. and Mrs. Gaona because they have limited English.
Ms. Joseph said that she was amazed that they have done as much work that they have on the well and
the septic. She felt that was impressive.
Mr. Morris asked where the cooking was being done right now.
Ms. Deais said that right now the cooking is being done in the mobile units, It is a very small cramped
spot so they wanted a bigger kitchen to have more space and make more food.
Mr. Strucko asked if the cooking operation would move from the trailer to the shed. He asked if it would
stay in both places.
Ms. Deais replied yes.
Ms. Joseph asked when the cooking takes place. Does it start at 8:00 a.m. and they keep cooking all the
way at 6:00 p.m. or does it start at 8:00 a.m. and stop at noon.
Ms. Deais said that they start cooking right before they leave, Like at 8:00 a,m. they start cooking before
they leave to a site that they are going to. If they run out of food, then they cook on the spot.
Ms. Joseph asked what time do they leave.
Ms. Deais said that when they go to construction sites they start at 8:00 a.m. and leave their house at
11 :00 a.m. to be there around lunch time.
Ms. Joseph said that it is about 3 hours.
Ms. Deais agreed.
Ms. Joseph asked if any thing happens in the evening.
Ms. Deais replied yes, that they prepare more food in the afternoon to go set up at Southwood Trailer
Court. They cook on the spot if they need to. It depends on how much they need.
Ms. Joseph said that they cook at home from 8:00 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. and then go to the construction sites.
Then they come home and cook from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Ms. Deais said sometimes they cook to 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Joseph said that it is about 3 hours cooking at home in the morning and afternoon and that is it.
Ms. Deais replied yes, that it averaged about 6 hours a day.
Mr. Craddock noted that he had seen the trailer at Stone Robinson for the Sunday soccer and football
games. It looks like they do a lot of business there because it appears to be very busy.
Ms. Deais agreed.
Mr. Craddock asked if there was any type of device that would remove the odors from the cooking. Or did
the Health Department suggest anything.
Ms. Deais replied that the Health Department has not said anything about the odors. They told them once
to put in the vent to draw the heat.
Ms. Higgins noted that actually throws the odor out to the outside. The requirement is to exhaust out of
the dwelling.
Mr. Gaona said the Health Department had come and inspected it so that everything is correct.
Ms. Higgins asked if they operate with no employees at this time. She asked if they have helpers that they
intend to hire.
Mr. Gaona said that it is only his wife and himself.
Ms. Deais said that sometimes his children help.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that their children do not count.
Ms. Higgins asked if they understand that it is limited to two persons outside of the family.
Ms. Deais replied yes that they understood. She asked if their siblings count.
Ms. Joseph asked if the siblings count.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it is based on whether they live on the property. Persons living on the property
don't count employees.
Ms. Joseph said that if a brother or sister comes and helps, then they would count as part of the two
employees. She said that there was one person signed up to speak on this, which was Rachael Walker,
She invited Ms. Walker to come forward and address the Commission.
Rachael Walker said that she lives south of the Gaonas. When this project got started they did not have
permission to do so from the Albemarle County Office Building. It was stopped by them. They are talking
about 2.7 acres of land instead of 13.68 acres. There is a lot of heavy aroma coming from the food.
Everyone knows that when there is an excessive amount of food cooked that it will draw a lot of animals
out of the woods that is being unwanted. In the back of the property is nothing but a wooded area. There
is going to be more traffic in and out. They have band music going on. There is a lot of traffic in and out
with that. They are raising vicious dogs. There is a lot of in and out traffic with that. There are other
neighbors in our community that is complaining about the odor. One of the neighbors, Ms. Vess, her
husband was in an accident that made her unable to be here this afternoon. She and her son had to stay
with her husband because he had to go to therapy this afternoon. She built her house in the rural area
and had no intention of building it near a restaurant or a catering business. She wanted a peace of mind.
She likes fresh air and keeps her windows up. The food odor comes in and chokes her and settles in her
hair and clothing. She is a Christian lady and goes to church. She pointed out that the Gaonas do speak
English. The trees that they have planted on the property are over on her property a foot too much. Also,
the trees are not at a height as this paper stated that they should be at 6'. She did not think that some of
the trees were 6' tall. Another concern is that they have placed a driveway all the way around their house.
This shed is very close to her house. She is concerned about the safety. If the shed would catch fire it
was going to come to her house. The shed has a sliding window to it just like the ones at McDonald's or
Hardee's, which concerned her due to the driveway being completely around their house.
Tika Hudson said that she was Rachael Walker's daughter. She also lives on the site and wants to
address the issue with the increased risk to her mother's homeowner's insurance. If this permit is allowed
her mother's homeowner's insurance has a possibility of increasing due to the fact that her house now has
an increase in the amount of exposures that could be brought on by fire or by the trees that are planted as
a buffer. The trees are very short. They can see over the trees. She also wanted to address the fact of
increased traffic. With increased traffic there is increased people and trash. They have already disrupted
their water table by having to install an extra well and having to dig another sewage tank or facility. They
are also going to increase the resources of electricity. There is going to be an extra strain on the
community. The shed was originally placed on the property in violation directly beside Route 29. In the
process of moving the shed someone went across their property with a huge truck and destroyed their
lawn. No one gave them permission to do so. They came to their house the next day after they destroyed
over one-half of their yard. They made an attempt to fix this, but you can still tell that their yard has been
destroyed by this. It was a trespassing issue. Their band practices music after 9:00 p.m, even after being
told not to do so. She has made continued reports to the police, but they continue to play their music after
9:00 a.m. So even if they do allow this what is going say that they are not going to go forward and do
something else that is illegal because they did start this project illegally. So they do not follow any
ordinance that is presented to them.
There being no further public comment, Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Morris said that his only concern is the comments that possibly people are coming to the site to get the
food. He thought that all the consumption of the food was at another site such as a construction site or the
trailer park, etc. But, what he was hearing was that possibly people come to the site to get food.
Ms. Higgins said that if that happened that it would be a zoning violation. That is an enforceable issue.
Ms. Joseph noted that they were not addressing the band at this point. They are addressing the traffic
issue by limiting it to the fact that things are not bought on site and that limiting it to two employees
reduces the traffic. The hours are reduced from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The building has been relocated
and the buffer planted, They can put driveways where they want to as anyone can do in the rural areas.
Ms. Higgins asked if the buffer has already been planted.
Ms. Arnold said that the buffer has actually been planted. But, she has not been out there since the trees
were planted.
Ms. Higgins asked if someone would verify that the trees are the correct height and in the right location.
Ms. Arnold replied that zoning will do that.
Ms. Joseph said that they can plant trees any where they want to right now on their land. The other
concern is the trash. She would assume that the Health Department would come periodically and inspect.
Ms. Arnold said that she did not know if the Health Department would do that.
Ms. Higgins said that the Health Department would inspect a commercial kitchen.
Mr. Craddock asked how often the Health Department would inspect the property.
Ms. Higgins noted that the Health Department could inspect at random or upon a complaint.
Mr. Edgerton said that if they deny the request, they would only be denying the use of the shed.
Ms. Higgins said that the food would still continue, but it would be cooked in the house.
Mr. Cilimberg added or in the trailer.
Mr. Edgerton said that there was no way to deny the use of the trailer to cook.
Ms. Higgins said that this special use permit request would move the operation out to the shed.
Mr. Morris said that the advantages of the special use permit outweigh the disadvantages.
Mr. Strucko agreed, but noted that he was concerned about the way that they got here. He noted that
there had been violations over the course of a couple of years. It even required the relocation of the
original building and apparently the crossing of a property line to accommodate that. But, yet it was hard
to get in between a dispute between neighbors like this. That is bad, But, as the staff report suggests it
does support commercial use of low impact. Therefore, he was in favor of that.
Ms. Joseph said that home occupations always offer people the opportunity to start a business small. She
was hoping that the Gaonas in the next year or so will be so big and so successful that they will be in
another place somewhere closer to town. But, she felt that it was unfortunate. It is true that if they get the
Home Occupation, Class B it will be regulated by the Health Department and will be under all kinds of
regulations from the County. There will be things that can be enforced. If they don't, then they can
continue cooking and the odors will still be there and things will still be happening. But, once they have
the Class B, then anybody coming to food on site and all of those other things can be regulated including
the trash. Someone can call the Health Department and asked if they are in violation of their approval.
Therefore, she could support it.
Ms. Higgins recommended that condition 7 be changed so that the buffer is not per the plan, but per Ms.
Arnold's field guidance. The plan needs to be corrected to show where the buffer actually is.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff will modify condition 7 before the request goes to the Board to reflect that.
Mr. Edgerton said that he would vote against this motion. He feels that Ms. Walker bought her home in
good faith. If this happened next door to his home, he would hope that he could get some relief from the
County. With the approval of the special use permit, it makes this legal. That does not help Ms. Walker
with her concerns. He felt that she was being denied the use of her property the way that she intended to
use it. There are no two ways about that. He said that they could continue to cook, but they cannot
continue to keep putting up sheds and expanding businesses. He felt that they have an obligation to try to
provide some relief. Therefore, he could not vote for this request.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that she had worked for the Zoning Department for a long time and that a lot of
people don't know that they are breaking the rules. She felt that the applicants have shown a good faith
effort to not be in violations because it is not cheap drilling another well or fixing the septic. Therefore, she
felt that there has been a good faith effort to come into compliance.
Mr. Strucko said that he hoped that the Class B would impose the restrictions necessary to address the
concerns more effectively than the existing Class A That would include monitoring the trash, making
sure that the operation is health compliant and that traffic is not moving in and out.
Mr. Craddock noted that the expansion was limited by the size of the dwelling.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved, Ms. Higgins seconded, to approve SP-2005-008, Tortilleria y Panderia la
Michoacana with the conditions as recommended by staff, as amended.
1. Special Use Permit 2005-08 shall be developed in general accord with the concept plan, titled
'Gaona Home Occupation' (Attachment A) and dated June 8, 2006. However, the Zoning
Administrator may approve revisions to the concept plan to allow compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The proposed shed shall be constructed no larger than 18' x 20'.
3. The entrance from Route 29 South shall meet VDOT Minimum Standards for Entrances to
Private Street requirements.
4. No more than two employees other than persons living on the property are permitted to come
to this site for any work-related purpose.
5. The hours of operation of this home occupation shall be limited to 8:00 am until 6:00 pm.
6. Vehicles parked on site associated with this home occupation shall be limited to one panel
truck and one trailer.
7. The applicant shall plant and maintain a 100' long continuous buffer adjacent to the southern
parcel boundary. The buffer shall begin 15' from the westernmost trunks of the existing cluster
of large deciduous trees located at the intersection of parcels 27 A 1, 27 A2, and Route 29 South.
The plants comprising the buffer shall be evergreen trees or large shrubs (6' tall minimum upon
planting; 8' minimum mature height); mixed species or a monoculture. The trees/shrubs shall
be planted a minimum of 8' on center for the continuous 100' length. Suggested species
include: Juniperus virginiana (Virginia red cedar) and Ilex opaca (American holly). The
approximate location of the buffer is indicated on the concept plan (Attachment A).
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Commissioner Edgerton voted nay.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2005-008 Tortilleria y Panderia La Michoacana would go to the Board of
SupeNisors on July 12 with a recommendation for approval.
I
j
Werner Hambsch
Crossroad Store
PO Box 149
North garden, V A 22959
July 10, 2006
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like to support Mrs. Walker about her concern over Mr, Goana's
proposed home-based business. A few years ago he presented himself as a prospective
new tenant at our shopping center, after several conversations with him and a look at his
proposed plan for his business, I determined that his plans would not up fit the space to
the standards of the county and of the shopping center. For this reason I can not support
his new endeavor.
/(' t
~ "
WERRNER HAMBSCH
j
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
June 29, 2006
Kevin O'Brien
704 Locust A venue
Charlottesville, V A 22902
RE: SP-2006-010 Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment (Sign #11)
Tax Map 61, Parcel 17
Dear Mr. O'Brien:
. The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 20, 2006, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors,
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions, Staff will review the conditions that
are not repeated exactly, but have slight changes, to make sure that they are entirely accurate and as
intended before this goes to the Board. Any changes will be reviewed with you.
1. Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three hundred fifty (350)
students, with a maximum of 40 staff. Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require amendment
of this special permit;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, with
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
/3. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with Drawing 3 titled "Amendment to SP
2001-040", dated May 24, 2006, hereinafter, the "Concept Plan" and shall reflect all required
pedestrian and road connections to adjacent properties.
4. The school shall be operated in general accord with the Special Use Permit Application and
Justification (SP 2001-040) submitted August 27,2001 and the Site Development Strategy Narrative
submitted via facsimile December 18, 2001; and the stand-alone parking Special Use Permit
Application and Justification submitted March 20, 2003 for SP 2003-029;
5. If it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel access as shown on the
concept plan and labeled "Proposed Road Easement", the owner shall make the reserved vehicular
connection available for such use, This reservation may be relocated or modified so long as it is in
general accord with the Concept Plan.
6. If it is determined by the County that alternate access connections are necessary for the properties
. adjacent to the school's main access road, the owner shall construct vehicular access from this parcel
to the property line of Tax Map 61, Parcels 173A and 174 in an appropriate location and manner to be
determined in conjunction with the County's review and approval of the site plan for the school, so as
not to conflict with access to the private school.
J
. .
O'Brien
Page 2 of2
June 29, 2006
7. A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to the south of the school
property as shown on SDP 2003-097.
8. As a condition of final site plan approval, the owner shall dedicate to Albemarle County are for a
greenway along Meadow Creek at the western boundary of the parcel as delineated on the Concept
Plan.
9. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or other undisturbed
areas identified on the conceptual master plan of the original SP 200 I -040 shall occur as a result of
site development other than development of a pedestrian access to the greenway. As a condition of
final site plan approval, the owner shall submit a tree preservation plan for approval by the Zoning
Administrator, addressing in detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be
preserved, clearing and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and shrubs (if
any), and related issues. Screening consisting of an opaque fence and landscaping shall be installed
along the shared boundary between Parcels 170 and I 72A where deemed necessary by the agent for
screening;
10. As a condition of final site plan approval, the area necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio Road
shall be identified and right-of-way dedicated.
11. No structure, parking, or loading shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential district. This 20-
foot setback shall also include an undisturbed buffer, subject to Section 21,7.3.
12. Future amendments to this special use permit shall be evaluated for conformity with the Jones and
Jones study (Final Report dated May, 2001) for relationships of building placement and their
relationship with open space.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 12,2006,
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
~~-.
Since~~ ,
~
Sean Dougherty
Senior Planner
Planning Division
SD/aer
cc: Charlottesville Waldorf Foundation
POBox 4474, Charlottesville, V A 22905
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: STAFF:
SP 2006- Waldorf School Amendment Sean Dougherty
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: June 20, 2006 Public Hearing
Amendment of an existing special use permit to BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
allow for the construction of an initial building July 12, 2006
OWNER/APPLICANT: Waldorf School Foundation
PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing an amendment to an existing special use permit to allow for the
construction of an initial building that is part of a larger plan for the Waldorf School.
BACKGROUND: During the June 20, 2006 Planning Commission public hearing, concerns were raised
over the clarity of the conditions and proposed changes. The Commission recommended approval but
requested that staff review the conditions that are not repeated exactly, but have slight changes, to make
sure that they are entirely accurate and as intended beforegoing to the Board. A full history of proposed
changes to the existing special use permit c01ditions is provided in Attachment G.
The meaning of those conditions remains the same, with one exception. Staff had originally recommended
that the depth of the building setback shown on the Concept Plan also apply to an undisturbed buffer,
subject to section 21.7.3 of the Zoning Ordinance (which permits the Planning Commission to approve
disturbances or plantings in the buffer if it demonstrated to be necessary or would result in improved site
. design). However, as an undisturbed buffer could not be disturbed without approval of the Planning
Commission, the buffer requirement was amended and is now referred to in Condition Four as a "tree
screening buffer". This language clarifies the type of buffer and allows disturbance and replanting through
administrative approval, rather than the Planning Commission
DISCUSSION/FINDINGS:
Attachment G illustrates changes and updates to the conditions. Condition Four is more in keeping with the
original intent of the cond~ions and the use of "tree screening buffer" to qualify the buffer and provides
specificity and clarity for future interpretation and enforcement.
Factors favorable to this request
1. The amendment helps to shift the campus buildings closer to Rio Road, more in keeping with the
Neighborhood Model
2. The plan continues to reflect and better account for the recommendations of the Jones and Jones
study for the Meadowcreek Parkway and the urban core proposed near the entrance to the
Parkway.
3. The plan reflects a future road reservation width (to the northern properties) that is more keeping
with current County standards.
4. The additional condition that applies the building setback to parking as well ensures an appropriate
condition given the neighboring residential uses.
No unfavorable factors have been identified with this request.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends approval with conditions.
.
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP 06-10 Waldorf School Staff: Dougherty
Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
June 20, 2006 July 12, 2006
Owners: Waldorf School Foundation Applicant Waldorf School Foundation
Acreage: 13.2 Acres Amendment of Special Use Permit for:
revision to approved concept plan
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 170and 174 Proffers/Conditions: Yes
Location: West of the Intersection of Rio
Road and Penn Park Road
By-right use: 52 units, up to 68 dwelling Magisterial District Rio
units using density bonuses
Requested # of Dwelling Units: none DA X RA
Proposal: Amendment of an existing special Comprehensive Plan Designation: Urban
use permit to allow for the construction of an Density Residential- residential (6.01-34
initial building. units/acre) and supporting uses such as
religious institutions, schools, commercial,
office and service uses in Neighborhood
Two.
Character of Property: Mix of open fields Use of Surrounding Properties: The
and woodland sloping away from Rio Road surrounding parcels all contain residential
toward Meadow Creek. uses. Charlottesville Catholic School is
nearby.
Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: None
1. The amendment helps to shift the campus
buildings closer to Rio Road, more in keeping
with the Neighborhood Model
2. The plan continues to reflect the
recommendations of the Jones and Jones
study for the Meadowcreek Parkway and the
urban core proposed near the entrance to the
Parkway.
3. The plan reflects a future road reservation
width (to the northern properties)that is more
keeping with current County standards.
4. The additional condition that applies the
building setback to parking as well ensures
an appropriate condition given the
neighboring residential uses.
RECOMMENDA TION: Staff recommends approval with conditions.
2
STAFF PERSON: SEAN DOUGHERTY
. PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 20, 2006
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUL Y 12, 2006
SP 2006-00001 Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment
NOTE: THIS REPORT HAS BEEN UPDA TED SINCE THE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
TO FURTHER CLARIFY INFORMA TlON PROVIDED IN THE ORIGINAL REPORT.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes an amendment of an existing special use permit
for the Waldorf School. The proposal is to build an approximately 6,300 square foot building 200
feet to the west of an existing house (along Rio Road) that currently houses the early childhood
learning program. When the initial special use permit was approved, the school's buildings were
clustered toward the middle of the parcel. However, in 2003 the aforementioned house was
purchased by a friend of the school and offered for the early childhood learning program. In order
to use this building for the school's purposes, an amendment of the existing special use permit
was pursued by the Waldorf School through SP 2003-04. This amendment was approved with
conditions on June 3, 2003. This shifted the campus closer to Rio Road and also provided a
"face" for the school on Rio Road, The change proposed with the current amendment is to place a
proposed building in between the house and the originally-proposed (and retained) location of the
main school building (to be built during a later phase), The original approved concept plan
clustered the entire campus roughly 500 feet from Rio Road, The new Concept Plan is
Attachment A. The action letter and the concept plan approved with SP 2003-04 is Attachment B
. and C respectively, The concept plan and the related action letter approved with the initial special
use permit (SP 2001-040) are Attachment D and E. A full history of proposed changes to the
existing special use permit conditions is Attachment G.
Petition:
PROJECT: SP 2006-00010, Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment
PROPOSED: Amendment of Special Use Permit to allow for revisions to approved concept plan.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 Residential (4 units/acre)
SECTION: 15.2.2.5 which allows for private schools in R-4 residential by special use permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and
service uses in Neighborhood Two. The Jones and Jones Study for the Meadowcreek Parkway
also applies to this area.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: 734 Rio Road, near the intersection of Penn Park Road and Rio Road,
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcel 170 and parcel 174
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (See Attachments B & C.)
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the parcel is primarily residential. The entrance to
the Charlottesville Catholic School building is 1,500 feet to the south and east. The remaining
adjacent areas contain mainly single-family detached residential with single-family attached and
multifamily located down Penn Park Road in the River Run development. Penn Park and
. associated amenities are located at the end of Penn Park Road, % mile from the Waldorf site.
3
Plannina and Zonina History: A special use permit was approved for the Waldorf School in this
location on March 6, 2002. A subsequent amendment to that special use permit was approved on
June 4, 2003. Two parcels referenced in earlier staff reports and action letters, Tax Map 61,
Parcels 173 and 174A have since been combined into Tax Map 61, Parcel 170. Prior to
December 2, 1980, the parcel had R-2, residential zoning. In 1980, the zoning classification was
amended to R-4, residential.
