HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-07-10 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 10, 2002
July 15, 2002
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
6:00 P.M. - Meeting Room 241
1. Call to order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
None.
5.1 Approval of Minutes. APPROVED minutes of 5/1/02 and
5/15/02, pgs 1-15.
6. SP-2002-005. Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Sign
#76). APPROVED wi5 conditions recommended by the PC
and one added by the BOS. (Note: Perkins absent; Rocker
excused himself due to a potential conflict of interest.)
7. Appeal: Denial of critical slope waiver request for SP-2002-05 -
Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, OVERTURNED
PC denial of critical slope waiver request. (Note: Perkins
absent.)
8. SP-2002-017. Marks Construction (Sign #37). APPROVED wi6
conditions recommended by PC. (Note: Perkins absent.)
9. SP-2002-019. Clifton Inn Amendment- Expanding Seating
(Signs #21&22). DEFERRED until 9/11/02.) (Note: Perkins
absent.)
10. SP-2002-020. Pine Crest Orchids Amendment (Signs #38&39).
(Note: Perkins absent.) APPROVED w/3 conditions
recommend by PC. (Note: Perkins abstained.)
11. ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate Apartments (Sign #69).
APPROVED w/proffers.
12. Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District. ADOPTED
ORDINANCE renewing the Blue Run District for a ten (10)-
year period.
13. CPA-2001-01 Neighborhood Model Amendments to the Land
Use Plan (deferred from July 3, 2002). APPROVED as
presented.
14.
Appointments.' APPOINTED Lisa Dockery-Boyce (term to run
from 7/1/02 - 6/30/05) and Rob Jiranek (to complete Bunch's
term to expire 6/30/04) to the Jefferson Area Bicycle and
Walking Committee Citizens Advisory Committee.
15. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda:
· The Board extended the deadline for ACE applications
from 8/1/02 to 9tl/02.
Sally Thomas
· Mentioned that the Hispanic community is raising funds to
be used to return to Mexico the body of a man who
drowned recently at Chris Greene Lake.
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the
Chairman, Sally Thomas. BOS members present:
Bowerman, Dorrier, Martin, Perkins (arrived at 7:00
p.m.), Rocker, and Thomas. Officers/staff: Tucker,
Davis, Cilimberg, Bentley.
Deputy Clerk: List conditions.
(Attachment A)
Deputy Clerk: List conditions.
(Attachment A)
Clerk: Add to 9/11/02 agenda.
Deputy Clerk: List conditions.
(Attachment A)
Deputy Clerk: List proffers.
(Attachment B)
Deputy Clerk:Attach Ordinance.
(Attachment C)
Send letters of appreciation to property owners
who have placed property in the district.
Planninq Department: Present timeline to BOs at
8/7~02 meeting.
Deputy Clerk: Notify appointees. Update
Boards/Commissions records.
Mentioned a letter the Board received from Mayor Cox
outlining his goals as newly appointed Mayor of
Charlottesville.
15. Adjourn at 7:30.
Clerk: Provide copy of Mayor Cox's letter to
Mr. Tucker.
Attach ment A
CONDITIONS
SP-02-05 Albemarle Nursinq & Rehabilitation Center
Maximum capacity shall be one hundred-twenty (120) beds, with a maximum of thirty-five
(35) regular staff. Any increase to capacity or staffing shall require amendment of this special
permit;
The approved final site plan shall be in genera accord with the Albemarle Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center Site (Concept) Plan (dated June 2, 2002), Architectural Elevations
(dated June 4, 2002), and Sections/Elevation (dated June 7, 2002). This accord with the
above-cited documents is of particular importance in the following areas: the elevation
difference between the sidewalk and finished floor (shall not increase), location and nature of
stormwater BMP facilities (shall remain essentially the same), distance between the nursing
and rehabilitation center structure and Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place (this distance shall
not increase), and three-to-one (3-1) slope between the building wall and sidewalk along
Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place (shall not increase in steepness);
The application shall be responsible for constructing sidewalks along the property frontage on
Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place. Along with frontage ~mprovements on Greenbrier Drive,
adequate spacing for bike lanes and a bus pull-out at the existing bus-stop location or as
specified by Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) shall be provided;
The final site plan shall include a pedestrian path or sidewalk connecting the public sidewalk
on Pepsi Place to the entry at the south side of the building;
The nursing and rehabilitation center shall be operated in accord with the Specia Use Permit
justification ("LPDA Application for Special Use Permit, Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center") dated January 22, 2002; and,
The final site plan shall include enhanced stormwater facilities which shall include facilities for
enhanced on-site stormwater detention capacity, enhanced on-site drainage facilities, and
porous pavement parking lot improvements, all subject to the acceptance and approval by
the Director of Engineering.
SP-02-17 Marks Construction
There shall be no on-site sales;
There shall be no outdoor storage of materials;
Ali solvents/paints shall be disposed of, in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste
regulations;
All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated workshop;
The workshop shall not exceed 1,152 square feet: as shown on Attachment A (on file in
Clerk's office); and,
The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance for this use within sixty (60) days of approval
or this special use permit shall expire.
SP-2002-020 Pine Crest Orchids Amendment
The entrance to the parcel containing this home occupation, Tax Map 61A, Parcel 14, along
Route 631 (Rio Rd) shall remain permanently closed;
The home occupation shall be limited to the greenhouses and the retail area, and shall not
exceed three thousand-five hundred (3,500) square feet; and,
The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Saturday.
3
Attachment B
PROFFERS
ZMA-2001-021. Carriage Gate Apartments
Development of the property shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled,
"Rezoning Application Plans for Cardage Gate Apartments" (herein referred to as the
"Application Plan"), dated December 17, 2001, and last revised June 3, 2002. Residentia
buildings, parking areas, and the recreational area are identified as essential features for the
purpose of being in general accord;
Architectural features of the building shall be consisten[ with the elevations entitled, "Carriage
Gate Apartments Elevations", "Right Elevation (Left Elevation Mirror Image)", "Front
Elevation", and "Rear Elevation", prepared by Keeney and Co. Architects, dated May 28,
2002. "Architectural features" means building forms and elements, including roofs, windows,
door, materials, colors, textures, and scale;
The owner shall install screening materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and
Community Development for the entire length of the southern property line that adjoins
school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning and Community
Development around the stormwater facility. Installation of the screening shall occur prior to
the issue of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings or shall be bonded. Installation
of the fence shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate occupancy for any of the
buildings;
The pedestrian path shown on the Application Plan on the southern boundary of the property
creating access to the school grounds shall have a five (5)-foot wide mulched surface and a
ten (10)-foot wide clear zone on either side of the mulch path for safety and visibility. The
installation of the pathway shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for any of the buildings; and
The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County of Albemarle, a twenty
(20)-foot right of way, as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension of
Woodbrook drive to Tax Map 45, Parcel 90.
