Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCP201700002 Correspondence 2023-01-109-400 Aligning the zoning ordinance with the comprehensive plan The comprehensive plan should be one of the key sources, if not the key source, of guidance on every legislative zoning decision (see sections 9-800 and 9-900 for a discassion of the role of the conrpmbensiue plan in TVning and otber /egislatioe land are decisions). A comprehensive plan serves no purpose if it is relegated to a box in a storage room or the book shelf, and is never referenced except to extract the plan's recommended density and land use designations. If a comprehensive plan was adopted or amended after careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of the existing conditions and trends of growth, and of the probable future requirements of the area, then it should provide a wealth of ideas for how to foster change by amending existing zoning regulations. In addition to stating goals and objectives, a comprehensive plan also should identify a number of shategie.r to implement those goals and objectives. Many of those strategies may be recommendations to amend the zoning regulations in order to implement the goals and objectives of the plan. In other words, the comprehensive plan should be viewed as one big legislative "to-do" list. 9-500 Amending the comprehensive plan If the governing body desires to amend the comprehensive plan, it may prepare the amendment and refer it to the planning commission for public hearing or direct the planning commission to prepare the amendment and submit it to public hearing within 60 days or a longer timeframe as specified by the governing body. Virginia Code ff 15.2-2229. Albemarle County allows the planning commission and landowners to initiate amendments. In fact, it is generally advisable for ottmers seeking to rezone their property to consider first obtaining an amendment to the comprehensive plan if their rezoning proposal is inconsistent with the existing plan. Landowner -initiated amendments in Albemarle County proceed only if either the planning commission or the board of supervisors adopts a resolution of intent to amend the comprehensive plan. The planning commission reviews the proposed amendment, holds a public hearing, and approves, amends and approves, or disapproves the matter. Upon approval of the amendment, the planning commission then reports its recommendation to the governing body. VitXinia Code ff 1 A2-2225. if the planning commission fails to make a recommendation on the amendment within the applicable timeframe, the governing body may conduct a public hearing on the amendment. Virginia Code ff 15.2-2229. The governing body must thereafter act on the proposed amendment within 90 days of the date of the planning commission's recommending resolution. Virginia Code ff 15.2- 222Y. Before an amendment to the comprehensive plan is adopted, the locality must submit the amendment to VDOT for review and comment. TViginia Code ff ff 15.2-2222.1. VDOT must provide its comments within 90 days. II ginia Code ff 15.2-2222.1. The criteria applied by the planning commission and the governing body for considering an amendment to the comprehensive plan are not specified by state law. Rather, both the commission and the governing body must be guided by the purposes of the comprehensive plan itself in reaching their decisions. Once a comprehensive plan is adopted or amended, it must be posted on the locality's website, though the inadvertent failure of the planning commission or the governing body to do so does not invalidate the action. Virginia Code if 15.2-222.5 and 15.2-2226. 9-600 Reviewing proposed public facilities for consistency with the comprehensive plan A comprehensive plan does not, by itself, act as an instrument of land use control. 1987-89 1 'a. Op. Atly. Gen. 212. However, it does act as an indirect instrument of land use control with respect to public areas, public buildings, public structures, public utility facilities, and public service corporation facilities (collectively, "public facilities'), whether publicly or privately owned. I" ginia Code ff 15.2-2232 (but excluding railroad facilities and underground natural gas or underground electric distribution facilities of a public utility as defined in Virginia Code § 56-265.1(b) 9-5 'nte Albem."1e Co""W Uml Use 1. V 1landhonk Aamptneu lure 2016 system, VDOT will notify the Commonwealth Transportation Board so that it may take appropriate action as provided by statute. Virginia Code f 15.2-2223(B)(5). Virginia Code § 15.2-2223.1(F) requires that, to the extent possible, localities direct federal, state, and local transportation funding for new and expanded facilities to the locality's urban development area (or for grandfathered localities, to the area determined to accommodate growth). Virginia Code § 15.2-2239 requires that capital improvement programs include estimates of the cost of each road and transportation improvement adopted as an amendment to a locality's comprehensive plan. See 24 T!AC 30-155-30 fur the regulations for a hvffc impact anajh sis required for a conrplrbenriae plan or a conrpniten ire plan amendment 9-800 The role of the comprehensive plan in legislative zoning decisions A comprehensive plan does not have the status of a zoning ordinance. Board ofSuperrz m gfFairfax Count, r. A&au, 215 Va. 434, 211 S.E.2d 48 (1975). It