A site development plan (SOP 2005-00071) was submitted for review in 2005. This proposal
varies the layout of the campus slightly. Zoning staff approved the new layout, with the exception
of the new proposed building which was previously located closer to the main school building with
the existing special use permit, but is now proposed to be located closer to Rio Road. Changes to
layout of vehicular access, parking, and the main school building have been administratively
approved through SOP 2005-00071 and are reflected on the Concept Plan. This special use
permit request evaluates the change in location of the Proposed Building (labeled as such on the
Concept Plan) and associated changes to the site program.
Comprehensive Plan and the Neiahborhood Model: The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Urban Density Residential which supports residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and
supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses in
Neighborhood Two.
As adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, the Jones and Jones study for the Meadowcreek
Parkway was also reviewed for the purposes of evaluating this proposal. Relevant portions of the
Jones and Jones study are Attachment F. In previous legislative actions regarding the Waldorf
School in this location, the applicant had been requested to reserve a 40-foot wide area for a
future road that would tie into the urban center proposed along Rio Road, south of the entrance to
the Meadowcreek Parkway. As the County's standard for streets has increased or widened since
this special use permit was last reviewed, the applicant was asked to provide a reservation that
could accommodate travelways, bike lanes, planting strips, and sidewalks in both directions. The
applicant has increased the width of this reservation from a width of 40 feet to 52 feet. This is
reflected on the Concept Plan (Attachment A) and labeled "Proposed Road Easement",
Additionally, the applicant was asked to slightly rotate the alignment of this reserved area (within
the constraints of the applicant's program for the site) to better reflect the alignment for this future
road illustrated in the Jones and Jones study. The area reserved with the previous amendment
followed the rear boundary of any existing property line that would make it intersect with Rio
Road, which was not the intent of the Jones and Jones conceptual plan. The site layout also
anticipates a civic green proposed to be located in the urban center (from the Jones and Jones
study) north of the main school building (on an adjacent property). The plan continues to reserve
a future greenway trail associated with the Meadowcreek Parkway. Access to the parkway in this
location was eliminated from the proposal during the last public hearing with the Planning
Commission. The applicant sited concerns for student's safety and an inability to control
movement across their property from Rio Road to the greenway. However, access points to this
greenway are established % mile to the north at the entrance to the parkway and another access
point has been proposed by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program project named
Treesdale Park, 1/8 of a mile to the South. (This project is currently indefinitely deferred,)
4
. This proposal has been evaluated for its conformity with the Neighborhood Model in previous staff
reviews. The revisions to the plan vary slightly from that original plan, However, much of the plan,
pedestrian networks, and access relationships remain similar. The largest change is the
establishment of a dispersed campus, rather than one connected building. This works to shift the
campus buildings closer to Rio Road. This change reduces the distance between the school's
buildings and Rio Road (originally over 500 feet), Rio Road, the existing house, the building
proposed with this amendment, and the main school building are each roughly 200 feet apart.
This condition is more in keeping with the Neighborhood Model in terms of pedestrian orientation,
neighborhood friendly streets and paths, building and spaces of human scale, and
redevelopment. Pedestrians accessing the site from Rio Road will be engaged with the campus
buildings closer to the site's entrance, The existing house, proposed building, and main school
building are all aligned within a short walking distance of each other. Rather than having to walk
over 500 feet from Rio Road to the main school building, the dispersed campus with its integrated
and connecting pathway system connects buildings roughly 200 feet from each other, shifting the
campus toward Rio Road. This has positive implications for human scale and neighborhood
friendly paths. The property where the school is locating once contained a residential structure.
This house was destroyed by a fire. The development of the school in this location represents a
redevelopment.
Another change is that the parking, which was once located perpendicular to the school's access
road (along the approach to the school), is now placed further to the rear of the school buildings,
further relegating the parking.
. En~ineerin~ Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering
issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. Engineering is recommending approval
of the proposed changes to the concept plan, Considerations of access and stormwater
management were approved with the initial site plan prepared to allow use of the existing house
on the site for the early childhood program, This includes a traffic light, access road, and
stormwater pond. Because the school's mission is to be the greenest school in the country,
additional innovative stormwater measures such as cisterns and rain gardens will follow with the
site plan for this amendment and the construction of the main school building.
Zonin~ Considerations: Zoning has commented that the setback established for buildings
should also apply to parking. Private schools are allowed by special use permit in R-4 zoning.
However, because no parking setbacks apply in R-4, the following condition was added to this
request:
No structure, parking, or loading shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential district.
This additional condition ensures that an appropriate relationship between neighboring properties
and the school's buildings, parking lot and loading areas is established. In addition, no screening
is required between parcels zoned R-4, Zoning has recommended that the building setback
should include a tree screening buffer to the satisfaction of the Agent that shall be maintained
along two sections of the school property where residential uses exist. The "to the satisfaction of
the Agent" clause will allow the school to provide a buffer that is more natural in appearance than
. the default screening standard, which is staggered arrangement of evergreens.
5
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 31.2.4,1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adiacent property?
This request has previously been reviewed with respect to this consideration. The layout and
program for the school has been minimally amended and staff does not find that this use or the
amendment to the concept plan would change prior findings or would be a substantial detriment
to any adjacent properties.
Will the character of the zonina district chanae with this use?
The educational use should have minimal or no effect or impact on the existing character of the
district. With a large regional public park, Charlottesville Catholic School, and a mix of housing
types existing within close proximity, the proposed school should support the mix of residential,
instructional, and recreational uses in the area,
Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zonina ordinance?
A private school is in harmony with the purpose and intent of R-4 zoning which is intended to
provide a variety of housing types with supporting uses such as private schools, day care,
community centers, and clubs,
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by rioht in the district?
By-right uses in R-4 districts include a variety of housing types, tourist lodges, public uses and
buildings and homes for the developmentally challenged. The proposed private school is
consistent with these uses.
Will the use comply with the additional reaulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
Section 5.1,06 addresses day care centers (Waldorf early childhood program) and requires
licensure by the Virginia Department of Social Services, cooperation with periodic inspections by
the Albemarle County fire official, and adherence to all other applicable requirements of the
Virginia Department of Social Services, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire
Marshall, or any other local or federal agency. The Waldorf early childhood program that is
operating within the existing house on the property is fully licensed and compliant with all
applicable rules and agency regulations.
Will the public health. safety and aeneral welfare of the community be protected if the use is
approved?
This project will not negatively impact the public health, safety, or general welfare. The school's
enrollment is conditioned to be limited to a maximum of 350 students. A traffic signal has been
installed and the first portion of an access road that is designed to a standard to serve the entire
site as it develops has been completed. The normal hours of the school are conditioned to be
from 8:00 A.M. until 6:00 P,M. Staff believes the health, safety, and general welfare of the
community will remain if this amendment is approved.
6
Water and Sewer
. The Albemarle County Service Authority has determined that adequate water and sewer service
exists to serve this site.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The amendment helps to shift the campus buildings closer to Rio Road, more in keeping
with the Neighborhood Model
2, The plan continues to reflect and better account for the recommendations of the Jones and
Jones study for the Meadowcreek Parkway and the urban core proposed near the entrance
to the Parkway.
3, The plan reflects a future road reservation width (to the northern properties) that is more
keeping with current County standards.
4. The additional condition that applies the building setback to parking as well ensures an
appropriate condition given the neighboring residential uses.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the request with the following conditions of approval:
1. Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three hundred fifty (350)
. students, with a maximum of 40 staff, Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require
amendment of this special permit;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p,m. weekdays, with
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
3. The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the Concept Plan for SP 2006-
010, hereinafter, the "Concept Plan" and shall reflect all required pedestrian and road
connections to adjacent properties;
4. A building setback and tree screening buffer to the satisfaction of the Agent shall be maintained
adjacent to the Village Square residential development to the south and adjacent to Tax Map 61,
Parcel 171 , as shown on the Concept Plan;
5. The school shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit Application and Justification
(SP 2001-040) submitted August 27, 2001 and the Site Development Strategy Narrative
submitted via facsimile December 18, 2001; it shall also be operated in accord with the Special
Use Permit Application and Justification submitted January 26, 2003 for SP 2003-004 and the
Special Use Permit Application and Justification submitted March 20, 2003 for SP 2003-029;
6. A reservation for a public vehicular connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to
the north of the school property, as shown on the Concept Plan and labeled, "Proposed 52'
. Future Connection". If it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel
7
access, the owner shall make the reserved vehicular connection available for such use. This
reservation may be relocated or modified so long as it is in general accord with the Concer~
Plan;
7. Access from this parcel shall be made available to the two adjacent parcels fronting Rio Road
(173A and 174) in an appropriate location and manner to be determined in conjunction with the
County's review and approval of the site plan for the school, so as not to conflict with access to
the private school; if it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel
access, the owner shall make the a vehicular connection available for such use;
8. A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to the south as shown on
the Concept Plan;
9. As a condition of final site plan approval, a greenway dedication along Meadow Creek at the
western boundary of the parcel, as delineated on the Concept Plan shall be made to Albemarle
County;
10. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or other
undisturbed areas identified on the Concept Plan shall occur as a result of site development
other than development of a pedestrian access to the greenway. Prior to final site plan
approval, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator,
addressing in detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be
preserved, clearing and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and d
rubs (if any), and related issues. Disturbance to the twenty (20)-foot buffer shown along the-
northern property boundary on Parcel 170 shall be allowed for construction of the parking IL
associated with the early childhood education center. Screening consisting of an opaque fence
and landscaping shall be installed along the shared boundary between Parcels 170 and 172A;
11 ,As a condition of site plan approval for the Proposed Building labeled on the Concept Plan, the
area necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio Road shall be identified and right-of-way
dedicated;
12. No structure, parking, or loading shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential district;
13, Future amendments to this special use permit shall be evaluated for conformity with the Jones
and Jones study for the Meadowcreek Parkway (Final Report dated May, 2001) for relationships
of building placement and their relationship with open space.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Concept Plan
B - SP 2003 - 004 Existing Amendment Concept Plan
C - SP 2003 - 004 Action Letter
D - SP 2001 - 040 Original Concept Plan
E - SP 2001 - 040 Action Letter
F - Relevant Portions of Meadowcreek Parkway Final Report
G - History of Changes to Conditions
8
~
w Q
e-
'"
:;;
XO
OW
"'~
~ a.:;;
<i r", a.",
0.. "'b "'w
.J.\iS<-t... . ne-
;~; ZW
"'''&. ...", ~ , ",0
~ge ~ w
~~' >-Ill
~~ '~: ~,o :~:~;~~ !m:;;d~~ llmm~l , '"
. " "'0
. Ze-
~~,:~~~~~ ",~~;;...'f>-\. ~ ~z
~Q
",e-
a.",
~5~~~6~~~~~H 02000000ClJ. ,
, Wz
"'W
~~ "'0'
00
Wo
, ~ e-Z
~'"
<( ~.~.,. ,+~~! , I > , OUl
ZZ
- 'Iii" . -0
C L 0 wU>ij)
CD p u" "'20>< 0. ll! ~..", e-wz
ila,,;! !! k:m Oe-w
E I ZUl::;
.c ~ ii:!; e ~g~
CJ ~~ . Q'M> :ii~~ "'ou
~ I ~::!<(
8> I w:::>x
"'0 ~~~~~ alllw
<( ~t-- :::. "I.g,.()
o g,:? l.1!:.'.'\'S
,,~",ci ;' --
;;;'" i---.'" ~
==.-:c-., -----.~71
,....,..":::,...:...:....."~.....--m'...--...--.1 .
/-:) i !~
-- I
",..m........I
\, ..
\. ..
.. ...
'. ... ~o
"
'.,
" \, ,
'. ..
" ..
'.
". " ----
"
~.~._".-- '-'\ , ~
\ \ ~~
, \
, 0
\~ I \ ~. 0
I
~ ;o~
,U> - ~ 0.....
: c( ...... c::
' .L
/ ~ o Q)
---- U <<S -.b S
: oa 0"1:1
, < Cf). ~ fii
i n .
~m~ l~ .~ 51 s
, ~ >.. ~<
0", ---./' ~ ~~o~
Zw
"'LL
aLL
z:::> I o 8 j~
-Ill ~. \.
0
--'w
s~ OJ Q)
Ille- i') o "i:: p-. C/)
'" <<S E-<:::>
L------ ~ ~ p-. ctl
..0 ~ '0
<<~~
- . oCf"J
!, ~ ~ U
" ,
.. ---
"
.'
.' .' ---- ~
.' "
.'
, "
.. .,." " ~
..
, ~~f~ \ " "
\.......... .' "
~ :" ~ n '.,--..-' E-i
~~~~,
q~~~
a~
t'tg :t
z~i;~
!lh~
.
91
. . ;
:~ ~ !
~~~?:~ t ~
~~~i;i ~ u
~ g
~ l) ;
~ ~ ~
!".
-- -~-- -----
-~~-
,
~ ~. ~ n t~ eTUTflJT/"- ------,-
e: ""..2 ,!:l,S"- . . .1. ~
C ~~ i~~ ~FnnudqlV JO L{/UnOr,) dTI T sndmu,"') /H~""")N ~ ;,' :B
\.: ,G' ~ "i'l ~' , -',J.~ .' \..) ...., C) I
, ~ H ~U OtO-LQOZ dnS Cl3ClN=IV~Y lOOH:J,r dlIOalVhl1 ~ -~;i-
~ ~~ ~jQ~'1 . ~Od 1IgIHX:3 ETr-nI/1SlgJ-&LO'"TIIVH:J !, ~~~
..0=
.'o'1Cl
~
~,,~ ~-
~ ~~\/~ )' / I ~I.i.
Q) A ! f I1\.' , .....
E'O j ~~ \ ....
.c ~" 0- ' ' \ a.
u I ," ' .' I -\-- --""---'--
~ I :.:~ , "~ I l~fO-\'
c( ,,_:,IL> OJ ie,
I C1 -
(',J II \..I'l ~
___ 1.0 t<J S. ~
.,., <D! I
... " '<D l"' I
f ::z: r- -' >) + "'"8~
Ii , ",0 I a \0 / ~,a >,
Cl ~ ~ .. I 7, "
,r, '-, \S) \lJ
, U ':, I E It) I ';J
D Q " L <D <D I U
~ 2; - -:=::: >, (~
~~ a
(::J l"') Ie-, r--,
a '-ll :.....L
Bjc;J ~ L D
~ I:L. ->- ~
\D tSm <D <D ,.
\~ ~ ~
\~ ~~.. ::J ~ I J..1
\~ ~ ~ IS) I
\ \S) ;..~.-\ P
, u..l W (, , r----. r--.. s: I
' \...) '-.J <D \S)
'r U --.J,~.t 1 , ~ <D
\. <C <C I I :z <D ::J <...J
" 3- D ".".." '.,' '-----" <...J P ~ """> ('"
~ ' \,.Ij UJ 1,(' U ~ \S) ~ """'- r
,_ "\ .~ _ <D ~ \S) :::,)
" 13 \- L \S) a 1:]- I ,,'I
/ \'1:: ~ ~ a G' I
p 1-< <...J ~ ~ "
_ _ ~ S :z:~ ~ >, .. .. I\-' I!
r-/ L <.13 ~.. [:Z ~ ~ ~ LlJ
("_' IS) <::s1 11.l. Z6 _ D <D <D ~,
\ IS) ....... \flu- , / L 1
II) II) '<0 ::.L.. -- ~
o 0 ll.l " / ::J --
\ 0 ~ \. \n~ l..I'- W ~ :>
\ <.13 ~ \ llY::>-.A"" r" "" a
" UJ < .......... \J) 'U L
...J " , tj IL CL ::=J QL f'\
\...- -t\ ~.c ~ U-
'"
~ ~
)" ~\ "-
_~9W. ~
~~
:J't:t:
P s::
<2 ,9
L:e
0\3
4-" s::
II) 0
~~ '
~ II)
(~). '
'-' ~<S:'1
" ' ~,,-':.~
" '\' '
) ".(
( ,~'\
)(:..1"",
,of'
,.' ~
\ \
m \
, ., ,DUJ \~ \
\ i ,~Z
\ , ' ~~ \
\ ' ~~
, \ \-' 's: ,:::l <1..
\ \ ~ ~ "u- '0..
, ~,
, \ '
~ ~\~ ~
\ Z ~ OO.;J~~ ~ \ \
\/\ \- \ \ \;<;z az \ \
w~ \ '
\ DL / / ~ -l 11. -l \
j~' ~\ ( ) \ ~ ~ 9 ~ \ '\ ...,
J' lL."':::= :<\ \ CD \D wit, \ \
=:J ':, \ '" 0 a~ fl, \ \\ \
<C " i, ~ ~ 2\ ~ ~ ~ ~ r I II I
--.J ' " :;:;z IE 2.2 \ ~ u::: (L -< r........J !
:2 .. I "~to \ ~ ~ ~:g ~ \;; ';' iij ~ "1
:==J i,', ..',. \ '<t. \ IL ':; ILl)' \ ~ IL I II:
DL '. ( L': .:6 ~ \ 'L \ U:: LL ' ,I !
~-:::~ \ \ ~\ \\ fA \~~ i~~~ I II ".
\ W I \ ~ \ ~\ \~fI~ 1 ~ /! I i'
\...--,. \ II '
I '.,1 I !
\ .. . I L
ILl D 'I
~
\ I
\ - - '-.. '" \
\ L- ", \ \
(ii. \ \\
-
. Attachment C
.
~
'~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Departmellt of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road. Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
June 12,2003
Nancy Regan
1408 Crozet Avenue
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-03-04 Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment
SP-03-029 Charlottesville Waldorf School - Stand Alone Parking
Tax Map 61, Parcels 170, 173, 179A and 174
Dear Ms. Regan:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors at its meeting on June 4,2003, by a vote of 6:0, approved the above-
. noted petition. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
SP-03-04 Charlottesville Waldorf Scl1rool Amendment:
1, Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three hundred fifty (350) students, with a
maximum of 40 staff. Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require amendment of this special permit;
2, Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, with occasional uses in the
evenings and weekend;
3, The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the Conceptual Master Plan addressing Parcels 170,
173, and 179A (submitted November 12, 2001 and revised December 14,2001), and shall reflect all reCluired
pedestrian and road connections to adjacent properties and a sidewalk along at least one side of the entrance road.
The approved final site plan shall also be in substantial accord with the Exhibit for Amended SUP 2001-040
addressing Parcels 174 and 173 (submitted January 27,2003 and revised March 27, 2003);
4. A building setback and tree buffer shall be maintained adjacent to the Village Square residential development to
the south, as shown on the conceptual master plan;
5. The school shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit Application and Justification (SP 2001-040)
submitted August 27, 2001 and the Site Development Strategy Narrative submitted via facsimile December 18,
2001; it shall also be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit Application and Justification submitted January
26,2003 for SP 2003-004 and the Special Use Permit Application and Justification submitted March 20, 2003 for
SP 2003-029; '"
6. A reservation for a public vehicular connection shall be made to tne parcel or parcels located to the north of the
school property, exact location of this connection to be determined at the time of final site plan approval. If it is
determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel access, the owner shall make the reserved
vehicular connection available for such use;
7, Access from this parcel shall be made available to the two adjacent parcels fronting Rio Road (173A and 174) in
an appropriate location and manner to be determined, so as not to conflict with access to the private school; if it is
determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel access, the owner shall make the a vehicular
connection available for such use;
8. A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to the south of the school property, exact
. location of this connection to be determined at the time of final site plan approval;
9, A greenway dedication along Meadow Creek at the western boundary of the parcel shall be made to Albemarle
County at the time of final site plan approval;
10. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the westem portion of the site or other undisturbed areas identified
on the conceptual master plan for SP 2001-040 shall occur as a result of site development other than development
of a pedestrian access to the greenway. Prior to final site plan approval, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted
and approved by the Zoning Administrator, addressing in detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and ~\
location of trees to be preserved, clearing and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and 80S /)
Page 2
Attachment C
Page 2
June 12, 2003
shrubs (if any), and related issues. Disturbance to the twenty (20)-foot buffer shown along the northern property
boundary on Parcel 173 shall be allowed for construction of the parking lot associated with the early childhood
education center. Screening consisting of an opaque fence and landscaping shall be installed along the shared
boundary between Parcels 173 and 172A;
11. At the time of final site plan approval, the area necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio Road shall be identified
and right-of-way dedicated; and
12, Construction of the entrance road to the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be completed prior to commencement
of the early childhood education use on Parcel 174.