AttaChment C
ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO. 02'3(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE
SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the BOard of Supervisors of the CoUnty of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II,
Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestai Districts, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE I1. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The distdct known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestai District" consists of
the following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C,
26D, 28A, 29, 31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcelS 4A5, 24;
tax map 50, parcels 5, 5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district,
created on June 18, 1986 for not more than 8 years, since amended at its last review on
July 10, 2002 to continue for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to
July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01; Ord.
02-3(3), 7-10-02)
I, Ella W. Carey, 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 10, 2002.
Aye
Mr. Bowerman x
Ms. Dorrier x
Mr. Martin x
Mr. Perkins x
Mr. Rooker .x.
Ms. Thomas x
Nay
Clerk, Board of County Sup~wisors
5
T~. Members, Board of Supervisors
From: EJla Washington Carey, CMC, Clerk
Subject~ Reading List for July I0, 2002
Date: July 8, 2002
February 6, 2002
May I, 2002
May 15, 2002
Pages I- 27 (end with Item #12) - Ms. Thomas
Pages I - 16 (end #7) - Mr. Domer
Pages 16 (begin #7) - end- Mr. Perkins
Pages I - I5 (end # I I) - Mr. Bowerman
Pages 15 (be~n # I I) - end - Mr. Martin
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT READ
THEM.
/ewc
Laurie Bentley
To:
Subject:
Marsha Davis
RE: SP-02-05 Condition
Thanks. That's very helpful.
.... originar
Front;. Harsha Davis
~nt: 'Thursday, 3uly I1, 2002 10:01 ~
TO~ Laude 6enfley
Subject:. SP-02-05 Condition
Laurie,~ Larry asked that I send you the above from last night's BOS meeting:
(6) The final site plan shall include enhanced stormwater facilities which shall include facilities for enhanced on-site
stormwater detention capacity, enhanced on-site drainage facilities, and porous pavement parking lot improvements,
all subject to the acceptance and approval by the Director of Engineering.
Marsha A. Davis
Legal Services Assistant
Albemarle County Attorney's
Office
(434) 972-4067
mdavisO2@albemarle, org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road. Room 218
. Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 -4012
June 27,2002
Bill Mechnick, ASIA
310 East Main Street, Suite 200
Charlottesville. VA 22902
RE: SP-02-05 Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center; Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Parcel 2
Dear Mr. Mechnick: .
The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on June 18 2002, by a vote of 3:2
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. The Commission
expressed concerns over the fact that the proposal is not the most effective way to develop the site due to
the proposed size of the building and the nature of the site. The following are some of the concerns
expressed by the Commission:
The critical slope issue would be resolved.or reduced if the building footprint were smaller.
The retaining wall is required because of the footprint of the one-story building design.
Excessive parking is proposed by the applicant (request is twice what is required by the Zoning
Ordinance).
The increase in storm water drainage to Meadow Creek add to existing drainage problems within
the area and stems from the very large amount of impervious cover on-site.
Please be advised that the Albemarle .County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting July 10, 2002. This meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. Meeting Room,
#241. Second Floor. County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application
must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
The critical slopes waiver was also denied, by a vote of 3:2.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Senior Planner
06-28-02P05:03 RCVL)
Cc: Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE:
SUSAN THOMAS, AICP
JUNE 18, 2002
JULY 10, 2002
SP 2002-005 ALBEMARI,E NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER
Applicant's Prooosal;
Smith Packet Med-Com, Inc., applicant, proposes to construct a 120-bed nursing and
rehabilitation center on the southwestern corner of the'Greenbrier Drive/Pepsi Place intersection
(see Attachments A and B). This facility is intended to assist elderly patients with the transition
from hospital to home, or to another residential facility. The western wing will be designed to
serve dementia patients. During peak operating hours, it will have 35 staff members. Visiting
therapists will' come to the facility to work with patients on an as-need6d basis· As a result of the
purpose of the facility, few residents drive. (see Attachment C)
Petition fgr Special Use Permit:
Request for special use permit to allow an elderly care facility in accordance with Sections
22.2.2.6 and 18.2.2.9 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for nursing homes. The property,
described as Tax Map 61W Section 2 Parcel 2 (portion), contains 5.566 acres, and is located in
the Rio Magisterial District on the south side of Greenbrier Drive [Route 866] at the intersection
of Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place [Route 1340]. The property is zoned C-I, Commercial, and
may be zoned EC, Entrance Corridor. (see Attachment D, memorandum from Design
Planner)The Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Community Service in
Neighborhood Two.
A waiver to allow grading on critical slopes in accordance with Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance is also requested by the applicant. (see Attachment'E)
Character of the Area:
This sub-area within Neighborhood Two has become a center of housing, medical and social
services for the senior community. North of the proposed site across Greenbrier Drive is the
Rosewood Village assisted living facility. To the eagt across Pepsi Place is the Senior Center,
and beyond it lie other independent and assisted living complexes, which also continue north
along Hillsdale Drive. To the west and south are an assortment of commercial (gas station, car
· dealership), industrial (Pepsi-Cola bottling plant), and institutional (Main Post Office) uses.
The nursing.and rehab center is proposed for the northern portion of the parcel, approximately
3.59 acres. The applicant has indicated that the owner intends to develop the remainder of the
parcel as a commercial office use. Because the office building would share an entrance and
stormwater facilities with the nursing and rehab center, a concept plan including both properties
has been submitted, primarily as information (see Attachment F). The office building is a by-
right use and thus not a part of this special permit review. It is anticipated that a prel!mina~ site
plan application addressing both uses will be submitted in the near future.
Applicant's Justification for the Request:
In conversation with staff, the applicant has asserted that there is a need for a transitional facility
where patients can receive individual therapy before returning home or to a nursing home. The
Virginia Department of Health has approved the certification of public need and demand for a
120-bed facility in this area.
RecommendatiOn:
Staff believes that the proposed nursing and rehabilitation center is appropriate for the site and
the area, and will not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties. With conditions, the
proposed center can substantially meet the intent of the principles of the Comprehensive Plan
Neighborhood Two Recommendations and the Neighborhood Model. Therefore, staff
recommends approval with conditions.
Zonin~l and Subdivision History:
None available.
Comprehensive Plan:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Community Service in Neighborhood Two.
Zoning is C-I, Commercial. The intent of the C-1 dis~ct is: "to permit selected retail sales,
service and public use establishments, which are primarily oriented to ten, al business
concentrations..." A nursing home is allowed in a C-1 district, by special permit.
The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan makes the following recommendations relevant
to this request:
Provide bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with all major road improvements in
the area;
Maintain a wooded buffer between the Community/Regional Service located on Ronte 29
and the adjacent residential developments.
The Neiqhborhood Model:
Twelve principles of development are set forth in the Neighborhood Model. A staff analysis of
the manner in which this development proposal addresses each principle is included below.