is advisor- only and serves as a guide for the development and implementation of the zoning ordinance. Allman, supra; Board of Supervisors of Stafford County tc Saleem, 226 Va. 329, 310 S.E.2d 445 (1983); see Haber n Loudoun Countyt Board of fig5mdrors, 55 Va. Cit. 318 (2001) (as an advisory document, the comprehensive plan cannot be the basis for a declaratory relief action since no injury arises from its approval). In guiding zoning decisions, the comprehensive plan is one of approximately ten relevant factors required to receive "reasonable consideration" by the planning commission and the locality's governing body. 1'irgirda Code ff 15.2-2284; Board af.Sxpmrsorr ofFairfax Counfiy r.1?yles, 224 Va. 629, 300 S.E.2d 79 (1983) (governing body must consider, among other things, the general boundary guidelines set forth in the comprehensive plan to determine the boundaries of a zoning district). The Comprehensive Plan as a Guide for Zoning Decisions • Although the comprehensive plan is only one of several factors to be considered in making a zoning decision, it may be the most important and most commonly relied upon factor. • Because a comprehensive plan is only advisory and serves as a guide in making a zoning decision, a zoning decision is not unreasonable simple because the governing body chooses not to follow the comprehensive plan. • However, relying on the comprehensive plan facilitates reasonable and well-informed decisions, and decisions that conform to the comprehensive plan are more likely to be found reasonable and they reduce the potential for a claim of discrimination in the decision -making process by individual landowners. • The comprehensive plan is not considered as a guide for ministerial actions such as subdivision plats and site plans. A comprehensive plan may properly form the basis to approve or deny a rezoning or a special use permit. Board of.Sapemisor r of I-oudonn County o. I -enter, 221 Va. 30, 267 S.E.2d 100 (1980) (rezoning); National Memorial Park, Inc. n Board ofZoniugAppeals of Fairfax County, 232 Va. 89, 348 S.E.2d 248 (1986) (special use permit). However, because the comprehensive plan is only a guide, it is not required that land only be rezoned or permitted in accordance with it. See Board ofSupernismr of Fairfax County r. Robertson, 266 Va. 525, 587 S.E.2d 570 (2003); Lenier, supra; Clark v. T orvn of Afiddleburg 26 Va. Cit. 472 (1990). In I enter; the Virginia Supreme Court upheld the board's decision to deny the landowner's rezoning application because the proposed project failed to satisfy the minimum standards of the county's comprehensive plan. In upholding the board's authority to rely on its comprehensive plan to deny the application, the Court stated: While the minimum standards of the Comprehensive Plan may be only guidelines and not requirements to be applied inflexibly by the Board, it was still a matter within the Board's discretion to decide whether to adhere to those standards or to follow some other reasonable approach in determining whether to grant or to deny the rezoning application. Irraer, 221 Va. at 37, 267 S.E.2d at 104. 9-8 The Albemarle Cnunn Lmd L'ac I.,, Ira ulb,H,k Kampmer. June 2016 This rule was repeated in City Council ofCit afSalera r. Wend J of Western I irginia, Inc., 252 Va. 12, 18, 471 S.E.2d 469, 473 (1996): " Mbe City elected to adhere to the standards of its comprehensive plan, a matter within the council's discretion." See also Robertson, 266 Va. at 535, 587 S.E.2d at 577 (assuming the circuit court was correct that the comprehensive plan required one sound level and continuous 24-hour monitoring, the board "had the discretion to decide whether to adhere to the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan or to follow some other reasonable approach in making its decision"). Although the comprehensive plan is a guide, rather than a set of requirements, decision -makers should strive to assure that their decisions are consistent with the plan. Conformance to the comprehensive plan not only facilitates reasonable and well-informed decisions, but also removes the potential for discrimination in the decision process against individual landowners. As a guide, the comprehensive plan does not supersede the existing zoning designation and its associated regulations for a particular parcel. Moreover, the comprehensive plan does not apply to ministerial acts such as the approval of a subdivision plat or a site plan. By that point in the development process, the policy decisions related to the use of the land — made in conjunction with the planning and zoning processes — have already been made. Thus, a subdivision plat cannot be denied on the ground that the future development that may result from the subdivision is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Rarkbam a'. Vanguard Limited Par enerrbip, 34 Va. Cir. 478 (1994) (the comprehensive plan may not be a basis for denying a subdivision which is otherwise in conformity with duly adopted standards, ordinances, and statutes). Lastly, there is no requirement that the existing zoning designation for a particular parcel be consistent with the use called for in the comprehensive plan. 9-900 The role of the comprehensive plan as a tool to control the timing of growth The comprehensive plan is one of the factors governing bodies are to consider in making a zoning decision. Vngnua Code ff 