SP-03-029 Charlottesville Waldorf School- Stand Alone Parking:
1, The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the Exhibit for Amended SUP 2001-
040 addressing Parcels 173 and 174 (submitted January 27,2003 and revised March 27, 2003),
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be commenced
within twenty-four (24) months after th~issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed abandoned and the
authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate, For purposes of this section, the term "commenced" shall
be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit
within two (2) years from the date of the issuance.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the Zoning
Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter, For further information, please
call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5832.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me,
~
\/WC/jet
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Matt Grimes, VDOT
~<)jj)
wo~ Jaqwaoao n pan!wqns 15U!MBJO ------=--====--=-=---.---------------- ,,' .-.-,-:--.~~]l.rnm.flj-f.I.-~' -,-
~ -------- ---- --=----=.-=---=-==-~--==-----====-=--=-==-------- ------------- -~'" 'J' ~. i ~
; II Hi Nlt7J:i3.1':NW I?/U/V.I/!i OG'IV.M. SGVO'HSSO'HO ~ n' l I j ,: ~ ' "
.IM ~ Ii UJ__'W""MJ" J [ '~"U'41V}O ^"':o:J'~ J ['IO~H:>~~~-=-___ __J ....:."=-. ,1'_.__".'.'L'.~
, ! ,_ ,csr
H' I I'"; ~( '1Ji LlJ ~.
-, n .' \ I' : I, '- '!~ ~
, "I I I, , l~ ,f
~ ~ . i }." ~ -j
"..' , r A, ,) oi
cr-C) I 'f l' .{ IU
c: ~ , I_~"" I l!! ~ q~_,
.... \.) ,r1 L1 LJ._ Ij-. ,fj IU if) __ () Z ,,).
- ,j) IJ.J \.I) LL IS) UJ UJ -'. J I u) C"i ~J \..... () Co,
p2 L1! ~.., UI 0 ~ ::{ ~~ _I, ~ ~ "'
-:. ~ ~(o 0 '0 11.. u.. ~ lrl Ii 0 ~~- ,_ ~ tfJ
G '> \--.... () () Q . . ul 11) 4,": I N 7. tij ~.. u_
c: :- 'f 'T. Q O. \~'l ~ i::iC If, iI, I!) In ", ,. II. v () D ~l u) l.b.
:i It ct ~ ;q: iY ~:~ ~,~ ~ ~ d) ~ ~ . " ! '~r'i-' ~ tt \n ~ ~ f6
O lL LU "'" ''Io'"
,( ~, -c;:: , ~l_ -_'-'"~_"_
..... ~ ;j ~ ~ ~- ~--~----~--.::<-_.. -~
C -.t .' z.. _..;.' () > _. 1 .-' .~_____~__
Q) l- ~ 9 C:.l hLt LY L.. j.__ I _ ..- 0:::;:.' .~-~o ____
-c .... LU DeL u, Ij.! .>'/"". " '. __,,~ _
E u.. " -c ~ '" It' If] 'l: /"" ,. ,__
" !i, ~ i5! ~ (; 6 1Y'i'. '3~T) ". ...._. ' \
. w . >..) - L:.J,,"" . ,.,.', ....,. ..
.c w.... v <J\ -c II.j iil ft ".. , ',-. .c-,.,~_,cQ;' '., .t"-
o ~.. ~~~~~\nlnj~ ~~ '.',-. . _ '.- ._
CO &' \!"J ~lY~;I. as~<<.(t-Uj ; /
::: liJlij~ _o~ti~~J:..(~ ~UJ
c:t ~ ~ 2 ~ C2 ~ ~ ~ ~ S1 S=\ ~ a 8 -'___,
. l, ~ lli '" !J;! ;!; 62 :z :!? ~;!' z ,p ';.. , .,
Ifl ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 {: -:t. ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ w'i .~~
~U:',,(~Z~rl.l-~C)~~C'l~~ -;! ,..',',_' \'
~ ~ u: ~ ~ ;Ti g: ~ ,:;it :i< t:L If:.[j iJ) 0.. :t(g I ~, ~ /, ',~
U U" X" 0
~~ V) ,/ ~
~ -' I I
,.., ~ I- .."'/, ')"'./
"\" 1/( tu. ' , '.(
'i ,. ',:,t, I, '>.L i,
, y-' " "ii'". ,:,' /
t~ ;1_ (,', .I
,UJ .11,"" /..:
i ~ l.t '-' '_
:r::1 \}
/ '.~
: ~/!~ '
,G- "'I'n) ',.".'. "
, t I
"-""/ -. I' /. I '1
I' !,.,t 'A'~
:i :
1 " ~~
\ I - ~"~~w/~
I . "C \
'/ ' - - 11~ '.
] , '--'~-
"" ,,',k-
/' '! I ,
I I '
I ' I J ,11'
'! '/ '.
1 ',' ,j I~.,,;_n
I' \")/
I ':". /'. /. ~<
j-p.:J ( 1:~
I , I' '" ":::::-.. " ,
"-' :' ~.' <,.. -
{'r;l"" ,;:, ~
,/"1 ~ ~1 . ,.\ '.' ;,'
r; ~~ ~ ' '
',~,_ f ;~/, ,~~ ~: "i :
" ~'.J I ' "
1 "'r ~ 'r1 -"... 'I ':: /, ,
Si ~- _ I \
/ ~-ll -; ---~!."r~ ~ l ' .-- !
; -.~ J (
, , ", " "/ i~'
'~I~"1
, rJ, I ~ .'
'" ~ _ '---~~ ~ f;. "
\'~,p ~----7 J _ \ h '1~,
)" ~ I ,) W l
, . ') J\ ' ,
\<'10 ")~ "
t ,)-' ~ '
, ~l' J I \~
. \ ~~ j /' /' / l'-
,~ / ''';''' l / / ~I /........ L; / :~~:
, ,;1 Q) ~ . .... / " ~,
~ II '\ (<j, \ I ~-- !~ .!} I . .I';:/~..'
;\ \,;;" ~ . \ ....,.... I .{' / i J;ll
I \ <0 => "'-..' , "_ '! ~ ,h
\'~) g~ ., "";"," (', ) I ' !~
, , '_...' => - "\' ' 'I); I I W
" 'I .<<\"", ~ \ _ ~ II, "~ , -. '
'" ! 'i" J '," I I I;, , ~ - ' ; I
f" \ ~ '\ \ ' :, 1.1 / C"7 "ii i
~I I \ :Sill,' ,\ .I( : ~~ I I,,'Y ~' ,
j II ' ~ ,t, ~ I!I I ~., / ,'~ .
I " " I,', ~~ "~ II< '.:
I ,I ~ , ';< ...,'...01"1 .~. ' /, /' , 7i :. .
. I ' , ' , ' "''-, ' . "II. " ---....,' / I / / .' ,,', " ~
j j " ..', \ ---, ..,..' '.,'---/, "... I) /Ir" ,
'\ ' 'I"'" ., / '- " " _ ' ,/ / .,'
:1 \ !! '" "'_>,.'',. ('\ ,,( ~:.,"'{ '- - - -":_':1 /~,,/,i ,}., ", . ,/
I! , ~ , : , , ,(. "'ii,,;,...'. ! /~'.' ,'< ., , /
j. ~ : ' , '/. ' ....",.~ ' ,.I'V '/.' .."',. ,>,. " /
I ' I ~ I : ' .'.,.. -I '.'. ' .'" .<;;.,... " .,' f,. " '/,' - " "
,I' : ~ I '-..., ./,.',~. ...."'''. ....;p './..' .' /. '/
.,j / 1:~: I {:-....-\ /"~'s~~'.j;1t/I,I,I, . .,' r
It I !, ie' \-~'; ,/ V'....' .."'..~ -:,j!/. / . / '.!
" / ' ! "'I' !, !.., '\ /' ',' ,'.., /.' . '(" i/' \. " \
-! I i Ii ' ,i l ' ',' / "
(: /1 !\\ , J /, / \, I, '
/ I L.___ 1<$ 1 '." .', , ;
f-..,...' ' ')d~ \~ l,., . ' ~. ",,' / '
) , '* \ 'I I ? t
! I \ I ',-; f . , I' ,
'I / ' ~' / _ ' , ' , . ,
,(' , ,I . \ If' ~, ,. -, . ,I . - A ; . .
, Ii' I f>...,' , ' / '
,"-- '~------ '''';.;f /" .:s---..' .... , , _
.l-'-"'": ----,.( 1 ' , -4-.. ,. ''"\: , ..~ ' . ,
I f\ . ~-----~'Y-""'T------ --: '~'?' \ .'..... ../~ :', " .- j, , , ~
/ ~ ,~.l' "' /,':'-,', ,00.\ '''Y'",,',',', . " '/""""'\
I ~ -:; ~ .?.. ......o..y ~ ,I //J~"i"
~. ' ~ I ,~. ~ . 1 {' J _ _~----~---;-~--::--r_;-.~ rr I' _---------' . . , ~ ., .,
~~ ~ '_-.alo.:. '.,.,.. '#"""', __-- ~.---- ... '.. . .. '# -..--i....---;-. . . . -; t t t . 7 t
-;-J: . i1.- -,-. . , , . '!ll~,J.!.--'--._,- ._~' ' "...--- /.' ',' ;:-~'-!l".T?h" . '" . . , . . . . . . , , , . .
~ -:;.........: · ,., , ',...~ ~ ~ ...., -, , . . . . . -. :,~ .../;'. .',,~, /f'/~. , ' .' .t. , , . . , , , . , , , .
;l\ 11 t ..t..!.'''''''''.. ~ .,", % /)'~'., ~ ..~t.".tt'.'71.
~'~~//"/'/"'/~ ~ .";2L,,~., ',' ~>' " ,.,.I",~".'.':.';.'.........-;' ':;~ Eot% .g;'~D;Y~" """'.) . . , " ' ','
/I/~)' v:~. / //) TT;~:.;r-"'~// ,("7-7" ~ t. of r-- ?:(~ W/ r. t . "';'-'4'/ /~, //~ t;/I/::'/_-f/~ ~~ . ,. '*' . . . , , ."
7/.~---:--, , . . 'N:6 y);Y .....~<,',.,/ '/~;:';'):4%~~~"7~' , J Ii ,,/,f~~~/a?;. '. . . . ~~;//{~... ~?-;.. . , ',' , , , ':
1', '. , , . . . . h~ -:r-~ ' /, /, 7./. )'/ / '., . '. . . . . t ' . , . . . , ~ ~'h1-''''~' . . , . . ~
J t ., ., , ~.... t , ..,.. - , /. #~ ,?O-
., . .. ., .. . ., , , ... , . . t t ., .. '# ... _ .. .. J . ., , ~ ., . .. . . .., ft. t . . ., t' J ..\ ;._~. .. t 1//, ':/g h 7--~.-.." .... ,
'., . , t.. ......, ft . -0 . . t . - , ., , . ,. \y t ,t " t . . ., .. , t , -; . ., ., + . '.' ~-,-,//.~ ,p"//)-, ,. ,
,; 4 -0' ,('4", ',','" ..~. -0....... :.', t,_',.'..;'. ~'., t ~ ...., t... ~ I.. t,.,.., .,,' t,.." 1'--':~_"'''"Y,/\~....t......"
T . , , 'I . t .t. 't. ... ~lri . ; . , '# oJ'.". t 4' .' t t. jo . ~ . . ~. , . . t . . " ., . t t . jo t , ., . . -. . jo .--<<:4~~,rkl t " .,
4 .. . , t J ' .. t ., ., ~l.!'" -0 . . -0 t ...". t , .. ~ ., I t t". t ., . . . ., t . . t . . . ., . I . " t .,. 7~' t
, . , . , \1) , , , , . ~ ' . , . ' , ,f') ....,..,'.,.,.,."",".,. J;;; , ,
. . ' . . . . . " . 'it-"-t . . ' . . -0 t t ' I' . . . . .. . . . ' -0 .. . . . . t . .. ., t . -0 t . . .. .. t . . .. . ... 'l ., t.. .. . ., t . ., t . . " . t .. . -0 . ~_~~-.:_~_~_~-.:::_:~~~_______.._
--_.-------------
Attachment E
.
Department of Planning & Community Development
40 I Mcintire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virgmla 22902--1596
(-13-1) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
March 26, 2002
Nancy Regan
Crossroads Waldorf School
1408 Crozet Avenue
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-2001-040 Crossroads Waldorf School, Tax Map 61, Parcel 17
Dear Ms, Reegan:
. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on March 6, 2002, unanimously approved the
above-noted request. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1, Maximum enrollment shall be three hundred fifty (350) students, with a maximum of sixty-five (65)
staff, Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require amendment of this special permit;
" Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m. weekdays, with
L.
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
3. The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the Conceptual Master Plan
(submitted November 12, 2001 and revised r)~r.ember 14,2001), with the northern wing building
orientatio!1 als(\irU;!,JQ.~tanti::l1 accord Witb-.11le.Qram 'A-')(dated February 5,2002 and prepared by
...-- -.-- - . -----"
-Bruce Wardell Architects) provided, however, me orientation of the northern wing building may be
rotated up to 7.5 degrees in either direction to provide up to fifteen (15) degrees of flexibility in the
final siting of the northern wing building, and shall reflect all required pedestrian and road
connections to adjacent properties and a sidewalk alon9 at least ORe side of the entrance road, as
described below;
4, A building setback and tree buffer shall be maintained adjacent to the Village Square residential
development along the south property line for a distance of 1006,39 linear feet, as shown on the
Conceptual Master Plan;
5, The school shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit Application and Justification
submitted August 27, 2001 and the Site Development Strategy Narrative submitted via facsimile
December 18, 2001;
. 6, The permittee shall reserve for dedicabon for public use a public vehicular connecbon to the ~
parcel or parcels located to the north of the school property; this public vehicular connection shall / D S JLt
consist of a forty (40) foot Wide strip centered on the entrance road and a forty (40) foot Wide strip
extending along the rear of Parcel 17 4 from its intersection with the entrance road to the shared
boundary with ParceI172A. The ollblic road connection alonq the rear of Parcel 174 between the J-fJ
i
Attachment E
Page 2
March 26, 2002
entrance road and the adjacent property to the north shall be constructed by others, If it is
determined to be necessary by the County to provide for inter-parcel access, the owner shall
make the reserved vehicular connection available for such use;
7, If it is determined by the County to be necessary to provide for inter-parcel vehicular connections
between the property and Parcels 173A and 174, the final site plan shall show possible future
connections between the property and Parcels 173 and 174, These connections shall be along
the rear boundary of each parcel, and shall be coordinated with access to the school. The
specific locations and design of the connections shall be subject to approval by Engineering, This
condition does not require the owner to construct any inter-parcel vehicular connection.
8, An easement shall be created to allow public use of a pedestrian connection to the parcel or
parcels located to the south of the school property; this connection shall be made in a location
between Rio Road East and the school buildings, in such a fashion that it shall connect to the
sidewalk to be constructed along the school entrance road and, if and when constructed, to the
connecting road along the rear portion of Parcel 174, the exact location of this connection to be
determined at the time of final site plan approval;
9. If an asphalt path is to be used, it shall be five (5) feet wide and consist of four (4) inches of 21 B
stone base material and two (2) inches of SMA-2 asphalt. If a concrete sidewalk is to be used, it
shall meet standards established by the County Engineer. The path shall be shown on the final
site plan for the school and shall be constructed upon request of the County at such time as the
County determines that the path is appropriate to coordinate access to pedestrian facilities ready
for construction or constructed on the contiguous properties;
10, Portions of the property shall be dedicated, reserved, or restricted as follows:
a, A fifty (50) foot greenway along Meadow Creek at the western boundary of Parcel 170
shall be dedicated to Albemarle County at the time of final site plan approval;
b A thirty (30) foot greenway easement along the northwestern side of the centerline of the
intermittent stream shown on the Conceptual Master Plan shall be granted to Albemarle
County at the time of final site plan approval. The greenway easement shall authorize
Albemarle County to install and maintain a Class B trail and associated improvements
within the easement, allow public access to the trail, and prohibit improvements by the
owner, The greenway easement shall be subject to review and approval by the County
Attorney; and
c, The area of Parcel 170 between the dedicated greenway and the greenway easement,
containing approximately 1.56 acres, shall be reserved for use as part of the County's and
the City of Charlottesville's park and trail system, The owner shall preserve the reserved
area in its natural condition and shall make no improvements on this reserved area
without the written authorization of the County. The reserved area shall be shown on the
final site plan. At such time as a linear park is established on the contiguous properties to
the north and south of the reserved area, the owner shall dedicate to the County a public
access easement over the reserved area to provide for the use of the property as a
natural area for park, open space and greenway purposes. At the option of the owner, ~
the easement may restrict or prohibit the placement of any building or structure in this ~ D S I J .
area and provide for the continued use of the property by the owner so long as the use
does not conflict with the stated purooses of the easement. The deed of dedication shall
be subject to rev;"",^, c:~ci o;;D,-r;")v'~~i :,; 'ne 1,>:'.Ji,r;, .\~to'r"]ey; ~I
Attachment E
. Page 3
March 26, 2002
11, No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or other undisturbed
areas identified on the Conceptual Master Plan shall occur as a result of site development other
than development of a pedestrian access to the greenway, Prior to final site plan approval, a tree
preservation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Administrator,
addressing in detail the limits of all disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be
preserved, clearing and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and
shrubs (if any), and related issues,
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not be
commenced within twenty-four (24) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be deemed
abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes of this section,
the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of construction of any structure
necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the date of the issuance,
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department. Before the
Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in this letter, For further
information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5823.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
. contact me,
Sincerely,
. ,
u~
V, Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning & Co
VWCfjcf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey .
Tex Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Matt Grimes, VDOT
. ~~
')2-
,.....-
--..-.,
I ..aNHaii,
SllVIX>SSV
ONnlH3>10
"'IIIIA ..1.1...... I' 'ilIA"
~AeMlIJed
lIaaJ:) Mopeaw
..- - ,. :/-~:,"7-------
,
~
J~/" I II'!\
",:> \\
\:,
~~
"adeospuel J8peOJq 84l Ol suo!pauuoo pue 'S4led UeplS8pad 'f) <~,\ ~\
'S>\OOjq lU8Wdol8A8P S8U!}8P >\JOMl8U S!41 "A4deJBodol Aq \,
n
'Iii
paH!pOW ppB e }O WJO} 84l U! p8S0dOJd aJe Sl88JlS JOp8lU! 841 ('/\:;,......
~~ \~'~;j
j l \(~~\
'pU8 uJ84lnOS 84lle l.. ;"
/1
OMl Alq!ssod pue pua UJ84l.10U 84lle UO!P8SJ8lU! 8UO ( 1-;
" ii
:peoH O!H WOJ} P8P!AOJd aJe SlU!od ssaooe JO[ell\l Ii
II
'AeM>\Jed a4l WOJ} pan!wJad lOU S! e8Je lU8wdolaAap ueqJn II
a4l Ol ssaooe Jelno!4aA lOaJ!G "suJaned luawdolaAap ol !I..
- U 1
adeqs S8A!B se lIaM se UO!leluapo Ol salnqpluoo oSle SlaaJlS lM4I.......l 111111
.....IIlIIIPJ .1111
pue speOJ JO W8lSAs a41 "ssaooe JO} >\JOMlau leuo!punJ e lIiI....."'.".... _ r
...II&I"'.~I. -
sap!AoJd 'suo!paSJ8lU! J!a4l pue 'SlaaJlS 'speOJ 'AeM>\Jed }O lIt1t101W :......-.."-
".IfIlI.. fltt
walsAs leO!40JeJa!4 e JO WJOJ a4l U! 'UO!lelnOJ!O JelnO!4a^
UOr..eln3J!:) Jeln3!4a^
/
/
/
/'
1
I'
~i
!/J1/1/II/1/1/1I11
'I'
1lo1""lIIjJ.~I"lII"__
.,Il....ljllotll'l~1 ~ I
qllll".~ ....
..n... 0 ~
IN.<UII.fJP'iI....u_---
.".1.1.11I141.,.......11I. ---- .'
qlUllfIll --- ,
....P..~.I -
....... - .......I....lIltIl\li
:1....lIpl1l11'1j...Il.~.. ...... -
~I...- 'M~ uao
J"lW:)lIl'II.llll'j'W~" ......INI.~"..."'" _
NliI.nq IU_"'~lIII"'. JirW
a~eds uada .NI IIl"MIUIG -Q.l1
'It uOlleln~ll:l uelllSapod
luawdolaAao ueqJn I'., i' uJ8ued IU8wdolaAao ueqJO
',1 .