Pedestrian Orientation - As proposed, development of the site would include sidewalks along
the full extent of the parcel on both Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place. To the west a steep hill
and existing trees separate the nursing and rehab center from a gas station and car dealership
located on Route 29. Although interparcel pedestrian (and vehicle) connections are often
desirable, in this case the benefit of linking these disparate uses may not justify the cost, when
there is a public sidewalk available and the walking distance is not long. Thus, the applicant is
not proposing, and staff is not advising, that these direct connections between parcels should be
made by this project,
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths As shown on the concept plan, trees along the
public street frontage break up the mass of the building somewhat and make the public
pedestrian environment more inviting. The trees within the parking area shade and improve the
appearance of the surface parking lot. There appears to be efficient and safe traffic flow for drop-
off, walk-in and staff parking purposes. Staff recommends that a walkway from the sidewalk to
the entry on the south side of the building be added to the concept plan, for better pedestrian
access.
The applicant's plan includes construction ora bike lane along Greenbrier Drive, called for in the
County Bikeways Pl. an (as a component of any major road improvements), as well as a bus pull-
out at the current bus stop location on Greenbrier. The shared vehicular access between this use
and the proposed by-right office use is located across from the entrance to the Senior Center, on
Pepsi Place.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - Other than the shared entrance on
Pepsi Place, the topography and established land use in the immediate area make interparcel
connections somewhat difficult to achieve. On the west side of the parcel lies a slope of varying
steepness, steeper to the north than south and currently tree covered. (This slope, and in fact the
flat portion of the parcel on which the nursing center is proposed, were created when the area
was rough graded for construction of the bottling plant.) If approved as proposed, the nursing
and rehab center would back up to a retaining wall varying between 1 foot and 18 feet in height,
with a portion ofthe original stand of trees remaining behind it. (The tree cover is
recommended for retention in the Land Use Plan as a buffer between Route 29 commercial and
the residential development to the East.) The slope and trees complicate the connections on that
side of the parcel, and the relationship between gas station/car dealership and nursing
center/office building does not seem to be a necessary one, anyway. The public side~valk on
both frontages of the building offers a usable alternative to connecting at the rear of the parcel.
It may be desirable to connect both ultimate uses on the site with a path, although the public
sidewalk provides a convenient alternative.
The CHART (Charlottesville Area Regional Transportation Plan) 2025 Update calls for a study
of Hillsdale Drive Extended, which would connect the existing southern terminus of Hillsdale
Drive' with Seminole Square Shopping Center. Pepsi Place is one alternative for making this
link. (Extending Hillsdale Drive along Meadow Creek is another alternative.) If this extension
were to follow Pepsi Place, the sidewalk system created along Greenbrier and Pepsi Place
through development of this site would be important because of the heavy pedestrian use ·
anticipated.
Parks and Open Space - The nursing center is a large structure relative to the size of the
portion of the parcel allocated for its use. As a result, area available for open space on the site
tends to follow the perimeter of the building in a circular fashion. There is a small amount of
open space on the Western tip of the parcel, and two internal courtyards. From staffs discussions
with the applicant, it appears that patients Who regain mobility move home or to another type of
facility and thus open space is unlikely to be used as it might in most complexes of this type that
are residential. The internal courtyards are designed to provide dementia patients with a safe and
familiar environment. Thus, although staff acknowledges that the' building is large for the size of
the site, given its.use the open space appears to be adeqUate for'creating an attractive
environment.
Neighborhood Centers - This facility joins others in the Hillsdale Drive/Branchlands/
Greenbrier area in relating to the Senior Center as a Neighborhood Center. One might also
consider.the commercial uses in the Branchlands P.U.D. as the center. The site makes an
effective transition from an established area of very intense activity to the west along Route .29,
to the much lower level of activity associated with the senior housing and services along the
eastern portio, n of Greenbrier, Branchlands, and Mill Park Drives. The public sidewalk enhances
the community connections within the neighborhood.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - The applicant's original concept plan showed a
"finned" structure with parking positioned to the north, east and south sides, between the
sidewalk and building on every public exposure. It also incorporated two vehicular entrances, on
both Greenbrier and Pepsi Place. In cooperation with staffs comments and requests, the
applicant has worked to pull the building closer to the street, consolidate and relegate the parking
(fi:om Pepsi Place) at the south side, and create a facade that connects in a more positive fashion
to the walking and driving public.
As designed, the building isa one-story, brick structure, with finished slopes created between the
sidewalk and building foundation that do not exceed 3 to 1 at the steepest point (comer of
Greenbrier and Pepsi' Place). As a result of the existing slope and the need to accommodate
stormwater management on site, the applicant's concept plan shows the building foundation
sitting approximately 10 feet higher than the adjacent sidewalk. Staff has recommended in the
Conditions that this elevation difference should not be allowed to increase; in fact, if during the
site plan phase measures can be taken to decrease the difference, it may be worth trading off a
slight increase in the height of the retaining wail. (see Attachments F,G and H)
Relegated Parking - As mentioned above, parking has been cOnsolidated and located away
from the side of greatest public exposure [Greenbrier Drive]: The shape of the parcel and
presence of the steep slop.e at the rear makes relegating parking behind the building difficult.
The applicant's plan shows substantially more parking than required (52 versus 30 spaces); the.
applicant has indicated to staff that this is necessary to accommodate visiting therapists in
addition to regular staff, depending on patients' needs at any given time.
Mixture of Uses - The proposed development is for a nursing and rehabilitation facility, and as
such, there is no mixture of uses. The center may add a specific type of service to the senior
services mix in the area that is not presently represented.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - No housing is proposed for the development,
although the center might be considered as a specialized type of residential use.
Redevelopment - There are no existing structures on the site; therefore, redevelopment is not a
criterion for assessment.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain -The applicant's plan calls for disturbance of the critical
slopes located to the back (west) of the parcel, thus necessitating the granting of a waiver by the
Commission. Although staffs fimdamental preference would be to avoid the need for
constructing the retaining wall by leaving the slope undisturbed, given the elongated shape and
"hook" to the parcel, the available building area would be likely to shrink to the point where the
site could no longer accommodate both uses as currently intended. As an alternative, a two-story
structure might achieve the same 120-bed capacity with a smaller footprint; however, the
applicant has indicated that it is committed to an operating plan based on a one-level facility.
Another factor in considering the slope waiver is the role the retaining wall plays in. bringing the
building elevation down to a more human scale at the street.
A lower level of development - the nursing and rehabilitation use occupying the entire.site, for
example - might leave the slope intact. In staffs opinion, however, this site is appropriate for a
fairly intensive development approach, for several reasons: it is centrally located Within a
similarly developed part of the neighborhood; it has good street access; it can relate effectively to
both adjacent uses (senior services and office); and offers pedestrian transit and vehicular access
opportunities. Staff notes that even with the exposed aspect of the site, the visual impact of the
retaining wall is mi. tigated by the placement of the building itself, and thus staff supports
granting of the waiver. The slope disturbance does not appear to be as significant as the loss of
some existing trees.