15.2-2284. The governing body is also directed to consider, among other things, the transportation requirements of the community and the requirements of the community for airports, housing, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreation areas and other public services. Virginia Code ff 15.2-2284. All of these factors are analyzed in chapter 10. In addition, the zoning enabling authority requires that zoning ordinances be designed to give reasonable consideration "to protect against ... overcrowding of land, undue density of population in relation to the community facilities existing or available ..." Virginia Code ff 15.2-2283OIi). A governing body may deny a rezoning application or a special use permit if it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Board of Srrperaisors of I oodoun County r% Lerner, 221 Va. 30, 267 S.E.2d 100 (1980) (rezoning); NationalrblemorialPark, Inc. n. Board afZoning,4ppeals afFairfav Count)-, 232 Va. 89, 348 S.E.2d 248 (1986) (special use permit). Therefore, it appears that if the comprehensive plan contains specific, objective standards for adequate public facilities and when land use may intensify, a rezoning or special use permit may be denied if the public facilities are inadequate and the standards are not satisfied, i.e., the proposed project is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. A locality may time or phase development to assure that adequate public facilities are in place if its comprehensive plan identifies specific, objective criteria as to when development may occur. 9-910 Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. WilB uns. a very general policy calling for undefined adequate public facilities before development occurs is insufficient In Board ofSnpervisorr of Fair fax Coun4, P. Williams, 216 Va. 49, 216 S.E.2d 33 (1975), the board of supervisors denied rezoning applications that would have increased the density from one to 2.9 single family dwelling units per acre. One reason cited by the board for its denial was inadequate public facilities, including roads. The county's comprehensive plan included a statement that higher density development of the area in question "should not occur until public facilities are adequate." The Virginia Supreme Court held that the county's denial of the rezoning application was invalid for a number of reasons. Although 11'illiams may be unique to its facts, it is important to note that, as for the inadequacy of the roads, the 9-9 'f6e ,1lhemarle Cnuntc Land llse 1 ;nc I I udhook Mmptner: June 2016 PRE -APPLICATION WORKSESSION FOR EARLY INPUT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ON COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CCP) Intent The Pre -application worksession process is for proposed development projects. Typically these projects will be ZMA's and SP's; however, they may also include by -right proposals. The purpose of this process is to provide information to the Planning Commission on a potential development and have the Commission provide guidance to applicants and staff on the viability of that project. THE "ACTION" OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS NON -BINDING AND PURELY ADVISORY but is intended to help applicants know whether a project is worth pursuing and, if so, what issues need to be addressed. Some of the key outcomes/benefits of this process are: • Establishing whether the concept of the project, is consistent with county policies (comprehensive plan policy). For example: Is the land use, mix of uses, and impacts of the development acceptable for consideration, prior to focusing in on more design related is issues. Are there major hurdles that must be addressed during the rezoning? • Establishing whether there are "non -starter" issues that will make approval of any discretionary request unlikely (For example: Without improvements to Rio Road or the construction of Meadow Creek Parkway the PC and BoS would be reluctant to approve any project which adds more traffic to the existing Rio Road). • Provision of guidance on further work session steps and public input processes, issues. For example: Are there past public issues/concerns that might be relevant to the proposal; suggestions of organizations/groups/representatives contacts, etc. Similar to a reviews for compliance with the comprehensive plan that the County undertakes for public projects (2232 Reviews), the process is used to determines whether the general use(s) is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and allied plans and policies. The focus is on the land use issues (consistency of the proposed uses, or mix of uses and general scale of development). In compliance reviews, there are times when "conditions" are identified which qualify the action, settings conditions which address any shortcomings with the projects consistency with the Plan (example—Wachovia building on Fifth Street found in compliance with the recommendation that the County implement transit service to the area... Purpose The preliminary review is to identify: • Any major issues with the proposal as it relates to recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and allied planning documents/policies. • Public concerns with the proposed project. An informational meeting to inform the public and receive input may likely be necessary to achieve this. • Other issues related to this