"PUel a4l Ol"l!L pue JapeJe40 aOeld SaOJoJU!aJ le4l 'eaJe a4lln04BnoJ4l W8lSAs l!eJl pue 4led
W8lSAs aoeds uado palaoemlnw e Ol alnqpluoo lie paleU!pJOoO e JO UO!leaJO a4l pue luawdolaAap leuo!l!ppe
'sa!l!A!pe UO!leaJOaJ JOJ se lIaM se UO!lOalOJd Ma!A JOJ Al!Unl.loddo a4l sJauo pue padOlaAapJapUn S! E auoz
pue 'lel!qe4 a}!lPI!M 'UOne!pawaJ uo-unJ JO} seaJe "aW!l JaAO padolaAapaJ aq Ol paloadxa aq ueo pue
aoeds uado BU!Z!l!ln pue JOppJOO peoH O!H a4l Buole 'padOlaAapJapUn S! 'd!4SJaUMO ald!llnW U! S! 'JaAaM04
SlUeUWaJ leJnlln::JpBe BU!AJ8SaJd 'S8!l!lenb adeospuel 'z; auoz 'awn auo le padolaAap aq Aew pue d!4SJaUMO
O!SUPlU! BU!lS!Xa 4l!M l!J le4l s80eds uado JO UOneaJo aLll alBu!s U! AllUaJJno S! l auoz U! e8Je 841 "lUawdol8Aap
S! OOl os 'lUelJodw! S! puel aLll Ol 8A!l!SUaS S! le4l S!L1l ap!nB Ol >\JOMaWeJJ WJal-BuOI e ap!AoJd Ol S! ueld S!L1l JO
J8peJe4o pue 8Bew! leJnpal!4oJe ue BU!leaJO al!4M asodJnd auo 'aW!l JO popad e JaAO aoeld Bu!>\el'lelU8WaJOU!
aq Ol AI8>\!llSOW S! eaJe alqedolaAap aJ!lUa a4l JO lnO-PI!ns
'Slu8wal8 aA!l8JdJalU!
pue 'SlU!odMa!A '80UelS!SSe Bu!pu!JAeM 'peoH O!H UO spua 4lnos pue L1lJOU a4lle
'Bu!uB!s 8leJodJOou! Plnoo pue W8lSAs ,4led >\Jed JnOOO eaJe luawdol8Aap a4l OlU! "sAeMaleB" JO SaOueJlua
luaoefpe a4l 4l!M P8UUOO S4led 8s8L11 'saoeds uado JO AJeWPd 'AIPuapJ-ueplsapad aq PlnoM lie lnq uo!punJ JO
saBpa a4l pue luawdolaA8p JO sapepunoq JalnO aLll Sl8Aal BupaU!p aAeLl PlnoM slaaJlS "lU8WdolaAap 8L1l Ol
aU!Jap d18L1 PlnoM sLlled "Sl!eJl ueplsapad pue a>\!q pue uo!saLloo pue aJnpnJlS saA!B 'saBueLlo o!L1deJBodol Ol paldepe
s>\leMap!S snonunuoo pue 'sl8aJlS paluapo-ueplsapad 'UJaned l8aJlS papppB AllenJed 'if 'lu8wdolaAap le!lUap!SaJ
'sezeld pue s>\Jed lewJoJ apnlou! e8Je luawdolaAap Alpewpd 'Al!SU8P-JaMOI S! lUawdo(aAap Al!SU8P-L1B!L1 S!4l
ueqJn pasodoJd aLll U! Slu8wala Aa)( "puoAaq walsAs Bu!punoJJnS 'luawdol8Aap asn-pax!w JO Al!SUap L1B!L1
I!IHl pue >\Jed JaBJel a4l 4l!M s>\u!l sap!AoJd pue eaJe AI8AnelaJ e Aq p8pUnOJJns pue sezeld JO s>\Jed Aq paJ040ue
luawdolaAap ueqJn aLll U!L1l!M )jJOMl8U uO!lelnoJ!o e SaleaJO L10ea 'SJalUaO OMl punoJe saAloAaJ luawdolaAap
:llUawLI:>en'V sJOppJOO aoeds u8do pue S4led ueplsapad JO xplew 'if palsaBBns 84l 'MO(8q weJBe!p aLll uo p8AeJl.Iod s'if
a3eds UadO pue UOr..eln3J!:) Ue!JlS, d UJaned lUawdolaAaa l .In
-.
I' --------''-------- --------'--~---------
Attachment F
,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT )
Introduction Description
There are valuable opportunities for the planning, The following development concept is an elaboration on
urban design, and development of privately owned parcels the preferred Alternative A scheme. Future refinements
designated for urban development in the study area. of development schemes for the site should be subject to
These opportunities are only heightened by the proposed more detailed design development, economic and market
location of the Meadow Creek Parkway with its linear park, analyses, development and infrastructure cost assessments,
bike and pedestrian circulation, and open space components. and topographic and environmental assessment. The urban
The intent of the urban design concept presented here development concept provided here is described first as
is to balance density and development opportunities with an overall concept and is then followed by more specific
the protection of sensitive landscapes and the enhancement components: the urban development pattern, pedestrian
of open space and recreation opportunities, This concept circulation and open space, and vehicular circulation.
is consistent with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan
which states growth should occur in" ...areas where a variety
of land uses, facilities, and services are planned to support
the County's future growth with an emphasis on C I O'
infill development." onceptua lagram
The development concept is set within a site area framed by
The following design is conceptual, providing a framework the proposed parkway, the existing railroad, Rio Road,
for a development pattern that encompasses multiple parcels Meadow Creek, CATEC, and other existing residential
and multiple ownership while allowing development flexibility. development. Two high points on the site are proposed
based upon changing needs, markets and conditions. as primary and secondary urban, mixed-use centers. These
Future development plans and refinements should respect centers would be joined by a connecting link of lower intensity
and evolve from the special characteristics of their setting development to form the spine of the concept. Open space
and embody the principles of community and mixed use corridors including the parkway and the open space in the
development, as described in the Neighborhood Model low area between high points would provide important trail
of the Development Area Initiatives Project. and recreational connections within the area and beyond,
Ob)- ectives Urban Development
Conceptlal Diagram
The following is a summary of objectives drawn from
various sources for mixed use, cohesive, walkable urban v I
I egetat ve
developments. These objectives helped define and influence (\//-Edge
th d I t d t t d. th' t d High Point:_..~, " (,_' Agricultural
e eve opment pa terns an concep s presen e In IS S U y. Primary Urban Center ;,' " (I'~ J Remnant Area
· Discourage excessive linear-style development / ,:f/
(strip development) along major roads; ,'I - . Pedestrian
Low POint: / ,Oriented
instead encourage compact communities Corridor Open Space ---,-_ 'j Frontage
with strong centers and clearly defined boundaries, High Point: A'" )
Secondary ,f,
· Maintain the linear park atmosphere along the parkway, Urban Center ' To
. Trail
thus enhancing the overall value of future developments 1/ "-,
. h k Meadow Creek , /-c'"
bordenng t e par way. ParkwayCorridor'-." /i ' To
· Create districts and neighborhoods that have centers ),,;~_.. ppen
ar
or focal points for congregating. These centers may
include parks, plazas, schools, community centers,
or small commercial and social areas. Centers
should be within easy walking distance for most
residents in the neighborhood. "'",Supportlve
Urban Developm
· Establish mixed-use areas and neighborhoods
made up of residences, shops, places of employment,
and civic, religious. and cultural institutions,;
--~-,__ Existing
· Ensure that there is adequate developable area to provide 'Development
the necessary "critical mass" for a mixed-use center. -------,
· Establish an ordered network of streets, bikeways, Meadow Creek
pedestrian paths, and transit routes that will connect Parkway~
new neighborhoods, existing residential areas and .....,..".....","'"",.
non-residential districts. ~{~.g,~i~W~ ..
--- -
· Create appealing streetscapes and public spaces with [,:;;."'--- '':':':'~
street trees and landscaping to make the neighborhood
inviting and to connect residential areas to each other
as well as to commercial centers and common areas.
· Integrate residential and commercial development
with open space and recreation opportunities, including
the parkway, parks and natural areas, and pedestrian/bike
paths. Connect to surrounding park and recreation
amenities such as Pen Park and the proposed Rivanna
river walk, as well as to other existing developed areas,
· Protect and enhance existing views and capitalize on
newly available views from the parkway.
~. ".. · Encourage new development that respects the e?<isting
() landscape and that is compatible in scale, form, and
V) " character with the terrain features,
--I
.~
~
~
18
Attachment G
. Attachment G: History of Chanaes to Conditions
NOTE: Each change to a condition, if applicable, is described in a narrative after
each condition. Text that has become redundant or obsolete has been eliminated
from the conditions as it referred to features not previously identified in the plans
is illustrated in "Strike-Through" text. Any text that has been added appears
bolded and underlined.
Example: Removed from Conditions
Added to Conditions
1. Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three
hundred fifty (350) students, with a maximum of 40 staff, Any increase to
enrollment or staffing shall require amendment of this special permit;
(unchanged)
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. weekdays, with occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
(unchanged)
. 3. The approved final site plan shall be in substantial accord with the
Conceptual Master Plan addressing Parcels 170, 173, and 179.^. (submitted
November 12, 2001 and revised December 14, 2001), and shall reflect all
required pedestrian and road connections to adjacent properties and a
side'Nalk along at least one side of the entrance road. The approved final
site plan shall also be in substantial accord with the Exhibit for Amonded
SUP 2001 010 addressing Parcels 171 and 173 (submitted January 27,
2003 and revised March 27, 2003); Concept Plan for SP 2006-10,
hereinafter, the "Concept Plan" and shall reflect all required pedestrian and
road connections to adjacent properties
The Conceptual Master Plan addressina Parcels 170. 173. and 179A is
reflected in the Concept Plan for SP 20006-010. The Conceptual Master
Plan illustrates a future civic green recommended as part of the Jones and
Jones study for the Meadow Creek Parkway (a supplement to the
Comprehensive Plan). (Tax Map 61 Parcels 173 and 179 A were combined
into Parcel 170 after the last special use permit was approved.) The new
Concept Plan includes the information from the previous plans with the
updated arrangement of buildings and parking.
4. A building setback and tree screenina buffer to the satisfaction of the
. Aaent shall be maintained adjacent to the Village Square residential
development to the south and adiacent to Tax Map 61. Parcel 171, as
€fD
shown on the concept plan;
This language provides more specificity for the design, function, and
location (which was lacking in the existing SP for the school) and provides
better screening of the school from residential uses. The "to the
satisfaction of the Agent" will allow the school to provide a buffer to be
something more natural in appearance than the existing screening
standard, which is staggered arrangement of evergreens.
5. The school shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit
Application and Justification (SP 2001-040) submitted August 27, 2001 and
the Site Development Strategy Narrative submitted via facsimile December
18, 2001; it shall also be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit
Application and Justification submitted January 26, 2003 for SP 2003-004
and the Special Use Permit Application and Justification submitted March
20, 2003 for SP 2003-029.
(Unchanged) Staff provides the following for clarification: The original
application and justification remain unchanged and relevant; the Site
Development Strategy Narrative gives further detail of how the school will
develop the site in conjunction with the principles of the Neighborhood
Model. SP 2003-029 is a Special Use Permit for stand alone parking which
allows the school to provide parking on Tax Map 61, Parcel 170 for their
Early Childhood Center (located on Tax Map 61, Parcel 174).
6. A reservation for a public vehicular connection shall be made to the parcel
or parcels located to the north of the school property, as shown on the
Concept Plan and labeled, "Proposed 52' Future Connection. ffiffiGt
location of this connection to be determined :Jt the time of final site plan
:Jpprov:J1. If it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for
interparcel access, the owner shall make the reserved vehicular connection
available for such use, This reservation may be relocated or modified so
long as it is in general accord with the Concept Plan;
The reservation, when this project was initially approved, was 40' feet wide.
Changes to County standards (the addition of sidewalks and tree lawns)
generate a need for a wider reservation. The reservation was increased to
52 feet and is shown on the Concept Plan, generating changes to this
condition.
7. Access from this parcel shall be made available to the two adjacent parcels
fronting Rio Road (173A and 174) in an appropriate location and manner to
be determined in coni unction with the County's review and approval of
the site plan for the school, so as not to conflict with access to the private
school; if it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for
interparcel access, the owner shall make the a vehicular connection
cJOS ~)
. available for such use;
This intent of this condition remains the same. Slight changes requested
by the County Attorney are included in this condition.
8. A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to
the south of the school property, exact location of this oonnection to be
determined at the time of final site plan approval; as shown on the Concept
Plan.
The alignment of this pedestrian connection has been determined and is
now shown in the concept plan.
9. As a condition of final site plan approval, A greenway dedication along
Meadow Creek at the western boundary of the parcel, as delineated on the
Concept Plan shall be made to Albemarle County at the time of Site Plan
approval.
The meaning of this condition remains unchanged. The plan has been
updated to show the dedication area. The lias a condition of final site plan
approval" moving to the beginning of the condition reflects a change
requested by the County Attorney.
. 10. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the
site or other undisturbed areas identified on the conceptual master plan for
SP 2001 040 Concept Plan shall occur as a result of site development
other than development of a pedestrian access to the greenway. Prior to
final site plan approval, a tree preservation plan shall be submitted and
approved by the Zoning Administrator, addressing in detail the limits of all
disturbed areas, diameter and location of trees to be preserved, clearing
and limbing policy for trees to be preserved, and supplemental trees and d
rubs (if any), and related issues. Disturbance to the twenty (20)-foot buffer
shown along the northern property boundary on Parcel 4-7J- 170 shall be
allowed for construction of the parking lot associated with the early
childhood education center. Screening consisting of an opaque fence and
landscaping shall be installed maintained along the shared boundary
between Parcels 4+J 170 and 172A;
The critical slopes and the entire area to be left undisturbed are delineated
and labeled on the Concept Plan. The references to Parcel 173 was
amended to 170, as 173 has been combined into Parcel 170. The opaque
fence and landscaping referenced in condition 10 has been installed. This
condition clarifies that the fence and landscaping will be maintained.
. 11. At the time of final sito plan approval, As a condition of site plan approval
for the Proposed Buildin~ labeled on the Concept Plan, the area
@)
necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio Road shall be identified and right-
of-way dedicated; and
This reflects changes requested by the County Attorney and concerns of
the Planning Commission. There was concern that this dedication should
not wait until the final site plan is approved, as it may take the school many
years to complete the entire project.
12. Construction of the entrance road to the Charlottesville \^laldorf School shall
be completed prior to commencement of the early childhood educ3tion use
on P3rce1174.
This improvement has been completed. Therefore, the condition is not
necessary.
12. No structure, parkinQ, or 10adinQ shall be located closer than 20 feet
to any residential district.
Condition Added: Because no setback exists for these fixtures between
parcels zoned R-4, this condition was added to provide an appropriate
relationship between the school and the existing residences surrounding
the school.
13. Future amendments to this special use permit shall be evaluated for
conformity with the Jones and Jones study for the Meadow Creek
Parkway (Final Report dated May, 2001) for relationships of buildinQ
placement and their relationship with open space.
Condition Added: This condition was added to ensure future revisions are
in conformity with the recommendations of the Jones and Jones Study,
which is an addendum to the Comprehensive Plan.
~slP
SP 2006-010 Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment (Sian #11)
PROPOSED: Amendment of Special Use Permit to allow for revisions to approved concept plan.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: R-4 Residential (4 units/acre)
SECTION: 15.2.2.5 which allows for private schools in R-4 residential by special use permit.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34
units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service
uses in Neighborhood Two.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 734 Rio Road, near the intersection of Penn Park Road and Rio Road.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 61, Parcel 17
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
STAFF: Sean Dougherty
Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report.
. This is SP-2006-010, Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment. The special use permit was
originally approved for this project in 2002 under SP-2001-004. Kevin O'Brien, Project
Manager for the Charlottesville Waldorf School, represents the application. The project
includes basically an amendment of their concept plan, but the general function of the school
understood back in 2001 remains the same, That limits the school to 300 students and
establishes the normal hours of operation.
. Factors Favorable:
1. The amendment helps to shift the campus buildings closer to Rio Road, more in
keeping with the Neighborhood Model
2. The plan continues to reflect the recommendations of the Jones and Jones study for
the Meadowcreek Parkway and the urban core proposed near the entrance to the
Parkway.
, 3. The plan reflects a future road reservation width (to the northern properties) that is
more keeping with current County standards.
4. The additional condition that applies the building setback to parking as well ensures an
appropriate condition given the neighboring residential uses.
. There are no factors unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staff recommends approval of this
request with the condition outlined in the staff report. Staff distributed copies of an email
response to Ms. Joseph sent this afternoon.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Dougherty.
Ms. Higgins said that in the staff report it talks about Attachment 0 and E as the plan and the action
letter. Since Attachment E was not the official Board action letter, she asked if all of the ten conditions
in Attachment E were adopted by the Board. Since this was an amendment to the original special use
perm it she felt that they have to go back to the originally approved conditions and compare it to the
modified conditions. She said that staff's conditions don't match up to the original conditions.
Therefore, she has a lot of questions related to those.
Mr. Dougherty said that some things have changed and the conditions have been updated in
coordination with Zoning. The conditions got a little out of date, especially with different changes to
property ownership and different parts of the original special use permit that are still relevant. It is
basically the concept plan, which shows the critical slopes.
Ms. Higgins asked if staff has the conditions of the special use permit that is in effect right now. She
asked if those conditions were exactly like what is in Attachment E. She understood that he was
trying to update those conditions, but felt that if they skip one are they in essence deleting that
condition. Do those conditions live through the amendment?
Ms. Joseph asked if the new set of conditions replace the other ones.
Mr. Dougherty replied that the new set of conditions do replace the other ones.
Mr. Cilimberg said that when staff works on the conditions of a new special use permit they work with
the County Attorney's Office and the Zoning Department to make sure they are reflecting what needs
to be in place now. Some conditions get outdated or they may have been satisfied or what have you.
So while they have a staff report from back at that time that gives them conditions what this report
does is recommend the conditions that are felt to be necessary now based on circumstances that
exist with the site and what meets legal and zoning requirements.
Ms. Higgins said that since this was an amendment and not a new special use permit would the
conditions from before be replaced.
Mr. Kamptner said that it depends on the application. In this case, although there is a special use
permit that is being amended; because the use has already been approved what is happening here is
that there is a wholesale revision of the conditions to bring them up to date. Sometimes the whole
amendment is just changing one number in a particular condition.
Ms. Higgins asked if they could say that the ten conditions of before no longer apply and that these
new conditions take the place of them.
Mr. Kamptner said yes, that is the case.
Mr. Cilimberg said that all of the recommended conditions would replace the previous conditions.
Ms. Higgins asked why the maximum number of students 350 is and the maximum staff was 65 and
now it is 40. In the new conditions staff has been downgraded to 40 and it was approved for a
maximum of 65.
Mr. Dougherty noted what explains that is the interim step with the amendment with the amendment
2003-40, which allowed for the separate house to be used for an early childhood center. He was
following the conditions that were the result of that. From that it started at 40 for employees.
Ms. Joseph said that was special use permit amendment 2. But, they are on amendment 3 here,
Ms. Higgins said that Attachment E is amendment 2.
Mr. Dougherty apologized that Attachment E was the wrong thing because it was actually the staff
report or the summary from the initial request.
Ms. Higgins asked if he had the action letter that was issued.
Mr. Dougherty replied that he did not have that action letter with him.
Ms. Higgins said that he was saying that some how between what was recommended to the Board for
the amendment 2 when they recommended 65 they have gone down to 40. That was just a question
of whether that was correct. Then there was a number 9, which is a 50' greenway dedication along
Meadow Creek Parkway. Staff has another condition that relates to that. Then there is one condition
that has completely been done away with that seemed to be number 4 regarding a tree buffer that
was specified as a certain distance of 1,006,39 linear feet. It is specified to be maintained. When it
says maintained are they taking the requirement away for that and the maintenance of it. It was
number 4 in Attachment E.
Mr, Dougherty said what takes the place of that is there is a green line shown on the concept plan
now and a condition that respects it. He understood her confusion. What they don't have here is the
middle step and the most updated conditions. He apologized for that. If that was eliminated in step 2
and in step 3 it sort of guarantees the buffer remains around the property. To tidy things up a little bit
in conjunction with the Zoning Administrator staff proposed the amendment to condition 11 in the
current staff report that says that the 20' setback will apply to buildings, parking and also undisturbed
buffer.
Ms. Joseph noted that the problem is that they cannot read this. They can't see that there is a buffer
on this sketch. There is a little skinny line on here that they don't know what it means. The sketch
makes it confusing.
Ms. Higgins said that she just went through and tried to relate what they were doing with what was
there. Number 6 and 7 are changed conditions. If they are changing it she just wanted to understand
on the plan what they were changing. Some of the conditions are repeated. But, when a condition is
left out or changed she was trying to understand what was previously. She noted that zoning needs
to understand what the conditions mean and what it refers to when they go on site to enforce them.
Why was number 6 about the alternative access connections that were necessary to change from
what was in the old one, which specifically talks about two adjacent properties on Rio Road and that
the final site plan connection should show future connections with 173A and 174. She asked if there
was a final site plan that showed those.
Mr. Dougherty said that 173A was absorbed into 170. There were two parcels combined into tax
map/parcel 61-170. That accounts for some of the changes and updates. Number 7 talks about that
a final site plan is suppose to be done. In number 6 staff has changed the wording, which implies that
it was not done in the final site plan that was approved from the previous special use permit. It was
either satisfied and it went away or not. That would be number 7 of Attachment E recommendation.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there are two missing pieces in this. One she is not referring to that is in the
report and the other is the action letters themselves. The Board's action letters are not part of this
report and should have been. But, she was referring to the original special use permit conditions
when she cites changes. Those were not the ones that are in effect right now. The conditions that
are in effect now would be reflective of the special use permit that was done in 2003, which is in
Attachment C
Ms. Joseph said that was the stand alone parking.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Attachment C was where all conditions were updated from the original
approval. That is on pages 16, 17 and 18.
Ms. Joseph noted that it says that the conditions are original except where you see italics.
Ms. Higgins said that the action letter was still missing.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that these are the applicable conditions based on the action letter, but not the
Attachment E that was the original.