4
This project satisfies the above-referenced criteria from Section 5, Supplementary Regulations.
and with the public health, sa_feW and general welfare.
This project will not adversely impact the public health, safety or general welfare. Traffic is
probably the area of most concern in terms of public safety, although it is not anticipated.that this
particular use will generate high traffic volumes in comparison with other uses in the area.
VDOT comments are included as Attachment J.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION:
Neighborhood Model:
The nursing and rehabilitation center application most strongly incorporates (to varying degrees)
the following principles:
· Pedestrian Orientation
· Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
· Interconnected Streets and Paths
· Neighborhood Centers
· Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale
· Relegated Parking
The center's application does not strongly reflect the following principles:
· Mixture of Uses [it is a single use]
· Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability [center's patient acceptance and fee policy may
address this principle]
· Site Planning that Respects Terrain [slope is disturbed]
The following principles do not apply to the proposed use:
· Redevelopment
· Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
As previously mentioned, certain institutions and specialized uses often have characteristics
which make it difficult, if not impossible, for them to fully meet the expectations of the
Neighborhood Model. The nursing and rehabilitation center and its commitment to a standard
building configuration and operating plan are an exampl.e of such a use. In view of these
"institutional" factors, and the fact that it may be unrealistic to expect that alt twelve Principles
are reflected in the design of every site, staff finds that the size of the building and its consequent
impact on site planning represent the proposal's most serious weakness relative to the
Neighborhood Model. In staffs opinion this weakness is outweighed by the other positive
factors outlined above.
Engineering staff has reviewed the concept plan to verify that stormwater management can be
achieved on-site, given the size and configuration of the structures. Based on topography and
drainage patterns, the nursing center portion of the parcel is expected to provide the BMP
facilities for the entire site. It appears that stormwater requirements can be met. (see Attachment
I)
Clear Edges - The parcel is located well within the Development Area boundary; and therefore,
keeping a clear edge is not a criterion for assessment..
Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits_for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a_finding bY the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be qf substantial detriment to
adjacent proper~_ ,
In staff's opinion, the proposed nursing and rehabilitation center will not be detrimental to
adjacent property and the neighborhood, and in fact may offer services not presently available. It
will not generate significant traffic or noise. Due to its relatively large size, it may serve as a
physical barrier between areas of higher and lower intensity (Route 29 versus Branchlands).
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This use is consistent with existing uses in the district and Will not negatiVely impact its
character.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The nursing and rehabilitation use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the
ordinance, and fits well within the established neighborhood.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed facility is not anticipated to negatively impact any other uses in the district.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance,
Section 5.0-regulations address this use as follows:
5.t.13 REST HOME, NURSING HOME, CONVALESCENT HOME, ORPHAGE
a. Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are compatible
to the particular area;
b. NO such use shall be established in any area either by right or by special use permit until
the Albemarle County fire office has determined that adequate fire protection is available
to such use;
c. Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response time to
emergency medical and fire protection facilities; Uses for the elderly and handicapped
should be convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses;
d. No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such
agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and
other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a
particular case.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Maximum capacity shall be 120 beds, with a maximum of 35 regular staff. Any increase to
capacity or staffing shall require amendment of this special permit;
2. The approved f'mal site plan shall be in general accord with the Albemarle Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center Site [Concept] Plan (dated June 2, 2002, Architectural Elevations
(dated June 4, 2002), and Sections/Elevation (dated June 7, 2002). This accord with the
above-cited documents is of particular importance in the following areas: the elevation
difference between the sidewalk and finished floor (shall not increase), location and nature of
stormwater BMP facilities (shall remain essentially the same), distance between the nursing
and rehabilitation center structure and Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi ?lace (this distance shall
not increase), and 3 to 1 slope between the building wall and sidewalk along Greenbrier
Drive and Pepsi Place (shall not increase in steepness.).
3. The applicant shall be responsible for constructing sidewalks along the property frontage on
Greenbrier Drive and Pepsi Place. Along with frontage improvements on Greenbrier Drive,
adequate spacing for bike lanes and a bus pull-out at the existing bus-stop location or as
specified by Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) shall be provided;
4. The final site plan shall include a pedestrian path or sidewalk connecting the public sidewalk
on Pepsi Place to the entry at the south side of the building;
5. The nursing and rehabilitation center shall be operated in accord with the Special Use Permit
justification CLPDA Application for Special Use Permit, Albemarle Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center") dated January 22, 2002.
Staff recommends approval of the waiver to allow grading on' critical slopes at the rear of the
site.
Please note that the applicant is required to receive zoning clearance before the use as a nursing
and rehabilitation center commences.
Attachments:
A - Vicinity Map
B - Area Map
C - ApplicaLnt's Justification
D - Memorandum from Design Planner
E - Critical Slope Waiver Request
F - Concept Plan
G - Architectural Elevation
H - Elevation/Section
I - Engineering Comments
J - VDOT Comments
7
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT A
~ / ~ / . ~,%~ ~ , ~&Rehabd~ta onCenter
, . lgfl
'%,
RIO
DISTRIOT
SECTION 6J-W
ATTACHMENT B
SP - 2002 - 005
ALBEMARLE NURSING R
& REHABILITATION CENTE
I inch = 200 feet
5
[/
IgR
t:2-00200
LPD~t Application for Special Use Permit
Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
Community Service
ATTACHMENT C
01/22/02
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
The proposed use will enhance the subject property and adjacent property by providing facilities that
are in harmony with current land uses in the area.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding:the property?
The proposed use will enhance the character of the surrounding district by providing facilities that are
similar in nature to existing land uses.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of theZoning Ordinance?
The site is zoned C1 and is currently vacant. The intent of the CI zoning is to allow for a mix of
community services in appropriate areas. The proposed use is in harmony with this zoning.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
Current zoning allows day care facilities, medical centers and dwellings by right, hospitals are
permitted by special use permit. The proposed use is an elderly care facility, which offers similar
services to those uses permitted under the ordinance.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
No additional regulations apply.
How will this use promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the community?
The proposed use will provide a needed service to the citizens of Albemarle County and the
Charlottesville area. Based upon State methodology the Virginia Department of Health has approved
the certification of pub!it need and demand for a 120 bed elderly care faeility in this area. The use
satisfies that need and provides a safe, healthy environment for residents and employees of the
facility. It will als0 provide approximately 85 full and part time jobs associated with the operation of
the facility,
Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent .information such as the nUmbers of
persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use:
The site will be used for a 120-bed elderly care facility. The Building will be architecturally
compatible to its surroundings and will accommodate 120 residence, 35 staffmember§, and
occasional visitors. Staff member numbers fluctuate. 35 staff members is the typical, maximum
number of employees that are on site during peak operation hours. Operating hours are 24 hours per
day, 7 days a week. Residents typically do not drive. The building and site arrangement will
accommodate staff and visitor parking and drop-offs in the front off of Greenbrier Drive and staff and
service access in the rear offofPepsi Place. The Building will feature two well landscape
courtyards/healing gardens designed to offer varied sensory experiences to the residents. The building
grounds landscape will be designed in similar fashion, where appropriate. Storm water facilities Will
be designed to blend into the site landscape.