area of the County or this type of project that will make the proposal a "non -starter." These could be political issues (past example: like City/County agreement on Meadow Creek Parkway construction); timing issues related to planning processes (a major rezoning request in an area under some level comprehensive plan review — CPA, neighborhood plan, major transportation study, etc.). Information to be Provided by the Applicant • A brief narrative describing the project —specifically what are to goals of the project and how they see it relating this area of the community. For example what is the target market(s) for the development? What are the phasing/completion goals? • Plan of property/site identifying adjacent properties, existing topography and physical features shown on the County's Open Space Plan as well as existing structures/development (roads, major utilities); • Very general plan showing areas where development is proposed and where existing features are to be retained, desired access, general descriptions of the type and mix of uses, and densities of development (typical land use table showing the ranges of use types, mix, total sq. ft./or total units for each use type, etc.) • Graphic (schematic/conceptual examples) depiction of the general type and character of the building development —NOT for detailed evaluation of the design but to understand what the overall concept would look and "feel" like in terms of mix/intensity/density. For example, a plan might show a rough/conceptual street pattern and for one or two blocks show an example of lots may be platted. This could be supplemented with examples of possible building types that would help the reviewers understand what the scale/character of the project might look like. The graphics could be photos of other existing development that are example of what the applicant would like to pursue. IF the applicant has undertaken "front-end" site evaluations and design work, then: • Rough grading of the site to understand the impacts to the existing site/to be able to analyze the resulting character from developing the site. The level/detail of information is hard for me to describe right now. • Conceptual road layout showing proposed accesses points and interconnections. • General identification of open space and amenity areas as may be warranted by the development. Staff Analysis and Report Staff will provide as part of the report: • A general evaluation of the proposal's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. • An evaluation of how the area proposed for development relates, in particular, to any approved Master Plans, Master Plans under review, Area B studies, etc. • Information on known infrastructure and service deficiencies or issues that exist in the area and how they might relate to this proposal. • Public improvements called for in this general area and how they might relate to this proposal (Community Facilities Plan, CHART and other MPO studies, Greenway, Bike and Pedestrian/ Sidewalks plans and studies, CIP, Six Year Road Plans). • A general evaluation of the applicable neighborhood model principles (if in the Development Areas) and general direction of how they may need to be applied (such as general orientation of development, important interconnections to consider/provide.) • Identification of associated approvals that will be needed. For example, does the proposed use require special use permits in addition to a ZMA? Is the project in the Entrance Corridor or other Overlay Districts? • Relationship between the proposed development and natural resources on the site. For example, will the development (including grading that likely will be needed) impact resources shown on the Open - Space Plan such as streams, stream buffers, floodplain, critical slopes, wetlands, and other features? • Identification of transportation issues that will need to be addressed with a rezoning, such as interparcel connections and future traffic impact studies. • Identification of any on -site or nearby historical or archeologically important areas and their relative importance. Will additional studies be needed before decisions are made? • Identification of any impact important viewsheds which will need to be considered, such as the Monticello viewshed. • Other items which will be considered as part of a rezoning or special use permits. For example: a coffee roaster or bakery can generate smell concerns, a large group of lighted tennis courts can generate dark sky concerns, or a vehicle repair facility can generate aesthetic concerns. Process • Submittal is always on a Resubmittal Monday. • Approximately four (4) weeks from submittal, adjoining property owners will be notified of the CCP and the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. • Approximately five (5) weeks from submittal, a staff report is completed and provided to the applicant and Commission which covers the issues the applicant has requested be raised with the Commission as well as the items covered under "Purpose" above. • Approximately six (6) weeks from submittal, the project will be reviewed at the Planning Commission. • At the meeting, after receiving a staff presentation on the project, the Commission provides the applicant ten minutes to present his/her proposed project. The Commission will likely ask the applicant questions after the presentation to fully understand the nature