Ms. Higgins said the staff report said that the action letter was in Attachment E.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that it was a mistake in the staff report since it was not.
Ms. Higgins said that now comparing the recommended 12 items they relate one to one except for the
ones that were already done.
Mr. Dougherty replied that was roughly correct. The parcels that have been accounted for in the
original special use permit have been now combined into parcel 170. That accounts for some of the
updates.
Ms. Higgins asked about condition 9 on Attachment C. It refers to greenway dedication along
Meadow Creek at the western boundary being made at the time of final site plan approval. She asked
if that had been done.
Mr, Dougherty replied that final site plan approval has not been requested.
Ms. Higgins asked if since 2003 there was no final site plan approval.
Ms. Joseph asked how they vested this project.
Ms. Higgins noted that it would have expired. She felt that something like that either should have
been done or would not be repeated. But, now they were repeating it again. Therefore, she just
wanted to understand it.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if he was not mistaken, that the only thing that has actually been built on these
properties is the early childhood center.
Mr. Dougherty noted that just the parking for the early childhood center had been done.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that required a site plan that was done.
Mr. Kamptner said that they also built a road.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the applicant did the improvements associated with establishing that as a use
for an early childhood center, including parking. That required a site plan,
Mr, Edgerton noted that was the new parking in the rear.
Ms. Joseph asked why they did stand along parking instead of combing those parcels in 2003.
Mr. Dougherty replied that was because of the different parcels that were there. The stand alone
parking was on a separate parcel.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that staff said they combined the parcels on the other part. She asked why
they did not combine those instead of doing stand along parking.
Mr. Dougherty noted that tax map/parcel 61-174 with the stand alone parking at the house is owned
by a friend of the school who is leasing the property to the school. Technically, if they were to
combine that parcel they could potentially not sell or redevelop that parcel in the future. That may
occur. So in order to basically keep that as something that the school could one day potentially sell or
not use or get rid of, that sort of allows that condition to stay in place. That was part of the agreement
to get that parking set up.
Ms. Joseph said what they are looking at in this request is this building showing no parking.
Mr. Dougherty said if the County asks for that interconnection to happen in the future, then the
applicant would have to construct alternative parking.
Ms. Joseph asked if this parking was enough to seNe both buildings. So they were looking at this
building and a future building site.
Mr. Dougherty noted that is not part of this special use permit. The reason that is shown is really
more for the guiding principles of the Jones and Jones Study, which anticipates potentially having a
public green facing that other area. The Zoning Administrator asked that potential future building be
placed on there. But, that would not be part of this special use permit. It was just the main building,
which was proposed in red, and then the existing building.
Mr. Edgerton said that there would be a significant reconfiguration of the vehicular access. He noted
that he was not comfortable with a building shown going across walkways.
Mr. Dougherty suggested that the applicant could speak to some of their questions. He pointed out
that this application had been fast tracked due to time restraints on the expiration of their lease at the
old Crozet Elementary School. He understood that there were some concerns.
Ms. Joseph noted that this is a public hearing and not a work session.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was struggling with this because it seems to be an incomplete plan, which
will not be incomplete once they grant the special use permit. Once they amend the special use
permit this will become legally binding. He suggested that they try to work with the school, but they
need to look at it and figure out what they need and then possibly address that. Then they could have
the rest of it come back.
Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Kevin O'Brien, project manager for the Charlottesville Waldorf Foundation, said essentially it sounds
like there is a lot of confusion about what is being requested. The parking change from the original
site plan was administratively approved. There are a lot of reasons why it got changed. Likewise, the
building in green there is nothing changing. That is still in the orientation and the counter request.
The reduction in faculty is something that he missed when he reviewed this. They did not want to
reduce the amount of amount of faculty they were allowed to have. Our original site plan was five
buildings. It was a phased plan that allowed them to alter the phases as they saw fit during the
process. The original special use permit cites two diagrams. It says that the southern part of the site
must be developed in accord with the one they just held up. It says that the northern part of the site
must be developed according to the conceptual sketch, which essentially shows a park at the northern
boundary. So that is all the same. What they are asking is to take one of those buildings, which was
an early childhood center that was the brownish building, which was in the original plan sort of way up
in the eastern edge of the green L-shaped building.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that the Commission does not have that plan.
Mr. O'Brien said that he created several diagrams that he did not see here specifically at the request
of Elaine Echols and Jan Sprinkle to show the evolution of the site plan.
Mr. Edgerton said that the Commission needs a copy of that plan.
Mr. O'Brien said that the school leases from the County. The County has a use for the building now
and their lease is not to be renewed starting in the fall of 2007. That is the old Crozet Elementary
building. The building with the check mark is not going to be ready by the fall of 2007 when they need
to get out. So they are scrambling and thinking what are they going to do. They are going to build the
early childhood center first and occupy it as the grade school. When the second building is done they
are going to move into the grade school and move out of the leased space and put the early childhood
center into that building. In reference to the question about vesting the plan he noted that because it
was a phased plan, phase 1A, the stop light, the BMP, bringing the sewer onto the site and the
parking lot vested the plan. By moving the early childhood center down the hill they would get closer
to the existing water and sewer and the existing parking; there is a natural bank which allows the
building to have great access from both sides, which also reduces the cost of building it because of
the reduction in the sprinkler system and the elevator. This part of the site is uniquely suited to
building 6,500 square feet relatively inexpensively and quickly. The plan is to build this building, with
their approval, and have the grade school occupy it at its current size. Then upon completion of this
building the grade school will move in and the early childhood center, which leases this space, will
move into this building. The school campus will then start to orient itself around these buildings.
Ms. Higgins asked if he had read all of the recommended conditions and agreed with them.
Mr. O'Brien stated that his understanding was that they were still subject to all of the conditions. The
only condition that they are changing is actually more onerous on us. They have widened the access
easement that they have already granted to 52'. They have tilted it to take more of our land to make it
better to parallel Rio Road. They have agreed to a 20' buffer on a part that there previously was not
one, They are under a time restraint and he did not want to cause a problem, but it was not their
intention to reduce their staff. He noted that until they build the high school they do not need 65 staff.
But it was their term plan for growth. So if that was attached to the first three phases it makes perfect
sense. But, if it was for the whole plan being limited to 40 it is too limiting.
Ms. Higgins pointed out that the condition states that for them to go over 40 that they would have to
come back and amend the special use permit.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that is the existing condition #1 that is actually laid out in the approval of the
Board in June, 2003.
Mr. O'Brien noted that is request is really only about moving the building to the front of the site.
Ms. Joseph suggested that he work with staff on that issue.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if the applicant needed a decision tonight. He noted that it was hard to know
what they were approving without that drawing.
Mr, O'Brien pointed out that the building was proposed to be moved about 200' to the east.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the new plan on the board replaces the original plan. He apologized that the
Commission did not get a copy of the new plan. He noted that the high school was not part of this
approval and would require an amendment to the special use permit and plan. The enrollment and
staffing can be readdressed at that time as well. The request tonight is really only asking for one
change that is in where that early childhood building goes as compared to what the old plan would
have allowed. The rest of what they are showing is consistent with the old plan, except it no longer
shows the high school because that is not subject to this special use permit.
Ms. Higgins asked if that was the case why were the conditions rewritten and changed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the conditions that get attached to this special use permit have to replace the
prior conditions. So what this is doing is giving conditions that are now applicable to the plan for this
location that is replacing the prior approvals. He noted that staff should have given the Commission a
better update on the conditions, One of the things the Commission could notice in the old approval is
that they would have had parking that would have faced Village Square associated with the high
school. Now that is a semi-circular drive with no parking along it that faces Village Square. They still
have the buffer, but they don't have the parking pointed towards Village Square. They don't have a
building over there any more and that can be considered as part of the future special use permit that
will establish the high school.
Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Higgins if she had any problems with the conditions.
Ms. Higgins replied no, but that when she looked through the new conditions number 4, which is
almost verbatim like the old #5, the part that is left out has to do with the special use permit
justification submitted January 26, 2003. So now in the operational part they have made a conscious
decision to leave out something that was part of the conditions of their previous operation, and she did
not know why.
Mr. Dougherty replied that part of the reason is that the justification acts as bit of a defector Code of
Development. It is a long list of how they are going to develop the site within the context of their
concept plan and their approach to pedestrian facilities and treatment of different things. Basically, it
is a reiteration of a commitment to implement the Neighborhood Model when they are putting the site
together. So for context and for what it commits to he felt that it was important to keep that
justification in there, but the plan is superseded by this plan.
Ms. Higgins noted that staff took out the middle of the sentence in #4. Specifically he left out the
application and justification submitted January 26, 2003. The old condition had that in there. So she
was assuming that he read that and something has changed. The new #4 is the old #5. On
handwritten page 17 are the conditions that they would be under now. It talks about it shall be
operated in accordance with the special use permit application '01 and then it goes to the '03 action.
She noted that he had repeated it almost verbatim, but left out the center of it. She felt that historically
that he made a conscious decision to leave it out or just omitted it. She suggested that it was
something that he could look up between now and when it goes to the Board of Supervisors. She
suggested that he either repeat it the same way it was or provide an explanation on why it was
changed.
Mr. Dougherty said that the answer to that is that the facsimile which remains is basically what he had
referred to as a defector Code of Development. This other portion would become, with that other
justification in place, has been updated with the new application and justification. He was confident
that the conditions take care of the justification.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff would work with zoning to make sure that is covered correctly. He felt
what Ms. Higgins was asking was if there was a new justification that replaces the older ones or was
one of the older ones removed.
Ms. Higgins said that the specific one was the middle one, which was that it shall be operated in
accordance with the special use permit application and justification submitted January 26, 2003 for
SP-2003-04.
Mr. Dougherty pointed out that the new concept plan is part of the new application. He noted that the
critical slopes did not get referenced on this plan. So it had to reference back to the general accord of
that other plan which shows the critical slopes on the plan. What they are committing to is not
disturbing the critical slopes on the back part of the plan. That includes the general accord portion.
Ms. Joseph suggested that staff work with that.
Mr. Dougherty pointed out that he understands her point and confusion.
Mr. Cannon asked if there was a way that they could get conceptual agreement here because he did
not hear anybody arguing about the basic issue as he understands it. He asked if there was some
way they could get agreement so that he could have some assurance that on the basic issue he was
okay and then allow any additional questions to be worked through. He felt that would be useful. He
asked if counsel has any suggestions.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that counsel would be on vacation. He suggested that the Commission could, if
they wanted to keep the applicant on track to the Board, take their action with the understanding that
the conditions are going to be further reviewed to reflect what needs to be carried forward from the old
conditions as well as what is applicable to the new plan. He felt that was what Mr. Dougherty has
tried to do with zoning. Obviously, those changes were not explained well enough here for the
Commission to understand that. But, staff can certainly make sure that is happening between now
and the Board meeting. This is a perfect example of what happens when these things get on a fast
track because of timing. Staff does not suggest ever doing this. This is an example of what happens
when we do this. It ends up serving no one as well as the time that is supposed to be allotted to these
special use permits. The problem is getting this done for the applicant because they are losing their
lease with the County, which is out in Crozet, which expires starting with this coming school year. So
they have a Board date that is set very close to this Planning Commission date. Very honestly, staff
may have to ask for an extra week just to make sure this is taken care of between now and the Board
meeting. It is set for July 5, but it may have to go to July 12. Staff may have to do that in order to do
what they need to do to address the Commission's concerns. If the Commission wants to act tonight
and feels comfortable with the plan and the special use permit conditions with the idea that staff is
going to work to make sure that they are finalized to address what needs to be carried over, which is
unique to this new plan, then the Commission could act in that way and staff will make sure that is
done before the Board meeting.
Mr. Edgerton asked why the brown building goes over the pedestrian path.
Mr. O'Brien stated that because of the slope for the bio-filter and the better grade for the path and
handicap access, which is now needed for the school, they have reviewed it and the far side of the
building is the better location.
Mr. Edgerton asked if that path is going to be reconfigured, and Mr. O'Brien replied that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton said that they would not be approving that path. He questioned what the Commission
was actually approving.
Mr. O'Brien said that they were approving the moving of the location of the building.
Ms. Joseph asked if they could have the drawings changed before the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. O'Brien said that they created in conjunction with Jan Sprinkle and Elaine Echols three diagrams
that showed the changes in the site plan. They entered those drawings in on time. Those plans are
around here somewhere. Therefore, the answer to the question was yes.
Ms. Joseph suggested that those plans be gathered up so that the Board could see that they were not
going to be putting a building on the pathway. They would also show the other parking that is going
on. This is sort of just floating in space.
Mr. O'Brien said that it is superimposed on another plan.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any other questions for Mr, O'Brien. There being none, she asked if
there was any public present who would like to speak to this item. There being no one, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Board.
Motion: Ms. Higgins moved, Mr. Morris seconded, to recommend approval of SP-2006-010,
Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment, with the recommended conditions as stated, as amended
as follows. Staff is to review the conditions of concern that are not repeated exactly, but have slight
changes, to make sure that they are entirely accurate and as intended and that the applicant review
those carefully to make sure before this goes to the Board. The attached plan is recommended for
approval as it represents the change in buildings.
1. Maximum enrollment of the Charlottesville Waldorf School shall be three hundred fifty (350)
students, with a maximum of 40 staff. Any increase to enrollment or staffing shall require
amendment of this special permit;
2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m, weekdays, with
occasional uses in the evenings and weekend;
3. The approved final site plan shall be in general accord with Drawing 3 titled "Amendment to
SP 2001-040", dated May 24, 2006, hereinafter, the "Concept Plan" and shall reflect all
required pedestrian and road connections to adjacent properties.
4. The school shall be operated in general accord with the Special Use Permit Application and
Justification (SP 2001-040) submitted August 27, 2001 and the Site Development Strategy
Narrative submitted via facsimile December 18, 2001; and the stand-alone parking Special
Use Permit Application and Justification submitted March 20, 2003 for SP 2003-029;
5. If it is determined to be necessary by the County to provide for interparcel access as shown on
the concept plan and labeled "Proposed Road Easement", the owner shall make the reserved
vehicular connection available for such use. This reservation may be relocated or modified so
long as it is in general accord with the Concept Plan.
6. If it is determined by the County that alternate access connections are necessary for the
properties adjacent to the school's main access road, the owner shall construct vehicular
access from this parcel to the property line of Tax Map 61, Parcels 173A and 174 in an
appropriate location and manner to be determined in conjunction with the County's review and
approval of the site plan for the school, so as not to conflict with access to the private school.
7, A pedestrian connection shall be made to the parcel or parcels located to the south of the
school property as shown on SOP 2003-097.
8. As a condition of final site plan approval, the owner shall dedicate to Albemarle County are for
a greenway along Meadow Creek at the western boundary of the parcel as delineated on the
Concept Plan.
9. No disturbance of the critical slopes located at the western portion of the site or other
undisturbed areas identified on the conceptual master plan of the original SP 2001-040 shall
occur as a result of site development other than development of a pedestrian access to the
greenway. As a condition of final site plan approval, the owner shall submit a tree preservation
plan for approval by the Zoning Administrator, addressing in detail the limits of all disturbed
areas, diameter and location of trees to be preserved, clearing and Iimbing policy for trees to
be preserved, and supplemental trees and shrubs (if any), and related issues. Screening
consisting of an opaque fence and landscaping shall be installed along the shared boundary
between Parcels 170 and 172A where deemed necessary by the agent for screening;
10. As a condition of final site plan approval, the area necessary for a future sidewalk along Rio
Road shall be identified and right-of-way dedicated.
11. No structure, parking, or loading shall be located closer than 20 feet to any residential district.
This 20-foot setback shall also include an undisturbed buffer, subject to Section 21.7.3.
12. Future amendments to this special use permit shall be evaluated for conformity with the Jones
and Jones study (Final Report dated May, 2001) for relationships of building placement and
their relationship with open space.
Ms. Joseph asked if she would include the other information that was submitted verbally by Mr.
O'Brien in the motion.
Mr. Edgerton said that there were three sketches with changes that Mr. O'Brien referred to.
Ms. Higgins said that she was not sure that was part of their action.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any further discussion on this.
Mr. Edgerton suggested a friendly amendment to the motion that what the applicant did would help
the Board understand what has happened a lot more clearly than the Commission was able to
understand this evening.
Ms. Higgins said that she could recommend that to staff, but she could not make something part of
her motion that she has not seen. She felt that staff could bring that to the Board and it could be
presented that way, but she could not make it part of the motion. Therefore, she rejected the friendly
motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Ms. Joseph stated that SP-2006-010, Charlottesville Waldorf School Amendment would go to the
Board of Supervisors on July 5 with a recommendation for approval.
Mr. Cilimberg stated for the applicant's benefit if they need to go to the July 12 Board meeting staff
may have to do that.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
I r
.
I
I . -f"'
^JEIVED AT
.J: 1 J1~1 D
I I '.Janda Item #: (
Clerk's Initials: l.1Yt...
I
I
.
I
I .
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I c
I ~
r.r;
I ">--
u
I ~E '~,
~ ~ {~{ ,-
I ~. , I ~~~
~ ~'",-,-, \.- '- ,
..... f\ 'Z... ~ > /
,Il IJ"'J ", I:
\JJ 0 ~'~ _. '"'"\.
I r" " ".' 15 ,
~J , '_ \.
~~ / /:::....~4
~ . C':I I )
~'- / .r:. \.... ...
,..., . ~ U' "'v.'.s
o I-'-i I~r-..( , j~
I U I. ./ ',,>--..1 1<.
..- I I... '" _
~ C~'L~-<' J4~ ;;:_.........; '.
,-,. '""- FIr.t \
I QJ 0 ~'\.; : ,<,\:.__\... <....
~ 'E""..' \.f\ ~
...... . '...-
;j >- ;:- 1'<>.--" ....-
I ............-+ c:; \ \ ), ".....
....; V 0 'D <." ",-<,' \ . 1
'1.1 .1'1\ E 3 \" \ V
...... 'D.. 0 I
.~ .!! 'D .. 1
I Z,..., . ~ ! ~ ?: '"\ l....\ r
I-'-i _ ~ .. c <.\ ., ~
.s v l>> ;::, .
I 1'1\ "'_ ~ 0 \ /'
...... ~ .. 0 0 I ~.
~ '-;:u. j....
I ~ io.o ~J~'\~
......,. \/
'\_// .I--
I ~"\ I
'\'l
: \~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Z I
~ ~
I r" ~ >.'
V' ..J. u '"
. < - :3 .. ;j
- 0 _ _
~ 2 ~~~
U ~ ~U~
~ .~ t ~ = ~
I ' · , . C _. ~ ._ ,.
..... -'c=.=.
= ~ 11 ~.. ~ (f'j
~ 8EV~<~
O ,,:::...... ~
~ u:::ocr;:::
I C!:~ ;; jj .~ i ~
"" 00 .- ~ j c :::: '"
~ ~ O:::,,~_~
:O~UJ-;~=
= ~.. - --
Z 0\;; ': ;; H :::
I - ~::; " i! 1:';' 0
C/J _ "'.< ;; i! .. "
~ ~, c~5~>"
'" c.__."
- ~ . c." " 0 :
,.,.., ~ ~ .. - - - ~
..... ~"-U~~
-:..w'-_u
I ~ __ 'l.I 0 ~ 0
"" 0 -..t::::_ ~
'"'" -~'.
' . , . 1-.: .~ .=
..... c u 5."
I :::: rT -, ~ t;
C!: ~ ..
I ~ ~ j
Z < ~
I <( ~
:::: rfJ
I ~
I
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I ..s
~
... -, -- '~..!:.::~I
....
C: ~ .,.-.......... -.. lI: ~. ~ ..
... ~ ....:j . Olj __ _" ~ ~.:--- ........... ~ "'"
I ::: ~ ---.....~ ~.....~ --.
o ;: ~ ~ ~ .- I\:: , <:) . <:) "' I~ -;:: ~
Q .... CU -Q ~~'"t:: ~~~~~"__
<J S ~ ~ .....,... !Otj - --
<IJ . ~ ..... V't :.... --.. -... .. ~ ......
.. tl l:l.. l:l.. , {J b.) ,.Q ~ .~'-i:::~ '~;::':::i;)~
CU ::: t') ~ - () ~~~~~ ~""\::~~ -.:::
I ... ~ . ::: ~ CQ ~
= ~~~ () ;: ~ .... '""- -, ...... ~ '-# ~ ~. ......
~ ~ ~ :- ..... c-::::.: ;::.: V) I . -- "':-
Q c () ~ ~::Q1 -- ::: --.::: .~ ~ :: ::: '= ~ -- ~.. ~ ::!
:;;~ti: 'W
.- ~t:;~ = \::: 'V - ~ Ori ..... "- _ ..... I,=: ~ ..::;
<IJ . -..... ~--~--
I <IJ = ~~D8~~~~~~
= .... Q
Q == ~
(I) ...
I .. 8 =
\11 Q c ....
~U ... ~
... - I
~ "'l
8]ti ~
~ .... ~
I y ~ ;.... i::
(I) -- ~ 0
..... :...l:l..~ ..