ATTACHMENT D
Susan Thomas
rom:
~nt:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Maliszewski
Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:53 AM
Susan Thomas
Albemarle Nursing and Rehab
The Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center is proposed for Tax Map/Parcel 061 W0-02-00-00200. As illustrated on
our tax maps, this parcel is not adjacent to the EC - no parcel line touches the Route 29 right-of-way. Consequently, only
that portion of the parcel that lies within 500' of the Route 29 right-of-way is included within the Route 29 North Entrance
Corridor.
The information submitted by the applicant does not show the distance from the site to the Route 29 right-of-way, but it
appears that the westernmost 375' of the parcel will be subject to ARB review. This is an approximation and the applicant
should provide the exact distance from the property to the right-of-way at the time of site plan submittal.
Because the applicant's concept plan shows landscaping in the area that is subject to ARB review, ARB advisory comment
is not necessary at this time. If the plan changes to include structures in this area, ARB advisory comment should be
obtained. If the plan changes to exclude landscaping from this area, ARB advisory comment should be obtained.
ARB review and approval will be required prior to final site plan approval. Only that portion of the parcel that falls within
500' of right-of-way will be subject to ARB review.
Margaret M. Maliszewski, Design'Planner
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
CharlottesvilLe, VA 22902
434-296-5823 x 3276
434-972-4012 FAX
/~""~',~maliszewski~albemarle.oro-
LPDA
ATTACHMENT E
June 5, 2002
Department of Planmng and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 229024596
Re: Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
Gentlemen:
I am requesting a waiver of Section 18-4.2 of the zoning ordinance regarding critical slopes at
the proposed referenced development. The ordinance states: "These provisions are 'created to
implement the comprehensive plan by protecting and conserving steep hillsides together with
public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas and in recognition of increased potential for
soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution, and septic disposal problems associated with the
development of those areas described in the comprehensive plan as critical slopes." The granting
of this waiver would allow the owner of the property to temporarily work on the slope. The
owner plans to build a retaining wall in order to maximize useable area of the property. The wall
will range in height from 3' to 15' tall. The wall will be constructed of pre-cast masonry units.
Mixed plantings will be installed at the base of the wall to provide interest and screening.
Disturbed grade at the top of the wall shall be armored with erosion control fabric and will be
planted with appropriate ground cover. The vertical and horizontal profile of the wall will be
curvilinear in nature. An armored ditch will be installed to intercept concentrated storm water
runofffrom the slope above. The ditch will direct water to low points in the wall. A silt fence
will be installed prior to the work and below the bottom of the slope to catch any runoff and silt.
I would like to address several of the issues stated above in the ordinance and as well as the
specific areas of concern in Section 18-4.2 as follows:
· The slope is man-made, not in a flood plain, and has little potential of affecting public
drinking water supplies;
· ' The existing slope has not previously experienced rapid and/or large-scale movement of
soil and/or large-scale movement of soil and rock is not anticipated to occur in the
'future.
· Storm water runoff in this area and down this slope is sheet flow with a drainage area
isolated to the slope area. An armored ditch installed at the top of the wall to direct the
runoff back into the designed sediment basin.
· Siltation of man-made and natural bodies of water will not occur as there are none in the
immediate area. However, a silt fence will be installed approximately 10 feet from the
base of the wall to catch any runoff into the adjacent woody areas during the work. At
the completion of the clean-up the slope and any other adjacent areas disturbed from the
work will be permanently stabilized with erosion control fabric and plantings.
LAND'PLANNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Landscape Architecture Land Pianning
310 E. Main Street
Suite 200
Char ouesville_ VA 22902
434,296.2 t 08 F~',x: 434,296.2 ! 09
www.ipda, net
/2,
LPDA
Page 2
· There is no loss of aesthetic resources in this area since the slope will not be visible from
Rt. 29, Greenbrier or Pepsi Place along the front of the property nor through the wooded
area in the back.
· There is no potential for septic system failure since no septic system currently exists on
the site and the proposed development is scheduled to connect to the public system along
the front of the property.
The requested waiver will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, to the
orderly development of the area, or to adjacent properties as demonstrated above[
I ask for YOur'favorable conSideration of this request. If you should h~'ve any questions, please
let me know. For Land Planning and Design Associates, Inc.
Sincerely, ·
Bill Mechnick, ASLA
Principal
'r I
/
/
/
~// /
/
?
/
/
/
/
/
Tax map & Pan:mi. 6tW, glodc 2, Peroel 2
Zoning ! Landuee- O-1, Vacant Lot
Total)G,~age: 5.56
8ub-Paroel A
Sub-Pm'eel B
euldling .teAere~ (0%)
Parking .el Aore~ H1%)
other irnpe~e .03Aeres (2 %)
OpeoSpaee .~ Acme (48 %)
5tormwater Calculations
AmaA
Requked Quality: 3,262e. L ~) 1.5' deep
Required ~,Jantity: 698o. f.
Provided: 6,240c,f.
Area B
Requked Quantity, 6,401c.f.
Provided: 11,757'o.f.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
ATTACHMENT F
::lC
AT/AOHMENT G
I~Lt~V'ATION
Eb~VA, ION ~ ,
II
K~ PLAN
· L~DA
PLACE
SECTION A
SECTION B
"'---EXISTIN¢ CRADt= AT PEPSI
% Pt~.OPOSED
OII2EF, IALK--. -/
'~00.0'
~R, EENBRIEtA
ATTACHMENT H
VlEIN OB~T~L~T~D ~¥ TOPO,~I~APta'Y"
"~ PROPEI~T'r' LINE
1" ~
~T. 2q
LPDA
ATTACHMENT i
Albemarle. County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Engineering special use permit
S P-2002-005
Albemarle Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center
revision 5
reviewer received reviewed decision
Steven Snell 6/3/02 6/10/02 approved
DATE:10 June 2002
RE:Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, SP-2002-005
The special use permit, concept plan and BMP calculations for Albemarle Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center, received on 3 June 2002 has been reviewed. The concept plan shows one joint access directly
across from an existing entrance on Pepsi Lane as suggested by the Engineering Department. The
concept plan shows water quality and detention structures located within the site. The BMP calculations
show these structures as being realistic in size and location. There are no Engineering concerns that
cannot be addressed by the site plan. The Engineering Department recommends approval of the special
use permit.
Please contact me if you have questions or require additional information.