of the request. • Public comment is solicited at the pre -application worksession to identify neighbors concerns that the applicant will want to address prior formal submittal of a project. • At present, there is no fee. The process is hoped to create efficiencies during a future ZMA review that should save both applicant and county money; thus, helping to recover initial costs. • One review with the Planning Commission is expected unless the project is highly complex and the applicant and Commission wish to pursue discussion further. • The staff report and minutes of the meeting will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their information (consent agenda -information item). No action is expected, but Board Members could pull in information from the consent agenda to discuss, or request that a Board of Supervisors work session be scheduled. Review of Requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments Requests for comprehensive plan amendments are reviewed at a higher level of policy than zoning map amendments which require a fair amount of detail. All CPA requests are reviewed as follows: A. Any proposed change in the Land Use Map will be evaluated for protection of the health, safety, and welfare of the general public rather than the proprietary interests of an individual. Issues of health, safety, and welfare generally relate to capacity of utilities, such as water and sewer, and infrastructure, such as roads to serve an area. The site is served by public water and sewer. Upgrades may be required depending on projected levels of use and will be determined with the review of construction plans. The level of traffic to be added to Berkmar Drive is not known at this time; however, VDOT has indicated that a traffic impact analysis will likely not be needed. The County Engineer has recommended the extension of Myers Drive to improve access in the area. VDOT has not recommended that Myers Drive be extended as a public road at this time. They have expressed concerns about parallel parking along Myers Drive, circulation within the Rio Hill Shopping Center and whether spacing of existing access points on Myers Drive can meet VDOT standards. Because of the number of unknowns, staff believes that further study of the need and appropriateness for an extension of Myers Drive from Route 29 to Berkmar should take place with the Small Area study. Rezoning plans and site plans should not foreclose on an opportunity for Myers Drive extension at this time. The proposed land use change has the ability to improve opportunities for future employment. Provision of an entrance to the Colonial Auto Center from Berkmar has a short term public benefit by providing an alternate route for customers and employees to access the site during the Rio Road/Route 29 intersection construction. B. The merit of Comprehensive Plan amendment requests shall be largely determined by the fulfillment of support to the "Goals and Objectives" specified in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports economic development expansions primarily in the Development Areas and in accord with the Neighborhood Model. As mentioned in the previous section the request supports economic development objectives of the plan. Important principles of the Neighborhood Model are a pedestrian orientation, intercon- nected streets and paths, employment centers in close proximity to housing, relegated parking, and buildings and spaces of human scale. The proposal would enlarge an employment center. It may provide additional opportunities for interconnecting streets, which should be studied with a Small Area Plan. In a rezoning, a sidewalk and streetscape improvements would be expected with development along the frontage of Berkmar. Provision of relegated parking and ways in which buildings address the street could be considered as part of a rezoning. The applicant should accommodate both short-term and long-term objectives when rezoning the property. construction in the near future will affect the frontage of Colonial Auto Center and cause the business to lose some inventory storage throughout the construction process. Expectations for Rezoning Plans, should the CPA be Approved Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 Orange Road Cv;p er Virginia 22701 August 22, 2017 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Elaine Echols Re: Albemarle -Charlottesville SPCA Expansion — Comprehensive Plan Compliance CCP-2017-00002 Review #1 Dear Ms. Echols: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Timmons Group, dated 16 July 2017, and offers the following comment. Concept Plan B, as proposed, may warrant improvements to the Route 659 entrance and/or approaches. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired please contact Justin Deel at (434) 422-9894. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Johnathan Newberry From: Margaret Maliszewski Sent: Friday, August 18, 2017 12:49 PM To: Johnathan Newberry Subject: Planning Application Review for CCP201700002 Ch'ville-Alb. SPCA Renovation & Expansion. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR) database shows one surveyed historic resource on the subject parcels. The survey was conducted in 1994 and identified a post-1900 wood frame residence (on parcel 45-86A) which VDHR staff considered ineligible for listing in the registers. There are, however, a number of surveyed resources in the vicinity of the subject parcels, and these include archaeological sites and one or more cemeteries. It is possible that additional archaeological sites could be found on the subject parcels. Phase 1 archaeological work may be warranted in areas of proposed disturbance. The Review for the following application has been completed: Application Number = CCP201700002 Reviewer = Margaret Maliszewski Review Status = See Recommendations Completed Date = 08/18/2017 This email was sent from County View Production. Johnathan Newberry From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 5:10 PM To: Johnathan Newberry Subject: FW: SPCA CCP From: Kevin McDermott Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2017 4:12 PM To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>; Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: SPCA CCP I spoke with Ms. Leckner on this today and have a better understanding on what is happening with the 3 parcels ACSPCA used to own and are trying to buy back. There is only one parcel that was not formerly SPCA's and it was previously Faulconers and directly north of the formerly SPCA parcels. They still have right of first refusal on it. If they do not want it all 4 properties will be auctioned together and SPCA will have no chance to acquire them because they will be way to expensive for them. Even if Faulconer takes back their parcel it very likely SPCA will not be able to afford to purchase the other 3 back. That takes the Concept B included in the submittal basically off the table. VDOT has spoken with SPCA on instead doing a land swap so that VDOT could acquire the small parcel still owned by SPCA that fronts Woodburn in exchange for a small portion of 45-86A0. This would allow them to build what as shown in the submittal as Concept A and VDOT could then auction off a contiguous group of parcels along Woodburn. I hope that clears up any of the confusion on this. Kevin From: Elaine Echols Sent: Friday, August 11, 2017 4:31 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkensteinPalbemarle.org>; Kevin McDermott<kmcdermott@albemarle.ora> Subject: FW: SPCA CCP From: U Lopez[mailto:llopez@milestonepartners.col Sent: Friday, July 28, 2017 1:09 PM To: Elaine Echols <EECHO LS@albemarle.ora> Cc: Ellie Ray <eray@milestonepartners.co> Subject: Re: SPCA CCP Elaine: Please find attached a Letter of Acknowledgement from VDOT. ell U Lopez milestone partners 434.245.5803 T Elaine Elaine K. Echols, Fmcp Chief of Planning Albemarle County Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 434-296-5823 x 3252 SPCA --Yp U4 Z4,11- S►° m vW�- Q -�LiiL LCu ' , as k Q ®l '41 , .40 a Yr,C3 +. �� j I• 1 II II Ij i Johnathan Newberry From: Elaine Echols Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 10:13 AM To: Ellie Ray; Johnathan Newberry Cc: Rachel Falkenstein; U Lopez; David Fox Subject: RE: Comp Plan Amendment Question Yes, on the CASPCA as a location. Yes, we can provide a list of owners and emails for the CAC members. While this is not a "required community meeting" at this time, you may want to touch base with your BOS and PC members to let them know and see if they want to come. Thanks. Elaine From: Ellie Ray[mailto:eray@milestonepartners.coj Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 9:34 AM To: Johnathan Newberry <jnewberry@albemarle.org> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; U Lopez <Ilopez@milestonepartners.co>; David Fox <dfox@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question JT, The CASPCA would like to hold a community meeting. Since the Places29-Rio CAC isn't meeting in August, is it appropriate for them to hold the meeting at the CASPCA itself? That way they could offer a tour of the outdoor areas that will be impacted. Does the County provide the list of adjoining owners that need to be invited? Depending on what date this goes to the PC, this meeting could need to happen in the next couple of weeks, so we'd like to get moving on this as soon as we can. Thanks, Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners 434.270.8771 T 434.760.3752 C From: Ellie Ray<erav@milestonepartners.co> Date: Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 3:33 PM To: Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org>,1T Newberry <inewberrv@albemarle.org> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>, U Lopez <Ilopez@milestonepartners.co>, David Fox <dfoxC@albemarle.org> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question Sounds good. Just as a FYI, she had said she didn't see any reason why it couldn't go on the 22n", but that if for some reason it couldn't, then the 51h would be the latest. Otherwise, it's a pointless exercise if we can't get to the PC prior to the CPA application deadline. Let us know what you come up with. Thanks, <dfox@albemarle.org> Subject: RE: Comp Plan Amendment Question Hi Ellie, Yes, your application is being processed. There are two different routes that can be followed. The first is to hold a community meeting and explain the proposed project and what and why you are getting input from the PC. The second would be for us to notify adjoining owners of the work session and they get all of their info at the work session. I think I would recommend the former, since this wouldn't get to the PC until Sept. If you want to have a community meeting, please coordinate with