~ .. ~....f..1 cu .
=~ ..
... ~ - > - .::; I .
~ ~ .c~
I -..... ~~c .....
jQ ~ t:i ~..... '1 ::::: ~ i3
~-Vo') - ~ ~ .~ ~ tu :.. }: -- <:> '=:
-.... bJJ ~ :....... 'tU "" .... --
f-i ~ = ~ V) :--- ~..... <:) ._ _ ~
..... :--. -- ..... ~ __ .- __ I... _ ~
= = ~ ~ ::: ::: ~ <:) -- ~ ~ ~. :::
I ..... = ~ CQ CQ CQ ~{j ~ ~ . ~ t...1 ~
= 'VI\:: <:) ~~ ".....
~ = ~ '" ~ Cj \J ~... _ I~ ~ ~
= -- > ~ ..... ~ ..., I ..
'... ~ .- :- ~ -- - ;::: -- ~ ;0. ;::.:
= c;~ -- .-
- ~. - - <:) -- -- - ~ ~
I ..... ~ ~ ':5;:::::::~~-'::::~;:::_b.o:::
~ ~ :..... - ~ :::~";::~~~5~~tn.'"t::~
... tl
~..=::-- () ::: ~ ~"~ ~
. \.i_ ;:;l:l.. ~ ~ ~
...... ....... ~
~~..t:.) u
I u ... tJ ~
~u ~ ~
o ~ ...
~ ..... ...
...
.... ~ ~ ()
c ~ "'l ~ I
,.....". ....
I u~r.i5 r;;
I I
I I
I
I
I
:ij,;c.-
I _.,._ .._.. iiliiiIIIIl'-
iioii ......
.... ::.
-
.... - ~
-
~ -
-
I - ,- , "<l
. _"<l ~
.... 1i -~.., ~1i- ,~- '
... - ... """ ~ - ~ OIl
. > 0.. ... a "', . - 1i " ... <.0-
. -. ' .....
... ' _ _............. .....' _ '" U 0
I p;: ..s - ~~ --;0 jl.r=- ... 0.. . ~ " '"
". . 'r '" ~"<l"
... " '. . ...c: " ... x ... .
... 1i 'Ci . l .... u.' . ~, ~ ... .... S
:> ' ,_, :> _ _ ' ,,<.0- ..
I p;: > i:: ~ . :E,O - .::;~.s-- "<l 0.!2 ~
p;: ... _...: ,:>" "~-:5' ._ .... ' ~ ~ 1i
" E:'P;: . .~ - -. 0 U "". 1
~ ~ '" -"
... 0.. . ," ~ .... "..0 "",'
I "':> -B .Q .s tb 'i:f=: c ,f ' .s ~ ~ Q!~\
I:: P;: 'Ci'" o !to -tl .~ ' Ill;.
o :> 0 .... 1iI ,,- 0 ... ~. '9!ll.
,,'" '" 0.. ' "<l '" ",' ms 1lI
'lJ ... 0 "<l"<l ..c:' 0" " ~ if"
-B .~.... ... OIl U U 1i OIl .-l'
I ell '" 0 '" a" .~ ... 'f .~
"'" " "" " ' 0.. . t:..... '
"'tl 0 ,,~<l ," ,9 ~ E: 8 . oS .'
I:: ... .S "<l .... 8 0 ~,~ .~ ~ -15. .
;g "''' '= .... 0 > 0 ... .
(l) " oil" OIl ..... ... '" ....
I E"<l 0 ,0 0 "<l "... .... ., ..'-B
U "<l >! E:" ,,' ... ~ " .~
E ~ ~ ~ ~ "<l ~ ,0 !i Jj.~ E ~
,," 1i ... >! Pl '" '" -"
o J:-- ~ -".'... ~ 0.. ....
I ~'~ ~.~ ~ " 1 8 '.~'O; ~ ~ ~
~ l:; C! t ,15 0 ~ ' 0 '" ~ ~
... 0.. . ~ 'iiI U 0...... '" ""<l
~"<l ... ~ -,,' :> ,,'" '" ·
I ....... ,~ "'" ",'" . ~.'" Pl"'~ E: ~... "
u .... go '" 0 0.... ::0 ~ ... ... ~
, (l) 0.. o.a ... U .s ..0 ". '.s .~ ~" ~
0' 8 i;b" j II . ~ 0.. t 1i ,S ~
I ,","<l":::u II ~~ ""g t !1E:~1::~
p... 8 0Il.Q ~ ~ b '" 8 0.. 1::'>! 0
I:: ..5l '<6" ~" ~."<l 0 ~ ~ <-E U '>!
, .... !:1 il -B "<l ... ..; g 1i ~ .eP ,.g " e. ~
I ~ { ~~ * ~1i ill 1 ~~~"<l[ ·
~ ~... ~ "'.. -B " ",B 0 0 1i ~ '
'"' E: >- > .... ,S ",' g, E' ~." "<l 'E ~ · ,
(l) ..00 0.... . .... ...
I :>" .... 0 il.... 8"'" o~...u!:1 '
pz 0 --s ft U 1 -" ..c: ~ fr 0.. 1i '" ·
'<6 ,,"<l Jl .... '" !:1 0 ~ E: " ~ I
,~ g. 1i' 0 .... 0.. U il .~ .~ ....
U _'" 0" "<l0
ell ... ... OIl ,9< l:! ~ ,,' oj . ~ l:8 1:: ...."
I ~"<l >1iI U U ' ~.o' '" 0",,00
... ~ ..c: '>! 4J 0 ,S' ;::- .", 0 ' ",..0 "<l" OIl
:0 ... U 11 ,l:l ~ '" ,,' e ' i:: --s !:1 U "
~ ..0" ... '>! "<l <<l ~ -!!ll . S "''' "<l .Q -B"
I ~ "<l -B ~ ;l 3!J .... ..". . c:>. ~ '" 1i ~. t'
o :3'- ~ e ,,- ",'''' ... '" "<l
'" ~ ,~.. ' OIl' ·
~ 0 ~ ... "<l' > "<l; '" ....... '" ,;. 1iI
..c: oj oj .... '~' Ii' o. ~ -B I !i > ... '" ii: ...
;;:: ~ _ :> :> .., ,'<II, .'1 ~ 0'" ~ ~ 0 !i
I 1i ..0 .~ '- ......' "iii' ......... OIl ~ '-" ,'" "
.... _ II ~ 0......, "",,;"" , ,u , '01 " ~ ~." Pl
.g 0.. "<l ~ j --S' ~ ~. e.u ,8 ~ .o.g " '"
'E ... 3 ... '" . ",~.' ",' 0 ~ >! -B
..c: 0 .... .... ~... ~t"l?,j'" II ,- ~ " " ll' .
I 0 I-< ~ S' S' .... -B '1f ~'- ~.>.9 i:: ,i3' 'Ci
u 8, "",' ."..' . l'l" ~ >! l:; ",' c:l.
" 0 0 So. :~,. '1&' .2P"'~ 0" " ... E: on j<
U u" ,,'g ..~ ... 1i '
0.. ,," 'iiI ,c:>. .,,,.v.~,"~ ~ ~'i3 ~!
I 0 "" ;.E! 'It'. "",,,,. . - .......,
<l :--..c: ..... .. -..;! '" .~ ~ I-< II
l; .Q .:rl;. ....;g. - ';& ~ ..' " ~
~ ..0. '5~::- .....< ~. E" ·
Q II ... t""'. ." .'. ",'
"".. ,,~.~" ,,,, I ~.
,.~ .0 .... o' ._' . .
I Q ~ 13'" t W" 0..... "<l'
...i\ltl. .. ". e " · Ii' i
.~, .~ . ,.. .... . ,
~:}<i."!' ~.::' ~,
~... f
I
i
~,
I
-
I ., ,--.. "" - -
iiii .,... t:_ - ::iI .wI'. I
--
- '. ....
..
I ~ -: ~
_:.. ~-~ -::
-""r ~ -
I ~,,-,~
-:0:= ~- ~ r/)
.~ - ~
--- ~
- ~~ 0
- - -:r --=-- 0 . ..... .
I '.- 0 ':.- .. . .... t
..... - - -- ~. ....
'"'. - 1j'. - c\l '""d
-~- <; ~ r/)
- .,.. (1) ~;;;,...: ~~ 0 C
I ....... ~ ':p
CU - -~ '_,
- ~ .~
(1) ... 0 ~
CI.) ....: u u
I ~ C)C1) r/) 0
0 c .2: c\l---
:>... Q).
"~ ~a:: :a.~
~ CU CU - [
I ] . ....
r/)
E c r/) ....0 >
o -..
(IJ c c ~ '""d ^ '" a
E o CU Q)
I " :> ~
E .- > ~o
tn .- ~ ~ ...
0 .- a:: 0 ,
U (J Q)l ~
I ~ Q).c o.o"'c\l - I
~ .
1j .....' ....c: Q) I
.., Q).... 0.0 ~.. g
U 1j 0 . c;j c\l' ,
I , ~.
(IJ .- Q) ~....c: I
"- Q) U o. ,
e ~ tn .
C)~ :> c\l ~ ,
o c\l...
I .~ 0 ....c: --- - ll- I
~ ..... 1j. ~ ~ I
c' c\l. . ~ Q)
" .....c ; CU .:>... ~
~ ...0 ",~
Q)4...
I ~ - C '""d. --- 0 ": I
'-4 c.. 0 Q)~ ~
.. .- ~. ~
~ 0"'" 0- ~. ~ ~ .1 ,
1jCU - -:::;-'""d Q)
I ~ .- '= ~ ~ a I
~, ~ "
t: Q) Q) o. ':ll,
~ '"P' , 2 f
~ o tn . ~r..9 j l
I o (1) Q): Q)
.. ...o,H :> I
CU Cl. ~" ~ Q) " r
~ .~~~:~ '""d I
C. __0 _ I'
I ~ c'l;J. ,. ~ I
0 ..c~~ ;t:~\ ~,. IL' ,
- ~~'~,,~ I
(1) ,t~i ~J{ , I "
>
I (1) '" ltl 1/. ~ .. [ ~
c .~ ,{.~.. i' t.E
:: '~~; ;j;'
~ ,~,!~..-,
'~:~(oDd '""d j
I . '''''''''-. ~ ;<J
--- H~~ ~~~" ~ ( ,:"
.Ii'
'If I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I Ii ~~ E
! ~
I u:
I ',I ~......O
0....
I
! ...-4'
I . . "
QJ .......
I / s '......
>- ..
! en
~ ~
I ....,
I ~ 0\ ~['" ~
.' ~ ..........);;: '-.
.. ( \ ~ ;
.. ,
(5 t \0 '- ~ ~
.I a.> ...s::
! ~l U
I ~ ~.J
I e
"
l QJ
I ! ~
I 0
i
ti
~
I
~
I J ~
~ ro
E
~ :J
~ 0
I [J)
~ "0
Q.)
~
; (II
lD
~ ..
I ~
0'. ::t
i]
cz
I
-
--
~ ~"
.r-.. "- 4' - "4 ("d"
I - -'::J;l' ......
---............ -, :-4~ ~~. ,
~~"'E "._":..r; -"t;j' ;'vI:' "0
-. "'~$' ,~ ...~ -::...~ - ~..>- ..~' '.~~
· ...';;:....,.. . 't ""IiiQi - "".1;;t ell ,.. ~
· - &. 1; "'.... .' - ~ .
. s ... . ," - . '- ~t. ~
~ a - -'-l
I. ~ - "-;'--, -Iii ~~. ~: ~ ~. .9
- . ~ --, - - ~. " .....
., ... !:L;.~;~ ~. ~ (("d
I · ~ C1l; ~i<'~~ 'l4 . -g
''':. < $( . ~ . ~ .
t - ': ~,., fijj1 :c:.\!!J':-~ 5 ;. cu
..... ..~~ ~ ~.,.,.... '>J!l<~ ..= S
.; """. i.). ~ .....,~.. ~
I .. - tIl -' - S
' ". -- -.' , .
. "''''-.. -, '!l
-~::.~. ...:.~;:. '07', a ~ · 0
. . ..' '.. -. <\I' · . U
'" - :. . - ~~ . '.... w
.. ~ '~r~~ cu
.... ~z..~
I ii -", .Cl)r \:l~ I-<
- ""'d '" r.rJ ~ cu ...., .
t:: 0 '--- ..... '<11 .s I::
C'd ..c ~=fl!! cu
I ~ U 1::' ~ .~. s E
~ 0 0._
- ...., - .,~.. '. [" -
V tlO. elI"~ """ c.. ,
I :> I:: I:: ii;{l.o S . (
. c;j VJ · i:l .c>. $ ~ . .... I
t:: · ~ ..c cu. "'d
I v 0 ~ ~ ~ .~ :'- ~
~.... cu "'d. E --' I
v c.. ~ ~ 0 cu. '_ ~
l-< ;:l VJ. ... cu cu .
1 0... "'d - _ cu :C1l. I-< ..... I
g.~ t;j -~:Z'~i~ _ ~ .
I - ii ~ cu, 0 _
u ~ ";;l \'IJ ~' _ ~ ' ~ .. I
~ P:: cu t:; .....]. cu ,
I ..s::: ell. ..... . ' ....
t:: cu VJ VJ ell'. U l:l
;:l ii .... . .... "5 ...... .... . I
..... ... rJ) ...
O. I-< CU, ~.Q:I. 0 U I
I u VJ .. 0 Q;.'jI;!, Cl) . cu , I
cu tlO '+=i l3 u, .... ...." r
U 1::.... ~: _ ., '= .. u" o.
v l:l ..... I:: . '-'; ~. cu' .2:!.. I-< ~. . ~
I ......... "'d cu . ~~ ~ 0 ~
~ Sl ..a "'d · -~,'':;;I;l:''~ J-;:lJ P':: 1::'.
8 cu U I:: ""~: 'c' " <<l .....
I-< .S cu '..~"'~:' cu, ~~ S ~ ~b,
I v I-< c... ."i.. Iii co' '..c ,
~ ~ .~ ~ ;":~~'~l ~~. ('
VJ .... ",1. .~ '
. l .. 1)'. ~ .
I 0 ~ I:: "t. .~ .,;'fij.... ,~~
.... U 0 , _' · .,f. ... ~"
.~ " ".. :..,., 't "j!
VJ . VJ .... '",,"" '1 ' . "lb' i "
cu ell ''', VJ ",'
I s ~ -:a~;i -l~'~ ". ell :~"
o 0 c.. ~ :~."''!! -t:l ~:;>..
U -~";.;z
I .~ l3 .--&~., ~e >,'.
I:: gp l:l', I '~, ..s u~
I $ c.. 0-" \ . . -'
00 ~'. ,
'^ IS ., " _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"' "' ~
~r5~~rri(bQJ
I <l~'" b ""0 "'b l;j<J~<b
'- q.,.!p~ "'e~s.sJYScf""<1J
ois.. g~ <bcf~",,f{ ~"
if ~ ~ r::.s II ~ <J -<:: lJ} ~..!Y '"
I .::i(S.s .:;j ~
:f ff &) (:' ~ ~ '.
rri ~~ SrIJ
QJb~'/y~ ;:~
I S"'1:) ~/!' <::~ <Zl
tS ","' i; .1 ~
/J /J,?> <1J '6 '!t II l-<
.~ "- f:1). ~
. co -!:: ~.. 0 ;:j
I Q; 1Ji!p c9i ~ (j ..... 0
~ .{J g ,!!! c9i ..... Ilf Q) "'0 <Zl
~ <b."" , · ,.!:l ~ Q)
.~ StiR "" t;i ':' l-<
I b 1'5- Ji' .~ g, ,!!! t;i , ~ ro........
.I!! /J ~ .'?> e ~ -<:: rS ro 0.. ro ~
'"' i5' <J -S S ff' '" ...s:::: . .... l-< ~
~ 0 b 15 .s 0 "" ...s:::: ..8 ~
I 0 <J"!y <1J ~ ''''!JJ ,k !?J ? <Zl <Zl i' ,
",".f'"8 ~ PJ' ,f ,$ '" ~ f!' ~ "'0 ro .!!J '-
~ ~ tl- .~:t .ff' ~ {? '9' 0 .t;f 0 l-< ~ .,.$'
I JY!p 'II .S 01' .:s: 'II PJ' '" C] 15 ..... ro "'0 ~ Q;
'" 0 <b C;; CO .... ~ '" ;if: <1J '" <Zl' i3: ~ ~ (
"'C;;<J ~ . 0 -o~ <C'" "l;j <Zl ~~. '-<1J"
? b.s '- J? lS ~ II rY f!i:p .f!' ti ..... Q) ro ~ oS ~ Jl
.!!J 0 ~ 9: -!:> ):; <ci ~ l/j S.~ S......... <b "'.ty
I ~ -$ <b g /!' E l:' 'to :<' <:i- /J, <Zl l-<' <Zl .:if '(j !;
~ l/j'" 11 r:: i:::' if ! f! cr ft /!' 15... S Q) Q) ro Q; b l;j
C] ~ ., .. .:s: ~ '" rY..... <b l:' '"
rI; <b "';f 'q' .. t ii? ";!p CO <:. 0 ...s:::: ro t:Q S .. '- (
I ~ """.~ ~ ..!Y ~ '" .. <0, f;f U ..... i3: '- ./!} ~ .
C b.ff { Jj .!!J <:: ~ 8;p .{J is l-< [) 0 Jl Cf ",'
'" Cf l:' oS" ~ <b..fJ! ~ " Q) 0 Q) :S' " r:: b .$} ,
! if cJ cf ~c;; .ff s S '" i i?..f!? ...s:::: ~ ...s:::: . ::: ~ ~ ~ iN.
I .. '-.s <b .:s: 'ti ii? tJ S f: ~ ;f ..... Q) ..... ~ 0 is!P ~ i1 .,
$} 1>>0 l/j!l S ~ 4' .,' ;! f? ~ Jl ~ ~ u ~ ;:!J 0 P '" .ff ,
'.l:' '- ~ ~ ~ r!i ~ Ji' b <; <b 0 ~ 0 ro <J <: !y b tJ "
'" <b .~ '-' ~ ~" ro E "" '" .~ '"
I .~ .:if b cJ !JJ 'f! .!!J , fY.!!J 0 Q)..... i!J f!i.{J <:i-.. r:: !y
1" Q; G ..:s ~ ~ .f.> co ~ S I!! <Zl "'0 ~ ro 'ti i -<:: '" [.~ '
'''''''' Q "" "" "l:' O. .... Q) '" ." . 0 C] -" .
l:' l:' S ';f " .. f?,<:: 'II !p ;:::l S::> '" -i!! ~ ~ ""
I ~...!" 'IG ~",. .~ ~ ~ /!f..f!?' ii? fr bl) ..... ;f ;p s ~ '" ~ .s; ~
' ~ ~" ~ S !PC] b J! <b <b;:::l Q) ~ .~ ""~!y ~~,<::
<b PJ "'.~ '" ~ "" -" Q) U r:: '- E <:i- ,,_ <J ""
q) ....~' :t b ::;; 'II is ": ii? 0.. "'0 ~ Q) r:: .!!J i! '- 8 r:: b Ji' ~
I .. 01' Ii '" s'" s., ~ '" Q)' .... ro...s:::: 0 i' oS .!!J ",' ~ <: ..!y
CO ~ ~ ~.!!J PJ' '" ~ ::> ..... <1J i'.$} ,,~.
<0, .,p il $ ,<::' f% 'P Ii F: 2 1i ~ ~ ~ ,., if Ii P [ :g:
'~~<b'" ~'" '0 '~b '"
' """ Of rY Q; <b ~ 0.. Q) "" .S '" <b 0 f:
I ... Q CO <b 9: * J! !I ~.'Iii JJ g
<o,~~d", r:: gl;jO; !g"co{lib r:: ,
.S;..g" r:: 9: CO q r:: '" <b 0 15 0 <b ,
~ (b (b CJ ~ ~ .S ~ c.:; .... C5j ~
.~ "" 0 .~ "" ;:; <b " ~ p;
I , ~ C] i$ '!:... q B'~ !JJ !JJ.{J i11 ~ "".~ .ff
~ ~ 01. (b (tj ~.s:.€ &) ~,fi 'i1'- cs &)
CO i$ t! r:: Cf t r!i ~ r:: PJ' -" t.
(b cJ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ , 0" "-
I 'II Ii 0' b ~ ,g> [",
r/j~~ co~ u~.
rri(b QJ ~c.
"0, (b ~ ~ !JJ
I R lei,
...!;
I
I
I
I '{.
'<>;_,. (1
~f'
~~!j
p'"
I '.'
. .."[.;;"
I ",,; IV
': :; " ~~~I ~t:k
'It<" ,. .""'. 4'(t\fiftt:'{:,.
,.~;' ' ',,:~.~~;,;"
...~, "~ '
I '. ..,: .' c' ., ,~:} ~:~"" .
,,,,I,,,, ~. W~'.~' 'Ii: ,,~~,
, , , " ' ,.~~.'.,
f' "',:.' /r;.',
f:~" ~.:'~.-~ ~ l.~r~~~~'!';
I \ 'i' _ '" :;;''''f.1 'i ~;t;:,:L.