6/10/02 03:26 PM
Page 1 of 1
17
RAY D. PETHTEL
INTERIM COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 229'11
ATTACHMENT J
JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
March 5, 2002
Mr. David 13enish
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Specials Use Permit Submittals
March 2002
Dear Mr. Benish:
Please find our comments for the March Special Use Permit Review Meeting:
SP-2002-005 Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center (Susan Thomas)
Because the speed limit on Greenbriar Drive is 25 mph, no turn lanes will be required, however all
entrances must be constructed in accordance with minimum commercial entrance standards. The
entrance on Greenbriar Drive must line up directly across from Westfield Road, as shown on concept
plan.
SP-2002-003 Sam's Woodworking Shop (Steven Biel)
A minimum standard commercial entrance will be required. This entrance must meet the minimum
sight distance requirements of 350 feet in each direction. Current sight distances at this location are
less than 200 feet.
SP-2002-004 Bright Triton PCS - CVR 360 (Stephen Waller)
No comments.
If there are any questions or concerns, please advise.
Sincerely,
via email:
Karen Kilby
Marshall Barron
J. H. Kesterson
Susan Thomas
Steven Biel
Stephen Waller
Matthew Grimes
Transportation Engineer
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
PLANT LE®EN~D
LPDA
June 12, 2002
Re:
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Bill Marks' Zoning Request--5026 Burnley Lane
To Whom it May Concern;
My wife and I have lived on Burnley Lane since 1985, Sometime around 1988 Bill &
Jill Marks became our closest neighbors. Their home and garage are less than 500'
from our house. From the very beginning they were polite, considerate and solicitous
about our concerns for privacy and peace and quiet. They sought our input on the
location of their home and have remained wonderful, considerate neighbors ever
since.
Bill has been a woodworker most of his life and continued his craft after moving onto
Burnley Lane both on personal projects and as a business. He eventually turned his
garage into a small shop and has made furniture and cabinets there ever since.
This has never been, and is not now, a problem for us in any way. There have never
been traffic problems, there is rerely much noise, there is no appreciable dirt, dust or
other pollutant. In short, the impact on us or any other neighbors has been zero. He,
his family and his business are an asset to our small community.
Bill has our full support to continue this business and we encourage any applicable
authorities to grant whatever permits, variances, or permissions are required for him to
continue.
We would be happy to answer any further questions or to provide additional
information.
Sincerely;
Geoffrey & Judith Pitts
4982 Burnley Lane
Barboursville, Virginia 22923
Parcel B--Bent Spur Farm
Plat--5/3/78 Aubrey Huffman
D. B. 654, Page 18
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-2002-005. Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center
NAME (Please print clearly)
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
22
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
June 26,2002
William A. or Jill Trischman-Marks
5026 Burnley Lane
Barboursville, VA 22923
RE: SP-02-17 Marks Construction; Tax Map 22, Parcel 28A
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Marks:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002 recommended, by a vote
of 4:0, approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is
subject to the following conditio ns:
1. There shall be no on-site sales.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials.
3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of, in accordance with all applicable hazardous waste
regulations.
4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated workshop.
5. The workshop shall not exceed 1 152 square feet, as shown on Attachment A.
6. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance for this use within sixty (60) days of approval or this
special use permit 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 10, 2002. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m.. Meeting Room
#241. Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application
must b~ submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven Biel
Planner
SB/jcf
06-26-02P04:55 RCVD
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshduse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Steven Biel
June 18, 2002
July 10, 2002
SP 2002-017 Marks Construction Company
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has requested approval of a special use permit
for a Home Occupation - Class B, to allow for the operation of an existing custom-made
furniture shop (Attachment A). If the request is approved, it would bring the shop into
'compliance with Section 10.2.2(31) and Section 5.2 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant originally built a 24' x 24' shop in 1990 and expanded it to its current size
of 24' x 48' (1,152 square feet) in 1997. Approximately one-quarter of the shop is
located in Orange County.
The applicant was contacted by a Zoning Inspector in the fall of 2001 and was told he
would need to obtain a Class B permit for a home occupation. The applicant has a Class
B contractor's license and misunderstood the Zoning Inspector's direction. Further
complicating the situation, the applicant submitted an application in December 2001 and
was informed by the Zoning Department that he would need to have a survey performed
to determine if the structure was actually in Albemarle County. Orange County has been
contacted by staff and was told this type of use is permitted in Orange County without
having to obtain a special use permit.
In addition to custom furniture, the applicant also produces cabinetry. The applicant
would not have any employees; however, a subcontractor is occasionally used to help
with installations. Any future consideration for the hiring of employees would be limited
to no more than two employees, which is permitted under the definition of Home
Occupation, Class B.
Petitions: Request for a special use permit to allow for a custom furniture shop in
accordance with Section 10.2.2(31) of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance, which allows for
a Home Occupation-Class B. The property described as Tax Map 22, Parcel 28A,
contains 5.134 acres (3.619 acres in Albemarle County and .1.515 acres in Orange
County), and is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the norhtwest side of
Bumley Lane, approximately .25 miles northeast of Ronte 641 (Burley Station Road).
The property is zoned RA-Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Rural Area.
Character of the Area: The property under review contains 5.134 acres, and the
surrounding area can be characterized as heavily wooded, farmland, and scattered
residential. The nearest residence is approximately 375' to the east, across Burnley Lane
(Attachment D).
SP 02-17 1
June 11, 2002
Bumley Lane is approximately 1,600' in length and provides access to seven residences.
Of these, one resident makes handcrafted violins and another is a woodworker and are
both located in Albemarle County. With the three of these wood-related business
concentrated on Bumley Lane, there is somewhat of an ambiance of a traditional rural
community supporting cottage industries.
Planning and Zoning History_: There is no history available on this property.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and surrounding
area as being located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan offers no specific
comment regarding home occupations in the Rural Area. However, the level of intensity
of the proposed use would be compatible with the character of the Rural Area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed these requests for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 ofth~ zoning ordinance and recommends approval of the
special use permits, based on its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all
special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as
provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not. be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property_.
This proposal would not result in an increase in vehicular traffic, as there would be no
on-site sales and design work would take place at the client's location or at an
architect/contractor's office. Most materials would be purchased from local mills and
supphers and transported by the applicant back to the applicant's shop for production.
Some supplies Would be delivered by UPS/FEDEX a couple times a month, which could
be expected from a residential use. The applicant would deliver the finished product to
the customer location. As the shop would provide adequate work and storage space,
there would be no need for outdoor storage. The hours of operation are proposed to be
8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M., Monday through Friday.
Heavily wooded areas, farmland, and scattered residential development surround the site.
The location of the proposed shop would not be visible from any adjoining properties and
is at the end of Burnley Lane. Any consequential noise to adjoining property owners that
is produced by woodworking equipment would be no more than that customarily
associated with farm equipment.
SP 02-17 2
June 11, 2002
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
It is the opinion of staff that this home occupation would not result in any increased
levels of activity on the site that would be inconsistent with the character of the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Staff haS reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapterl 8, Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion of staff, the proposed use
would not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use would not prevent bY-right use of the adjacent properties.
with additional.regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Home occupation permits are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Albemarle Zoning
Ord'manCe. The proposed request complies with the provisions of this section of the
Ordinance.
and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare.