JT as to a date, time, and location. Most of the CACs are not meeting in August. Elaine From: Ellie Ray [mailto:erav@milestonepartners.col Sent: Monday, July 31, 2017 1:30 PM To: Johnathan Newberry <inewberrv@albemarle.org>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>; U Lopez <Ilopez@milestonepartners.co> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question Hi All, As I understand it, our application is being processed. Can one of you answer the question below about neighbor notification? Do neighbors get notified? If so, when? Thanks, Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners 434.270.8771 T 434.760.3752 C From: Ellie Ray <erav@milestonepartners.co> Date: Monday, July 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM To: JT Newberry <inewberrv@albemarle.org>, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org>, U Lopez <Ilopez@milestonepartners.co> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question We just dropped off the application. We have a good contact at VDOT that is working on getting us an authorization letter, which we should have in the next day or two. We will forward it along as soon as we receive it. The application didn't list a number of copies, so we only submitted one copy of our narrative and exhibits. I have attached PDFs, or we're happy to print more and drop them if needed, just let me know how many. The application mentions adjacent neighbor notification; once this gets assigned, will we know when the notification gets sent out? Please let me know if you need anything additional from me. Thanks, Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners To: Ellie Ray <erav@milestonepartners.co> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein albemarle. -rz>, Elaine Echols <EECHOLSPalbemarle.org> Subject: RE: Comp Plan Amendment Question Yes, that sounds reasonable. Elaine or Rachel may have more to add, but here are a few additional things to consider as you complete the application: 1. Although the plan can be conceptual, it would be very helpful to at least identify an approximate "limits of disturbance" for the proposal. a. One of our questions to the Planning Commission will ask whether or not they agree with our assessment of when a CPA is needed. Rachel's 7/11 email explains that we can see a scenario where a ZMA/SP could move forward without a CPA if only a portion of TMP 45-86A and 45-88 would be impacted by the proposal (and, as a result, the expansion would not prevent future opportunities for the majority of those parcels to develop residential uses consistent with how they are currently designated in the Comp Plan). So, highlighting the extent to which these properties would be impacted will be important. 2. If the VDOT property is going to be included in the request, then we will need some documentation that they are aware of the proposal and do not object to it being studied for a future request. a. I can give you more background on this requirement if you want, but the property owner came to the last work session in April and objected to the request. 3. Do you have any specific questions that you would like the PC to consider? Your own list of questions can be included in your application. Thanks, J.T. From: Ellie Ray[mailto:erav@milestonepartners.co] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2017 3:33 PM To:Johnathan Newberry<Inewberry@albemarle.org> Cc: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.ore>; Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.Dre> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question Hey 1.T., Thanks for the follow-up. Our goal is to try to get the CCP/Pre-application work -session application submitted Monday. There will still be some unknowns from our end, in particular whether or not the SPCA will in fact attempt to purchase the VDOT parcel, but we'll include that parcel for review to make sure it's covered. We should know by the time of the work -session whether or not that parcel is of sufficient benefit and if the SPCA can negotiate a purchase. Given that, we also do not have a concrete plan, as the layout could change depending on the VDOT parcel. Our application will likely be fairly conceptual, discussing the use in general and not specifics about where each element might be located. I figure that's for the ZMA/SP process anyway. Does this sound reasonable? Thanks, Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners 434.270.8771 T 434.760.3752 C opinion than staff. For this reason, we do still feel that a preapplication work session with the PC would be a good idea because it could give your client the level of comfort they would need to move forward (with or without the CPA depending on what is proposed). The last thing I wanted to mention is that JT brought up the question of whether or not this would be considered a "public use" because it serves as the animal shelter for both the City and the County. Unfortunately, we won't be able to answer this question before your meeting with the client. But we plan to check in with zoning and legal on Thursday and hopefully can let you know by the end of the week. If the SPCA were considered a public use then they would not need a rezoning or SP because public uses are by right in both zoning districts. The process for approval of the public use is a compliance with the Comp Plan review —which is an identical