'" '1, >t~I"~ .
',' ~.'" ,I' \; '! ~
,- , tt ". Ii"" I.i~~!
'tI' ,! ' ,,-1 Jj~ .~~"'"
IW: >r,w~ '>~':'-"-},
, '" ""f.':"!?'~."
I }:~{iT~'}'~ ~ ~;(~~:':~~^;::;i~;,
" ,,,,,. "'''1\'''':';
~,,'" ": Or''." ~:~~.~~"
~..' 11ii:!I'~l '"'
I "'~i '
"1~.
'.'
"'" '~.
~ -.'t"-
m...,:p-~~..~
I j ~"'~"
I
~
I · 1~1'j""" ! A:
" ,-)
.~f
1f'
I
,. I
c
-'l jt'J
~~"t;' t~
,,'~~j<1 ~
I ,
';'f'.
I,:~
'i' ft.'.;
.~
,
I
,r ....; 1:>
I
I,
I
I
I
(~:. .'
'~ ~ '%f
~ . J;; '. . ..",
- . "", '''. 0;' "," ~
-"":. \.....0 - . ..r
O;\l! . L..,...,~~,
,..,q- '"D~ t " \.' ; ~,f_;.'-. ~
. ....t . ..' *';,.~.
,,, ,'. .' '.,t J':
"wIj' ... _ ... ..,. " 1. J \,....j...
crJ.. ." .~,., '~fJ '
,., " " " /' I "
. .... .J ;- .. -' .. ' ~ ,,~.
.---''' ;.... ,.. '\' #~
~, '. ~,' , r "-'i:\"
E ' '" ,"-' · t'" ..~"".
~:~;....~~. ~ .:,. ~~ ~ ';, ,~'tJ ~#:Jft;y:'1)
~ :,;i; -'." "f^" \ ..it. I l .'C,_...~~.~....
E ~ 'I ....-.~.. ", 'I '~ i' ~J'~>'" . ,,,'
~ ~ .;r;,"~' M
:'. ~:;. , : ," "l If.!1:. , . f&.'{
(jJ ~y:r;" - j. '~' (Ii"": ',~~,~
O~ :of . '. -".\ ~ .:' .
, -. :l..... , :\' i",
Ui''':::: '. . , . r
...; .. ... <",
~ t ~ ~ 1 r.
~- ~. .
'"j .
, ...'
." ,
.. - -..'-. :.,;....
',. ~ "V-i:\,- ,
~ ~ '...,
~ ~""~ . _ 1'-.{
j'_ . . _ .i-" 'Ii
~'~''''l' .' ~ ~....,..,~ 'f
~ '." ~.., . . ',.
~ . " '" "
\d . -,j.~ ~ ~ ~ ~. .g
~l ~ ~! ~_ g]~ i ,,1-51]1!i i!!d~I'~
~ i f"". 0 'c:: 2 ,~ }i' F> a E F ~ ~"r} 'a ~ ~ e ~ ~ 1 ~
..........' " ~ '"8 ~ u > ~ ~ fl ..c< ~ u .s BE..!:!. ~
~!Il ~ ~ ~ ;; 0 1i' t; ~ 1 e- ~ ti .5 l" i ~ -a . ~ ~
~ . .!!.." 0 ~..14 -5 E- .~ ~. ~. M n <.E. f?
ill ~ ~ I ~ a [= .~ '~15~ ~ ~ d 11 ~ Jq ~ L ~.~ .~
~ W ... ff c ... "2 u ~ ~ ~ ~ :""1 !ill..c< c:: g...~ b.Q ~ S .~
~ i " \ ~ F....::::l 1= ... ..c< 0 1I. u ~ C ..c< ..- u 15 ...' ..c<
....., ~ ~ t1 ~ ... n l1 "" '" ~ > ...
O ~ 0 "~ E ~ J?: :a ~ i ti"1,1 ~ ~ i.~ ~ ~ j :~ i ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~.Q.Z e ~i:i! B-5 &.-5 ~i:i!J!~ ~~ B
-
r:fJ. Q) ~
" .
~ r:fJ....s:::
.~ ~ ~ 0
_ Q)" 0 ~ ~
bI).~ ro ;::::S
"'O.u Q) 0:::
~ ' r1.l >, "'C Q) Q) > ~ r.n CI) ,..!.
~ .... -:.l ~ I .! .. .<o-:l ~ - ~ "'0 ro Q)..c md 1-1 >-
, ~ _....::l ..,.:J - .....
a ~ -5 0 04 00 '.5 '"t:l ~ oS' .~I .~ ..c::.;!l 8 ~ "'0 ...s::: "'0 ~ '"0 ~ ~ ~ g.
~ g: ~ g ~] ~ ~"3 ~ ~ ~~ Q) ~ fi ~ {i oo.~ ] 0 ~ ~ ;::::S ~ ~ go g ~
..... '"a "'C "C ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ l1) ~ ~ "'~:E g.~ 0 ~ ~ 0 CI) Cj a ~ ..c
~ ~"'C- ~?;..... ---0 s:: ::l A bI) 0 r:fJ.'-" .~
~g5::~"3U)C'j _-~Q.~~CI) 2~?;J..i<t.i "'0 "'0 Q) Q) ~~11 Colt';.
. ~ --: ~.- 8 ~ ~:o g CD.] ~ ~ P:::. :;;; & ~ 0 Q) ~ ~ ~ -5 ... '
ll,~ ~ ~ 1;; ~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ill, . 2".s ~.~ 5h ~ ~ a) lU ~ ~ d ~ ~ ·
..... 0 CD {3 . 0 '"'0 ~ 0 ~ ltJ',:E bb... - S bI) ~ O;:j 0 >.
~ o:s '<<.1 S ~ 6..a ~ U .il.....: ~ '....s , ~ . ~ "'0 ro ~ ~ ~ 0 j;3
.l-) e'd ~ rlJ.rJ': blJ' g bU'O?; 9 b.O~ ~ ;::::S 0 Q) Q) ~ ~ ..~t: ~ ~ bi):
.8 '8 ~ ,~ .~ 11 ~ '2 iog g ~] 5]..[ 8 .s ~ ~ ~ I i ~ 8. ~ !~.
C).- ~ =..... ~ ... ;:j d =,..c"'tj EI .~ ~ "'0 0 e ~ Q., 0..
~ ii 1J CL) ~ ~ ~"'O'c ~ -~ 8.1 ....'.i: ::l ~' ro ~ ] ..., CIJ . ~ w? .....
.oJ ~",o..... "'0 04 00 tJI.....,:; .... 0 .- ~ ......? 0
~ ;:j s 0 - g ~ CI) 0 ~~. Q) i'_' ~'. ..c 'E e ~ ~ ...s::: < ~ ~ ~. ~ (]) :'d "'0
c;y 00 Q) ,..c:l "0 ~ '"0 ... A ~~ - oj , .... rJj ~ Y2 . a Q,) blJ.-O <;;)
t. .~ ..Q =3 u ~ ..... .s Q.} 0.. ~ - Q:! a= ~ r,t;. z 0 -- 0 l.+-.. . -5 '"0 -- <;;)
rt:l ~. .C= d {fJ d 11> 0.. .. 0.. a Q.; .... o.~ ... "0 . ""0 0 (5 IV "c ~
r ;"'-OdCl)~~~c=:lroe ~=S_lJ)o..QJ cr::'''' CI"J-O
, <l) t$ u --;;..Q M ~ '"0 g..... B e': 0 c.';$..e bD"'O ~ t:: c: ~ g ~ o:s ~ ~ Q:) lfi - Q) ?; -c ~
f > ~ ~ ..... r.n...!: Q ID ~ i::l s::= .. 0 0::1)..... .... d ... 0
..... d .23 ,.!:J _~. d ...9:l "'0 Q) ....... A 0 ~ .... "'0..... r S -'C ~ :J,l e c -....., ~ e: ....Q) :S
~..... = ~ a <:J ~ -a s::= +-> "'0 - :::l ~ 0.. 0 . c.cE....... ffj ~ rt S Q.,.s ~ u..... ~":3 t1) ~ ~ Co)
tn W tn ~ -.... I"'""l..... a COo - :::J oj t:: 00 =' en A
Qc:s 0 uoo.. ~ c..o J..,....QJ.. 000 oo~ Q) r
, .J::..o a..8 a (l) ~ ~ CI:l O"..c:: ~ ~ Q.,~ ..c..8 8 S 8 ~ C\.l.;g ~..o 8 j "d ~
I ~ . - -
. . t .~ .,.~ f
^ < J
~ '"~ ,.. ., ;.>'1 .
. ".;'~_:,-~:". !' ,/
. rOo
~
~ '" I- o r:fJ. r:fJ. Q)', =
5< ; r:fJ. ro Q) . ~ ~i; ~ , ......
;::::S ~;::::S "'C.... 00 4-> J..t c.> ~
.- ~ r:fJ. ~ ~ 1; 1'0 ,~ ;1:l .s ~ Q)
~ (II "'0 Q) r:fJ. ~ooo..bC ~!:';
~ Q) ~.~ (1) ::s Q) = ~ ...... 0 0..
"'0 ~~~O(1)Qc.><1)
6 r:fJ. U Q) 4-> c:.p.r:::: ~ Q) 4-> (1)
~ c:n 0 ~ .~ ~ 00 t':l ell Q) c:\S ~
.,=>.. . ~ ro ...s::: d c:\S 0. ~ 0 ::: ~ c;j
00 ,~!; S ~ ...... - S 4-> rn 4-> 4->
- -a c. ~" ro e ~.. ...c:: (1) (1).~ S
"'0 Q) Q) Q) ~ '.00 bJ) l--4 ..0 0
~ ~ bh .........QJ~";Q~cl::
u (II ro ~~t':l~O~
..s:: ~ ~ N ~ 0 ~ 4-> 'S: .~ ....
;I) ...... o Q) (1) ~.... ~ 00 g s .s
,- - .1-
- ~, o ~ bI) ...c::C\I~c.>~:.Ed'~~
...0 ~
S t-~ S .....tr.c;j:E d~
~ N 0"'0 r:fJ. l--4O~o.4->+o:104->_
;I) ~ Q) ~ .~ r.8 1::; c;j '; 1j 0 ~"3
~ & o U ro 00 b.O 0 th~ 0 ~ . 04
; ~ ~ ~ bI) ~ 5 81~ (1) ~ ~ 8 5
~ ...s::: ro ro ~ rn r8 d bt S :-.-..en ~ >>
C ~ .~ rn c;j QJ~~
~ bI) U ~ ...... (1) ~"'O b.O 0 c;j ::s:=:
;::::S 0 ',c ~ s...c:: 0 fJ m ~ ~ ell C'-.
,lwJ ~ o . ~;.::: ~ ~ 8~:t\1 Q) ~ ~ 6
...... - ~ S 0 S ~ ,,'0 S I::: a:o
.~ ~.~
Q) Q) Q).
...s:::...s:::...s:::
~~~
~
~
- ----- -
Kenneth C. Boyd COUNTY OF ALBEMARlE David L Slutzky
Rivanna Rio
Undsay G, Dorrier, Jr. Office of Board of Supervisors Sally H. Thomas
Scot1sville 401 Mcintire Road Samuel MiI1er
Dennis S. Rooker Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 David C. Wyant
Jack Jouett (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296,5800 White Hall
July 18, 2006
Mr, Charles R. Schuyler, Director
The Nature Conservancy of Virginia
490 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: Rivanna River Basin Commission
Dear Mr. Schuyler:
At its meeting on July 12, 2006, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution thereby agreeing
to become a member of and participate in the Rivanna River Basin Commission.
We have attached a copy of that resolution for your information/files,
Sincerely,
~ittiJ ~ ~
Diane B, Mullins
Acting Clerk
DBM
06.005
Attachment
pc: Larry W. Davis, Esq., County Attorney
*
Printed on recycled paper
ATTACHMENT 6
RESOLUTION
Rivanna River Basin Commission
WHEREAS the majority of Albemarle County (67.9%) lies in the Rivanna River watershed; and
WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has recognized in its Comprehensive Plan that "[p]rotection of
water resources is essential to Albemarle County and Virginia in general;" and
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Plan provides as one of its Principles that "[w]ater resources do not follow
jurisdictional boundaries" and that "Albemarle County is connected hydrologically (through surface water and
groundwater) to the City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Fluvanna County, Nelson County, Louisa County,
Orange County, and the rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;" and
WHEREAS the statute authorizing the creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission establishes a framework that
will allow the County of Albemarle to work across jurisdictional boundaries to advance its goals for protecting
water resources as set forth in its Comprehensive Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of this jurisdiction hereby agrees to become a
member of and participate in the Rivanna River Basin Commission as described in Chapter 5,6 (962,1-69.45
et seq.) of Title 62,1 of the Code of Virginia.
*******
I, Diane B. Mullins, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
July 12, 2006,
Ave Nav
Mr. Boyd y -
Mr. Dorrier y -
Mr. Rooker y -
Mr. Slutzky y -
Ms, Thomas y -
Mr, Wyant y -
10
Memorandum
To: Members, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Ridge Schuyler
Director, Piedmont Program
The Nature Conservancy of Virginia
Date: 6/30/2006
Re: Rivanna River Basin Commission
I look forward to appearing before you on July 12, 2006 to request that
Albemarle County join the proposed Rivanna River Basin Commission.
Legislation authorizing the creation of the Commission was signed by Governor
Warner on April 12, 2004. I last appeared before the Board on January 7,2004
to request your support for that legislation, which you so kindly provided, With
this cover memo I have included:
~ A summary of the legislation
~ A copy of the legislation as enacted
~ The letter which the County wrote supporting the legislation
~ Draft resolution regarding the Rivanna River Basin Commission
Summary of the Statute
Authorizing Creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission
July 12, 2006
Relevance to Albemarle County: A significant portion of Albemarle County's
Comprehensive Plan is dedicated to the discussion of water-related issues - 58 pages in
fact. Virtually everyone of the goals, objectives, and strategies within this section are
relevant to the potential work of the Rivanna River Basin Commission,
Genesis of the Concept: In 1998, the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable published the
State of the Basin Report. The Roundtable was a group of local citizens and elected
officials who voluntarily participated in the Rivanna River Basin Project, led by the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. The State of the Basin Report
originated the concept of a river basin commission for the Rivanna watershed. The
following recommendations, developed by the community, are quoted from the report:
· "Develop a Corridor Plan to guide decision-making related to preservation and use
ofthe Rivanna River.
. Develop a comprehensive, systematic and coordinated database of all information
related to the Rivanna River.
. Establish a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, interagency data collection and
monitoring program, which brings together all interested parties under one
umbrella, and names the responsible lead group charged with oversight and
stewardship of the Rivanna River and its Basin.
. Implement design practices that promote, preserve and protect the Rivanna River.
. Expand stewardship of the Rivanna River."
Status: On April 12, 2004, Governor Warner signed enabling legislation authorizing the
creation of a Rivanna River Basin Commission. The following are highlights of the
statute:
1) While the law enables the creation of the Commission, it will only come into
existence when three of the four localities that have a majority of their land within the
Rivanna watershed (Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and the City of Charlottesville)
agree to join by passing a resolution to that effect. Participation in the Commission
by the localities is strictly voluntary.
2) The heart of the legislation is 962.1-69.50, establishing the powers and duties of the
Commission, The Commission's first duty is to develop a watershed management
plan "to maintain flow conditions to protect in-stream beneficial uses and public
water supplies for human consumption," This language is taken from 962.1-11,
setting forth the Commonwealth's policy regarding its water resources.
3) The Commission will also "undertake studies and prepare, publish and disseminate
information. " Since the Commission itself will not have regulatory authority, this
duty provides much of its usefulness to the localities within the watershed. The four
localities which have a majority of their lands within the Rivanna River watershed
(Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene and Charlottesville) have made water-related issues
such a priority that each has specifically included topics such as maintenance of water
quality, water supply management, and watershed analysis in its individual
Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that work undertaken by the Rivanna River
Basin Commission would directly benefit, if not fulfill, many of the needs of the four
localities as set forth in their Comprehensive Plans. Relevant work might include:
identifying ways to protect rivers, streams and the South Fork reservoir from the
threat of sedimentation, which is slowly suffocating fish and other aquatic wildlife
and is filling up the reservoir at a rate of 1 % annually; comprehensive data gathering
related to water supply and water quality and flows; and assisting in the creation of a
watershed management plan.
4) The Commission would be comprised of 14 members:
a, Two members of the governing bodies of each of the four localities with major
land area in the Rivanna watershed (the counties of Albemarle, Greene and
Fluvanna, and the City of Charlottesville),
b. One member of each of the Soil & Water Conservation Districts in the Rivanna
watershed (Culpeper and Thomas Jefferson SWCD).
c. One private citizen from each of the four localities with major land area in the
Rivanna watershed, chosen by the local governing body from recommendations
made by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission.
5) To aid in the creation of data regarding the watershed, The Nature Conservancy
(TNC) has already committed $85,000 toward the construction of a computer
hydrologic model of the watershed and $30,000 to develop more current land cover
data. The model and the land cover data will be given to the Commission.
6) The legislation allows each locality, and the state, to provide funding. It is The
Nature Conservancy's expectation, however, that private funds will be required to
initiate the work of the Commission, allowing it to operate without public funds. The
Nature Conservancy has worked since the statute was enacted to raise private funds
for the Commission, To date, the Conservancy has raised over $450,000 for the
Commission, which it hopes to match with federal and state grants.
Conclusion: With the inclusion of both elected officials and local citizens, the structure
of the proposed Rivanna River Basin Commission provides an excellent opportunity for
private and public partnership in addressing critical region-wide water issues. Finding
feasible, long-term management solutions for the Rivanna River watershed is a complex
task, requiring input and participation from the governing bodies found within the region,
private citizens with vested interests in the region, and several independent organizations
who have worked hard to make regional watershed issues a priority. The Rivanna River
Basin Commission will pool the resources of those working in the watershed, making for
a more cost-effective approach to conservation and providing for regional coordination
among the four local jurisdictions. And because participation in the Commission is
strictly voluntary, localities taking advantage of the Commission will participate only
because they want to, not because they have to.
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2004 SESSION
CHAPTER 394
An Act to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 62.1 a chapter numbered 5.6, consisting of
sections numbered 62.1-69.45 through 62,1-69.52, relating to the Rivanna River Basin Commission.
[8 267]
Approved April 12, 2004
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Title 62.1 a chapter numbered 5.6,
consisting of sections numbered 62.1-69.45 through 62.1-69.52, as follows:
CHAPTER 5.6.
RIVANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION.
~ 62.1-69.45. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning:
"Rivanna River Basin" means that land area designated as the Rivanna River Basin by the State
Water Control Board pursuant to ~ 62.1-44.38 and that is also found in the Fifteenth, Seventeenth,
Twenty-fourth and Twenty-fifth state Senatorial districts or the Twenty-fljth, Fifty-seventh, Fifty-eighth
and Fifty-ninth House of Delegates districts, as those districts existed on January 1, 2002.
~ 62.1-69.46. The Rivanna River Basin Commission; establishment; purpose.
A. The Rivanna River Basin Commission (the Commission) shall be established as an independent
local entity without political subdivision status, and shall be established upon the passage of a
resolution by three-fourths of the Rivanna River Basin's localities, in which not less than three percent
of the jurisdiction is found wholly or partially within the Rivanna River Basin, that commits them to
participation in the Commission as described in this chapter. Localities located in the Rivanna River
Basin include the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Orange and Nelson, and the City of
Charlottesville, The resolution shall contain the following language:
"The (governing body) of this jurisdiction hereby agrees to become a member of and participate in
the Rivanna River Basin Commission as described in Chapter 5. 6 (~ 62,1-69.45 et seq.) of Title 62.1 of
the Code of Virginia. "
B. The purpose of the Commission shall be to provide guidance for the stewardship and
enhancement of the water and natural resources of the Rivanna River Basin, The Commission shall be a
forum in which local governments and citizens can discuss issues affecting the Basin's water quality and
quantity and other natural resources, Through promoting communication, coordination, and education,
and by suggesting appropriate solutions to identified problems, the Commission shall promote activities
by local, state, and federal governments, and by individuals, that foster resource stewardship for the
environmental and economic health of the Basin.
~ 62.1-69.47. Membership; terms; vacancies; chairman and vice chairman; quorum; meetings; voting,
A. The Commission shall consist of 14 nonlegislative members as follows: two members each of the
local elected governing body of the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene, and the City of
Charlottesville; two nonlegislative citizen members, one each from the Culpeper Soil and Water
Conservation District and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District; and four
nonlegislative citizen members at-large, one member each appointed by the local elected governing body
of the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene, and the City of Charlottesville, upon the
recommendation of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. All members recommended by
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and appointed to the Commission by the relevant
local elected governing bodies shall be citizens who demonstrate interest, experience, or expertise in
water-related Basin issues.