The Albemarle County Fire Department has received this application for review. All
solvents/paints associated with the proposed home occupation would be disposed of in
accordance with all applicable hazardous waste regulations. If the applicant adheres to
the specified safety guidelines prescribed by the manufacturers of the solvent/paints used
by the applicant, there would be no adverse impact on the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
Bumley Lane is a private gravel road. The Virginia Department of Transportation
recommended that the applicant construct a 30' wide commercial entrance (without curb
and gutter) at the intersection of Bumley Lane and Route 641. The Engineering
Department inspected the site and did not offer any comments in support of the VDOT
recommendation. It is the staff's opinion, that this proposed use would not substantially
increase traffic at the Burnley Lane/Route 641 intersection and. this intersection functions
adequately to serve the existing use. Therefore, staff does not support the VDOT
recommendation.
SP 02-17 3
June 11,2002
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to these applications:
The proposal is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1.
The level of intensity of the proposed custom-made furniture woodworking shop
would be consistent with the character of the Rural Area.
Staffhas not found any factors that are unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staff is
able to support this request.
Since this special use permit request rectifies an existing violation, a condition will be
recommended which requests the applicant to apply for the.actual permit in a timely
manner.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP
2002-017, subject to the following conditions:
1. There shall be no on-site sales.
2. There shall be no outdoor storage of materials.
3. All solvents/paints shall be disposed of, in accordance with all applicable hazardous
waste regulations.
4. All production activity of custom-made furniture shall occur within the designated
workshop.
5. The workshop shall not to exceed 1,152 square feet, as shown on Attachment A,
6. The applicant shall obtain a Zoning Clearance for this use within sixty (60) days of
approval or this special use permit shall expire.
Attachments:
A - Application and Plan
B - Location Map
C - Tax Map
D - Aerial Map
SP 02-17 4
June 11, 2002
..... ',--0miry u/h. meifiarie ;,o D'~parVffi~[ or~lfO-ifig uoae' and zOning SerVice§- '
I OFFICE ~
s~ . ,~'~ - g: ~ TM~ 0 _
Sign# Mag. Dist.
ATTACHMENT
· Application for Special Use Permit
*Zoning Ordinance Section number requited __ -
*stuff will ~sist you wi~ these items) ' ~[~
this an amendment to an existing Special Use P~r~t? ~ Ye ' "
lr~ you submitting a site divelopment plan wia~ thN appliafiont U Ye~ No
Contact Person IWhom xhouid we call/write concerning tP, is project'?.):
Address ~ 0 ~r- -'~t4'l~/~ll-Uc-~(
Daytime Phone (
C i t y ~'~zi-~o ti i~--gt/I/-'C ,~--- State
Fax # .~zoO-- E-mail
Address ~O..~6. "-~'~IZ~-,W L.,~,~
D%<ime Phene ( ) .J~ ~07~[
~ax
E-mail
zip cz'aa 'l'
A p p licant (',Vho :s :ne ::~,t'.:: aerson rzTmsentmg7 x&'im ts rcqu:alag mc sp. cz:ai us:":
Address ,~,e> ~ I:~ ¢.¢t Git;'
Daytime Phone ' ' Fax '; E-mai,,
Tax map_and
Location of p
Does [}le owne,'-of' ti'liS ul'ouertv owrl (or llave Ltnv O;Vl'lel'shio ' .r.-~-= ,
~ .....s, in5 any abutting property? if'yes, please Iisr
those tax mao and r~cei numbers 0 ~,-;'~ (~ ~o'~ ~,:z~, ,-., ..... :_, ,- . ~ z_~ .- t'~
OFFICE USE ONLY
History: :-~ Special Use
aaa Proffers:
C,ar~c_~'-' '.: -e'.;c'a ,-.'- ~g. 2 ~cvc!,gC.W, sn[
c0'5
il--Y,:s '2 No
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The boa.rd of stipervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits .for uses as provided !n tNs ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board af supervisors
that such use will not be of subs'~ant:ial ~trim'efli to:adjacent 1property, ~hat the eharadter of the diitrict
will not be changed:aereby and. ~a.t such. use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses p,¢rmitted by right in the dis~6t, with additional regulations provided'in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and witl'r the. pub}lc health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the stM~ in ~eir analysis, of you~ request. Please complete
tl~s form and provide additional informatiqn which will assist the County in its review og your request.'
If you need assistance filling out these items, stMf is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property7
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property'?.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property7 ~ L.I l"l'~-~t.. I ~-
How ~s ~he use in harmony with the purpose and intent ogihe Zoning Ordinance`?.
Eow ~s tn: usc m h~mon,, with :he. uses permitted by r~ght in the ,~i~,,~
Who: addkionaI regulations provided in Sccaon 5 0 of thc,Zonin~ Ordinance apply to this use?
~ow will ~his use aromocc the public hcatth, safety,, and general we~r
Describe your request, in detail and:include all pertinent information such as the numbers of poi'sons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: "~. /V~ ~
ATTACI~IENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
~/'~ 1. Recorded plat or boundary sur,,ey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
: no recorded plat or bound.ary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to l~"e'-degcribed Or'delineated on a copy of the plat or'sur,z, eyed' drawihg.
Ownershir> information - if ownership of the property is in the name of any type of leg~
entity or org~ization, inctuding, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association]' or in ~he nam&'of a trust,'br in a fictitious name, a documen~cceotable to
the County must he submitted certifying that the person sigmng below has the authority
to do s~
If the aoelicant is a contract ~ ' "~ .
pu,cnas,.., a document acceCtabte to the County must be
sukmittsd containin_~, [he owner's written consent ~o the applicgtion.
the aDDlicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceotable to :~.= County .~nqusr be
su:rmt~,~.tha[.is evmencs of me existence ant score of the affencv.
OPTIONAL ATTACHN~NTS-:
Drawings or conceotual plans, if anv.
Additional Information. if any.
I hereby certify that t own t~'e subjeci property, or have [he legal power to' act on behalf 6f th~ owner in
filing this application. I also certify that the information =rovided is true and accurate to the best of my
know!edge.
.... jl-/~ ~d /
Signature "- Date
Printed Name
Da',':ime uh,~n.e .~urnbe.r of Signator7
MARKS CgNSTRUCTION CI)MPANY
Phone 434-973-9785
Fax 434-973-9785
Email markswoo~ork@mindspring, com
5026 Bumley Lane
Barboursville. VA 22923
USA
County of Albemarle
Department of Building Code & Zoning Services
40t McLntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
November 15, 2001
Following a visit from a zoning official is was brought to my attention that I needed to get an additional Class B
license fi.om the County When I enlarged my existing garage to accommodate my custom woodworking business. I
was told all I needed was a Class B license, which I understood to be a Class B contractors license, which I have
had since 1989. [ was obviously unaware of this additional requirement.