process to the preapplication work session. Sorry for the long email. If you have any questions on this, feel free to give me a call tomorrow. I should be around in the morning. Thanks, Rachel From: Ellie Ray[mailto:eray@milestoneoartners.col Sent: Monday, July 10, 2017 12:02 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkensteinc@albemarle.ora> Cc: Johnathan Newberry <inewberry@albemarle.ora> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question It just occurred to me that we have a meeting with the SPCA on Wednesday... if there is any possible way to get us additional information before then, that would be awesome. I know if may be difficult, but it would be great if you could. Hope all is well, Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners 434.270.8771 T 434,760.3752 C From: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 at 10:09 AM To: Ellie Ray <eray@milestonepartners.co> Cc: JT Newberry <Inewberry@albemarle.ore> Subject: RE: Comp Plan Amendment Question Hi Ellie, I just wanted to touch base and let you know that 1T and I haven't forgotten about this. Our intention has been to talk to Elaine to see if she is familiar with the history and reasoning behind why this area is designated as urban density residential in Places29 to see if there might be some justification for changing the designation (or also to see if this use might be allowable on a portion of 45-86A without a comp plan amendment, since the existing building is already here...). Last week Elaine's son's appendix ruptured and he has not been doing well, so she has been out of the office. We will try to follow up with David this week to get his thoughts as well. From: Ellie Ray [mailto:erav@milestonepartners.col Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:26 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.ore> Subject: Re: Comp Plan Amendment Question Thanks. So, if we were to submit a CPA, ZMA and SP... how would the timing of applications work to get all applications to vote at the same time? I see the CPA deadline is 9/11 but the closest ZMA/SP submittal is 9/18. Sorry if this is a silly question, but it looks like the CPA process is kind of open-ended (not timelines provided online). I'm trying to put together an informed timeline for our clients and I want to make sure I'm considering all the various submittal deadlines and timelines. I think I told you this on the phone, but this would be for expansion and renovation of the SPCA parcels on Berkmar. They may move forward with just a SP amendment for their current parcel and a SP for stand-alone parking on the adjacent parcel, but it may be more prudent to attempt to get all their ducks in a row to rezone the adjacent parcel (and perhaps the parcel behind them, if they decide to purchase it) and expand their SP to those parcel(s) and reflect their entire Master Plan versus a piecemeal approach. By the way, JT is who attended the pre-app meeting so feel free to forward this to him if he is the better person to answer, I just thought you might know more about the CPA process. Thanks for your help! Ellie Ray, PLA milestone partners 434.270.8771 T 434.760.3752 C From: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Date: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 at 8:41 AM To: Ellie Ray <eray@milestonepartners.co> Subject: RE: Comp Plan Amendment Question Yes — we only accept these twice a year. From: Ellie Ray [mailto:erav@milestonepartners.co] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 5:04 PM To: Rachel Falkenstein <rfalkenstein@albemarle.org> Subject: Comp Plan Amendment Question Is it true that the next submittal date for a comp plan amendment is 9/11? Thanks, Ellie Ray, PLA stone m COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Dept. of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5823 January 18, 1989 )2d-n soiut 6n 2Op(9 Faulconer Construction Company 106 Whitewood Road Sachem Village, Suite 1 Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: ZMA-88-21 Faulconer Construction Company Dear Sir: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 17, 1989, accepted without prejudice, your request for indefinite deferral of the above -noted petition. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, � Ronald S. Keeler Chief of Planning RSK/jcw cc: Lettie E. Neher E!!NM 9/5/2017 SPCA Pre -Application Work Session CCP201700002 Albemarle County Planning Commission September 5, 2017 Purpose Provide guidance on future ZMA and SP for planned expansion of the Charlottesville -Albemarle SPCA (CASPCA). The CASPCA is a non-profit animal shelter that provides contracted "pound" services for both the City and the County. In this capacity, they work with County Animal Control Officers to accept seized, stray, homeless, abandoned, unwanted or surrendered animals. Proposal -L'4 w-c 4- ��.yn�(X'Y1 i I �{ 64iA W S sQ u,Qm-�c ht,y✓ g . P.*•< ; �g v 9/s/2ov Discussion Questions 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Voluntary Limitations on Proposed Rezoning 3. Waivers (Special Exceptions) 4. Neighborhood Model Principles Discussion Question #1 Should a CPA be required for the proposed use on Parcel 88? If so, what will be the most important elements of the CPA review? Discussion Question #2 If the applicant request a rezoning, should uses be limited to those that would not conflict with a nearby residential use?