B. Members of the Commission who are local elected governing body officials or members of the soil
and water conservation districts shall serve terms coincident with their terms of office. Initial
appointments of the four nonlegislative citizen-at-Iarge members shall be staggered as follows: two
members for a term of two years; and two members for a term offour years. Thereafter, nonlegislative
citizen members shall be appointed for a term of four years. Appointments to fill vacancies, other than
by expiration of a term, shall be for the unexpired terms. All members may be reappointed. However, no
nonlegislative citizen member shall serve more than two consecutive four-year terms. The remainder of
any term to which a non legislative citizen at-large member is appointed to fill a vacancy shall not
constitute a term in determining the member's eligibility for reappointment. Vacancies shall be filled in
the same manner as the original appointments.
C. The Commission shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership, A
majority of the voting members shall constitute a quorum. The meetings of the Commission shall be held
at the call of the chairman or whenever the majority of the members so request. Each member of the
I
20f2
Commission shall have an equal vote.
8 62,1-69.48. Compensation; expenses.
Members of the Commission may receive compensation and may be reimbursed for reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as the Commission may deem
appropriate. The costs of compensation and expenses shall be paid from such funds as may be available
to the Commission.
8 62.1-69.49. Funding.
A, The Commission shall adopt annually a budget that includes the Commission's estimated expenses.
A process for distributing the costs for the support of the Commission among the relevant local
governing bodies, based on each jurisdiction's proportional share of the population within the Rivanna
River Basin, shall be determined by the Commission's local elected governing body members, unless
such members choose otherwise.
B. The Commission shall designate a fiscal agent annually.
862.1-69,50. Powers and duties of the Rivanna River Basin Commission,
The Rivanna River Basin Commission shall have the following powers and duties:
1. Develop a plan to promote the coordination of water management within the Basin to maintain
flow conditions to protect instream beneficial uses and public water supplies for human consumption;
2. Provide guidance and make recommendations to local, state, and federal legislative and
administrative bodies, and to others as it deems necessary and appropriate, regarding the use,
stewardship, and enhancement of the Basin's water and other natural resources;
3, Undertake studies and prepare, publish, and disseminate information in reports and in other forms
related to the water and natural resources of the Basin and to further its purposes and mission,
including but not limited to studies to determine the flow conditions necessary to protect instream
beneficial uses and public water supplies for human consumption;
4. Enter into contracts and execute all instruments necessary or appropriate;
5. Perform any lawful acts necessary or appropriate;
6. Establish a nonprofit corporation as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth to assist in the
details of administering its affairs and in raising funds;
7. Seek, apply for, accept, and expend gifts, grants, and donations, services, and other aids, from
public or private sources. Other than those from member jurisdictions and those appropriated by the
General Assembly, funds may be accepted by the Commission only after an affirmative vote by the
Commission or by following such other procedure as may be established by the Commission for the
conduct of its business;
8. Establish balanced advisory committees that may include representation from agricultural,
environmental, resource-based, industrial, recreational, riparian landowner, development, educational,
and other interests as it deems necessary and appropriate; and
9. Develop rules and procedures for the conduct of its business as necessary to carry out its purpose
and mission, including but not limited to, selecting a chairman and vice chairman, rotating
chairmanships, calling meetings and establishing voting procedures, Rules and procedures developed
pursuant to this subdivision shall be effective upon an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission's
members,
862.1-69.51. Staffing and support.
The local governing bodies, soil and water conservation districts, and planning district commissions
found wholly or partially in the Rivanna River Basin may provide staff support to the Commission as
the localities determine appropriate. Additional staff support may be hired or contracted for by the
Commission through funds raised by or provided to it. The Commission shall determine the duties of
such staff and fix compensation within available resources,
All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the Commission, upon request,
862.1-69.52. Withdrawal; dissolution.
A. A locality may withdraw from the Commission one year after providing written notice to the
Commission of its intent to do so.
B. The Commission may be dissolved (i) upon three-fourths vote of its members, (ii) if the
membership falls below three-fourths of the number of localities eligible for membership in the
Commission, or (iii) by repeal or expiration of this chapter.
C. Upon the Commission's dissolution, all funds and assets of the Commission, including funds
received from private sources, shall be divided and distributed on a pro rata basis to the member local
governing bodies. All state funds and assets, if any, shall be transferred to the Office of the Secretary of
Natural Resources for appropriate distribution.
David P Bowerman COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dennis S, Rooker
Rio Jack Jouett
Kenneth C. Boyd Office of Board of Supervisors Sally H. Thomas
Hivanna 401 McIntire Road Samuel Mllklr
Lindsay G, Derrler, Jr. Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-45% David C. Wyant
Scottl.ville (434) 2%-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 WhiteHall
January 9,2004
REC'D JAN 1 3 2004
Mr. Charles R. Schuyler, Director
The Nature Conservancy of Virginia
490 Westfield Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Schuyler:
This letter is to inform you that at their meeting on January 7,2004, the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action to support legislation to enable the
creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. It is understood that such legislation
will be introduced by Senator Creigh Deeds in the 2004 session of Virginia's General
Assembly.
RWT,Jr.lewc
cc: Senator Creigh Deeds
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
*
Printed on recycled paper
RESOLUTION
Rivanna River Basin Commission
WHEREAS the majority of Albemarle County (67,9%) lies in the Rivanna River
watershed; and
WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has recognized in its
Comprehensive Plan that "[p ]rotection of water resources is essential to
Albemarle County and Virginia in general;" and
WHEREAS the Comprehensive Plan provides as one of its Principles that "[w]ater
resources do not follow jurisdictional boundaries" and that "Albemarle County is
connected hydrologically (through surface water and groundwater) to the City of
Charlottesville, Greene County, Fluvanna County, Nelson County, Louisa
County, Orange County, and the rest of the Chesapeake Bay watershed;" and
WHEREAS the statute authorizing the creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission
establishes a framework that will allow the County of Albemarle to work across
jurisdictional boundaries to advance its goals for protecting water resources as set
forth in its Comprehensive Plan;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of this
jurisdiction hereby agrees to become a member of and participate in the Rivanna
River Basin Commission as described in Chapter 5,6 (962.1-69.45 et seq.) of Title
62,1 of the Code of Virginia.
*******
I, Diane B. Mullins, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true and
correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County by a vote of _ to _, as recorded below, at a meeting held on
Acting Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd - -
Mr. Dorrier
- -
Mr. Rooker
- -
Mr. Slutzky - -
Ms, Thomas
- -
Mr. Wyant - -
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Eastern Connector Alignment Study July 12, 2006
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appoint County members to the project steering CONSENT AGENDA:
committee for the Eastern Connector ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTCS): ATTACHMENTS: ----
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This agenda item asks the Board of Supervisors to appoint membership to the steering committee for the Eastern
Alignment Connector Study. On October 5, 2005, staff recommended the Board authorize staff to proceed with an Eastern
Connector study using the attached work plan. (Attachment A - October 5, 2005; Executive Summary, Attachment B -
Draft Work Plan) The Board slightly modified staff's recommendation in the Executive Summary by adding an alignment
south of U.S, 250 to the alternatives and by capping the budget at $500,000 ($250,000 City / $250,000 County),
Subsequent to that direction, City representatives informed the County that a southern alignment was not considered an
acceptable alternative to include in the study. By December 2005, a compromise had been reached providing that the
southern alignment would not be a considered alternative, but it could be modeled to determine its effectiveness, At this
point, the staff has advertised for a consultant and anticipates having a consultant under contract this summer, with the
project ready to proceed no later than September. The final step in starting this project is appointing members to the
project steering committee as described in the attached work plan,
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Objective 3.1: By June 30, 2010, expand regional transit opportunities, while accelerating the completion of the
Meadowcreek Parkway, 2 local, and 2 regional transportation projects.
DISCUSSION:
The work plan calls for the project steering committee to include one Board member, one Planning Commission member,
one County citizen representative and two staff members, Staff anticipates the Board will have the Planning Commission
select their representative. Mark Graham and Juandiego Wade are recommended for the County staff membership. The
remaining two members, the Board member and citizen representative, need to be selected by the Board,
BUDGET IMPACT:
Project budget of $500,000 ($250,000 City / $250,000 County) has already been approved, Staff time spent on this
project is anticipated to be approximately 200 hours,
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 , Staff requests that the Board appoint one of its members to the project steering committee.
2. Staff requests that the Board appoint a citizen representative to the project steering committee.
3. Staff requests the Board confirm that the Planning Commission is to appoint their representative to the project
steering committee,
4, Staff requests the Board confirm that the proposed staff representation to the project steering committee is
appropriate.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - October 5, 2005 Executive Summary
Attachment B - Draft work plan with October 5, 2005 Executive Summary
06,096
Attachment A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE:
Eastern Connector Alignment Study October 5, 2005
ACTION: INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize staff to proceed with an alignment study of CONSENT AGENDA:
the Eastern Connector ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlSl: ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham
REVIEWED BY:
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
This executive summary seeks authorization for staff to proceed with contracting an alignment study for the Eastern
Connector. Recent discussions by County and City officials, as well as the CHART, place a high importance on an Eastern
Connector as part of the regional transportation solution, While this project was considered as part of the CIP budget
authorization, the project was not specifically listed in the approved budget appropriations,
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3:4: Develop and implement policies, including financial, that address the County's growing transportation needs.
DISCUSSION:
County and City staff have developed a draft work plan for an alignment study of the Eastern Connector. This study will
evaluate a minimum of three possible alignments for cost effectiveness, environmental impacts, impacts on private
property, and impacts on public property. The work plan also includes a series of public participation meetings and
processes for acceptance by the County Board and City Council. As proposed, this study will be a 50-50 cost share by the
City and County, with an estimated project cost of $500,000. As currently proposed, the project would be directed by a
steering committee comprised of a City Council member, a County Board member, a Planning Commission member from
each locality, a citizen from each locality, and two staff members from each locality, Given the area studied is largely within
the County, the study would be managed by County staff. Staff will ask the Board to confirm this project direction and
assign members to the steering committee at a later date. The City will be considering a matching appropriation request at
their October 3rd meeting and staff will advise the Board if that request is not approved,
BUDGET IMPACT:
The approved FY '05-'06 CIP set aside $1 Million for undesignated transportation projects, The Eastern Connector study
was one of the projects considered to be funded with this source, County staff has been unable to locate any other funding
sources for this study, As this service has not yet been contracted, a 20% contingency for the project budget is planned,
With this contingency, staff is seeking approval for a project budget of $300,000
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize staff to proceed with procuring this study using a 50-50 cost share agreement with the City and expend no more
than $300,000 from the CIP for the County's share of this study.
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Work Plan
Return to consent aqenda
Return to reoular aoenda !
Attachment B
Draft Work Plan
August 12, 2005
1. Study shall provide a minimum ofthree altemative alignments that will provide a connection between US 250
east of Route 20 and US 29 between Rio Road and Proffit Road, Study shall provide a thorough assessment of
issues related to each alignment and a recommendation on preferred alignment based on analysis and direction
provided during project.
2, Each alignment alternative must include the following analysis:
. Costs - A detailed cost estimate
. Environmental Assessment- Consistent with what would be required under NEP A
. Fiscal Impacts Modeling - A detailed analysis of impacts over 20 year project life
. Analysis of Impacts on Private Property - Encroachment and impediments to use of property as a result
of project, as well as benefits to property as a result of project
. Analysis ofImpacts on Public Property - Encroachment and impediments to use of property as a result
ofproject, as well as benefits to property as a result of project
. Traffic Modeling - Extent outline below
3, Traffic Modeling should analyze each alternative and include a no-build alternative. Modeling should be done
by extending the existing model currently under development for the US 29 Phase 3 study, That model is
currently being finished by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's consultant and would be
available by January 2006, Traffic modeling should assume completion of Meadowcreek Parkway and
Hillsdale Avenue, as currently proposed, Traffic modeling should not assume completion of Northern Free
State Connector between Rio Road and US 29. Traffic modeling should provide anticipated traffic volumes for
each direction for both current condition and 20 years in future based on traffic projections. Traffic Volumes
should be analyzed at the following points:
. US 250 at Rivanna River
. US 250 between McIntire Road and US 29
. Meadowcreek Parkway between US 250 and Rio Road
. Park Street between US 250 and Meadowcreek Parkway
. Rio Road between Meadowcreek Parkway and US 29
. US 29 between US 250 and Hydraulic Road
. US 29 between Hydraulic Road and Rio Road
. US 29 between Rio Road and northern terminus of Eastern Connector
. Route 20 between US 250 and Proffit Road
. Proffit Road between US 29 and Route 20
4, Project Management - Day to day project management shall be provided by County staff, Project oversight
shall be provided by a steering committee with the following membership:
. One City Council Member and one County Board member
. One Planning Commission member from the city and one Planning Commission member from the
County of Albemarle
. Two City staff and two County staff
. One citizen from the City and one citizen from the County, respectively selected by the City Council and
County Board
5, Public Meetings - Consultant should anticipate a minimum of five public meetings and should include cost
estimates for additional public meetings. Public meetings should be anticipated for the following milestones:
. Kickoff Meeting - To inform citizens of purpose and extent of study.
. Draft Alignment Review - to seek citizen input on studied alignments and identify potential issues
. Final Alignment Review - Prior to bringing recommendation to City Council and County Board,
provide citizens an opportunity to comment on alignment recommendations
. City Council Meeting - Present recommendations to City Council
. County Board Meeting - Present recommendation to County Board
.J
QC('PVED AT 80S MEETP\"~
' "Il-~.l._' . :.",~ __ lj,t.w/1:
.' D21?: 1'I-ijL~____,___.._
I,genda hem #~_~
Gr2r!-.'s Initials: \...fr"\ ~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 19, 2006
Members of the Development Community
As part of our effort to improve processes, the Department of Community Development is initiating an
optional pilot program intended to improve the review process for engineering plans and computations
associated with final site plans, final subdivisions, and water protection ordinance requirements, With this
program, a Professional Engineer may avoid delays associated with a detailed review of plans and
computations by certifYing their engineering plans and computations meet the applicable requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision, Ordinance, Water Protection Ordinance, and Design Standards
Manual.
Staff has consulted with many of the engineers who could use this program and we believe the program
has been modified to address concerns. The following are some of the most frequently asked questions
and answers:
Q: How will the program work?
A: Staff will provide certification forms and courtesy checklists at the front desk and through the
department's web page. Engineers will review their plans against the items on the applicable certification
statement and when they are confident they have addressed all of the items, place the certification on the
plan. When a plan is submitted, staff will see if a certification is on the plan. If so, staff will give the plan
a quick check to verify selected items. If staff doesn't fmd significant issues with this check, the plan will
be approved. If staff finds significant issues have not been addressed, the plan will be put in the review
queue and receive the nonnal review in the order received, In the latter case, the engineer will be notified
their plan is receiving the nonnal review, With this process, the engineer who properly prepares a
certified plan can expect approval in about a week. Conversely, the plan that follows the nonnal process
will receive the same review as currently done, A resubmitted plan can also use the certification process.
Q: What plans are eligible for this program?
A: Certifications are available for engineering plans associated with final site plans (where a preliminary
plan has been approved), private road plans (where a preliminary plat has been approved), stonnwater
management plans, erosion control (grading) plans, and mitigation plans. These certifications are attached
for reference and will be on the County web site.
Q: What plans are not eligible for this program?
A: Preliminary plans and plats will not be eligible for this program, Public road plans will not be eligible
for this program, as VDOT approval of those plans is necessary, Waiver requests will not be eligible for
this program, Special plans, such as an early grading plan in a planned development, will be considered on
a case by case basis.
I
I
I
I
l
. Q: What happens if the engineer is uncertain of an ordinance or policy requirement?
A: County staff will still be available to assist designers with any questions they may have prior to
certifying a submission. As many of you already know, the engineering reviewers have a regularly
scheduled time on Thursday afternoons, starting at 2:00pm, when designers and developers can discuss
applications and reviews. Staff does ask that the engineer call and set up an appointment in advance of the
meeting.
Q: What happens if errors are found after approval?
A: Staff will treat errors the same as currently happens when errors are found after approval or we fmd the
project has not been built to the approved plan. In those cases, staff will review and determine what
corrections are needed to comply with County ordinances.
Q: What happens if you fmd the process needs to be changed?
A: As this process is totally administrative, staff can easily modify the program or even abandon the
process if it doesn't work. If there are major program changes, we will send out a notice similar to this
notice. For minor changes, we anticipate keeping an emaillist of engineers using this program and they
will be notified of those changes.
Q: How will this happen?
A: Assuming no significant issues arise, staff is proposing the following schedule:
. June 30th - Public information meeting to further explain how the process will work and hear
comments
. July 11th - Inform Planning Commission of this process and comments received
. July 12'h - Inform Board of Supervisors of this process, comments received, and Planning
Commission's comments.
. July 17th - Start accepting certified plans
The next step will be a public information meeting on Friday, June 30th at 12 Noon in Room 214. Anyone
interested in participating in the program or with questions about it is encouraged to come.
In closing, I extend my thanks to the engineers and others who have provided assistance to County staff as
this program has been developed. I believe this is a great step towards cooperatively finding solutions. I
also extend my thanks to staff, especially Glenn Brooks and Bill Fritz, for showing the innovation and
initiative to take this from a wild idea to reality,
~~~
Mark B. Graham, P .E.
Director of Community Development
Copy: Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive
Amelia McCulley, Community Development
Bill Fritz, Community Development
Glenn Brooks, Community Development
Attachments: Certifications
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 19, 2006
Members of the Development Community
As part of our effort to improve processes, the Department of Community Development is initiating an
optional pilot program intended to improve the review process for engineering plans and computations
associated with final site plans, final subdivisions, and water protection ordinance requirements. With this
program, a Professional Engineer may avoid delays associated with a detailed review of plans and
computations by certifYing their engineering plans and computations meet the applicable requirements of
the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision, Ordinance, Water Protection Ordinance, and Design Standards
Manual.
Staff has consulted with many of the engineers who could use this program and we believe the program
has been modified to address concerns. The following are some of the most frequently asked questions
and answers:
Q: How will the program work?
A: Staff will provide certification fonns and courtesy checklists at the front desk and through the
department's web page. Engineers will review their plans against the items on the applicable certification
statement and when they are confident they have addressed all of the items, place the certification on the
plan. When a plan is submitted, staff will see if a certification is on the plan, If so, staff will give the plan
a quick check to verify selected items. If staff doesn't fmd significant issues with this check, the plan will
be approved. If staff fmds significant issues have not been addressed, the plan will be put in the review
queue and receive the nonnal review in the order received. In the latter case, the engineer will be notified
their plan is receiving the nonnal review. With this process, the engineer who properly prepares a
certified plan can expect approval in about a week. Conversely, the plan that follows the nonnal process
will receive the same review as currently done. A resubmitted plan can also use the certification process.
Q: What plans are eligible for this program?
A: Certifications are available for engineering plans associated with final site plans (where a preliminary
plan has been approved), private road plans (where a preliminary plat has been approved), stonnwater
management plans, erosion control (grading) plans, and mitigation plans. These certifications are attached
for reference and will be on the County web site.
Q: What plans are not eligible for this program?
A: Preliminary plans and plats will not be eligible for this program, Public road plans will not be eligible
for this program, as VDOT approval of those plans is necessary, Waiver requests will not be eligible for
this program. Special plans, such as an early grading plan in a planned development, will be considered on
a case by case basis.
I
Q: What happens if the engineer is uncertain of an ordinance or policy requirement?
A: County staff will still be available to assist designers with any questions they may have prior to
certifying a submission. As many of you already know, the engineering reviewers have a regularly
scheduled time on Thursday afternoons, starting at 2:00pm, when designers and developers can discuss
applications and reviews, Staff does ask that the engineer call and set up an appointment in advance of the
meeting.
Q: What happens if errors are found after approval?
A: Staff will treat errors the same as currently happens when errors are found after approval or we fmd the
project has not been built to the approved plan. In those cases, staffwill review and determine what
corrections are needed to comply with County ordinances.
Q: What happens if you fmd the process needs to be changed?
A: As this process is totally administrative, staff can easily modify the program or even abandon the
process if it doesn't work. Ifthere are major program changes, we will send out a notice similar to this
notice. For minor changes, we anticipate keeping an emaillist of engineers using this program and they
will be notified of those changes.
Q: How will this happen?
A: Assuming no significant issues arise, staff is proposing the following schedule:
. June 30th - Public information meeting to further explain how the process will work and hear
comments
. July 11 th - Inform Planning Commission of this process and comments received
. July 1 th - Inform Board of Supervisors of this process, comments received, and Planning
Commission's comments.
. July 17th - Start accepting certified plans
The next step will be a public information meeting on Friday, June 30th at 12 Noon in Room 214. Anyone
interested in participating in the program or with questions about it is encouraged to come.
In closing, I extend my thanks to the engineers and others who have provided assistance to County staff as
this program has been developed. I believe this is a great step towards cooperatively fmding solutions. I
also extend my thanks to staff, especially Glenn Brooks and Bill Fritz, for showing the innovation and
initiative to take this from a wild idea to reality.
~~
Mark B. Graham, P .E.
Director of Community Development
Copy: Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive
Amelia McCulley, Community Development
Bill Fritz, Community Development
Glenn Brooks, Community Development
Attachments: Certifications