My business is solely the construction of custom cabinetry, and furniture to order. Customers do not visit my shop,
typically I meet with them at the job site or at architects/contractors offices. I am the sole workman in the
business. Subcontractors are used for installations when needed, which is obviously done offsite.
Most materials are pick up at a lumber supplier. Sheet goods are delivered to shop a couple of times a month,
hardware and other small items are delivered by UPS/FEDEX. The shop is a modem woodworking Shop buiit
next to my residence. Shop machinery has fuIt dust collection and air filtration. All shavings and dust dumped
into a dumping bed trailer which ,is emptied monthly. All materials a/e housed in the building.
I have complied with all deed restrictions tbr the property, which do allow the operation of this type ofbusinesg
on the property. I am limited to an outbuilding of 1000 sq ft. as a result [ am limited in room and therefore havin~o
employees is not feas~le. ~
I hope this information will be helpful.
Sincerely,
William A. Marks Jr.
Lot C. Bent Sour Farm O.B. /~,~/ 642, page 199
~M.P. 22-27
N24 '59'J4"E 600, 00'
'"~..e.~¢ ~ N/F domes S. Bowmo~
William A Marks, Jr. and
Jill rrischman-Marks
O.B. 1052, page 277
D.B. 1o8 , page
D.B. 642, page 199 (plat)
D.B. 654, page 18 (plat)
FN.P. 22-28
/$h ap
Jr. aha
Rhondo M, rlopKins
IRF
Wiltiam A. Marks, Jr. and
Jill 1-rischmon-Marks
D,B. 1052, page 277
/ ~ D,B, 1083. page 518 (plat)
~ D.B. 654, page t8 (plat)
TM.P, 22-28A
I$24'5g'J4"w 9J$.21'
O.B. 1502. page 180
642, page t99 (plat)
D.B, 654 page 18
£ M p 22- 28A
GRAPHIC SCALE
( IN FEET )
! inch - 100 It.
,,', .t, TIl 0-, *",
CHERYLA. SFOCKTON I
No 2425 t
~-- 1.) Survey preporea for:
William A, Marks, Jr.
and J~71
Trischman-Marks
2.) This survey ~e~
prepared without the
benefit of ~ title report.
No invesU¢etions of
easements was
performed for this
survey.
/ 3.) County Ibe is drawn
as shown on plat
recorded in Deed Book
108J, page 518,
prepared by B, Aubrey
Huffmon ~ Associates.
LTD
4) A complete
boundary survey was
not performed by
Draper Aden Associates,
The property lines which
~ere verified by the
current field survey ore ·
shown with the
oppropriote
m onumen te Lion
designated,
BUILDING LOCATION SURVEY OF
A portion of property owned by
William A. Marks, Jr. & Jill Trischman-Marks
Rivanna District Albemarle County, Virginia
SHEET 1 OF 1
Draper Aden Associates
CONSULTING ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
700 HARRIS SIREEI SUITE E
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22903
REVISIONS: JO_AlE; 2-08-02 SCALE: 1"= I00'
[~_RA*..C^S- IC.EO<EO:¥J-
J'~"o,JEcl i, io cv02~08-0~
ATTACHMENT B
C.R OZET
I
;harlotl:~svitle -'
Albemarle
1
Whit, /
1
EARLYSVLLLE AREA
TO BARBOURSVILLE
, SP 2002-017 Marks Construction Co. - Home.Occup B
TO LOUISA
38e152
ATTACHMENT C
,.___, .............. RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 22:
ATTACHMENT D
PLEASE SIGN BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON
SP-2002-017. Marks Construction
NAME (Please print clearly)
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
PHONE NUMBER/ADDRESS (Optional)
]. RANDOLPH PARKER
LARRY ]. McELWAIN
ANNIE LEE JACOBS
HERBERT BESKIN
TRACEY C. HOPPER
Parker, VicElwain &Jacobs, P. C.
Attorneys at Law
B B & T BANK BUILDING
1425 SEMINOLE TRAIL
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
P.O. BOX 6186
CHARLOTI-ESVILLE, VA. 22906
(434) 973-3331
FAX (484) 978-9393
July 2, 2002
Clerk, Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Hand Delivered
Re: SP-02-19 / Clifton Inn
Dear Sir:
By way o fintroduction I have been retained as counsel for Country Inns Extraordinaire, Inc, which
trades as Clifton, The Country Inn and which is the petitioner in the above-titled matter. My client's
petition is currently scheduled to be heard by the Board on July 10. I hereby request an indefinite
postponement ofthe hearing on this matter. Several items were raised during the hearing in front ofthe
Planning CommisSion that my client desires to address prior to being heardby the Board. My clientis
diligently collectingthe necessary information which will be disclosed to the County staffpriorto a heating
by the Board. We expect to request to be placedback on the Board' s docket within the next few hearing
dates. Should you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
Ver~_truly yours,
07-02-02P04:25 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 ~ 40t2
June 26,2002
Richard Armstrong
300 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902'
RE: SP-02-19 Clifton In Amendment - Expanding Seating; Tax Map 79, Parcel 23A
Dear Mr. Armstrong:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, unanimously
recommended denial of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that theAIbemarle County Board'of Supervisors wil! review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 10, 2002. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room
#241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application
must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.
The Commission also unanimously denied the waiver cooperative parking from Section 4.12.4 of the
Zoning Ordinance which would allow shared parking with Stone Robinson Elementary School and denial
of a waiver to Section 4.1.3.4(b) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for parking that is greater than 500
feet from the proposed use.
if you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steven Biel
Planner
SB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
06-26-02 P04:55 RCVD
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
SP 2002-019 Clifton Inn
Steven Biel
June 18, 2002
July 10, 2002
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting to amend SP 2001-039 to allow
increased seating from 80 people to a maximum of 200 people for special events, such as
weddings. The applicant is proposing to use the parking lot at Stone Robinson
Elementary School, located across Route 729 from Clifton Inn, to provide for the
necessary additional parking. According to the applicant, this off-site parking lot would
be used primarily on weekends. The applicant has also proposed a shuttle service using
either a small bus-type vehicle or a limousine to transport people from the Stone
Robinson School parking lot across Route 729 to Clifton Inn. -
Clifton Inn is proposing to. use a tent that would be installed for a special event, such as a
wedding, and would be dismantled after the event. Port-a-toilets would be setup and used ·
during special events only.
The applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow for parking that is greater than 500 feet
from the proposed use. The distance from the school parking lot to Clifton Inn is
approximately 1,100 feet.
Petition: Request to amend a special use permit (SP 2001-039) to allow increased
seating from 80 people to no more than 200 people for special events in accordance with
Section 10.2.2(27) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for restaurants and inns located
in historic landmarks and to allow for shared parking with Stone Robinson Elementary
School (Tax Map, Parcel 23A) in accordance with Section 4.12.4 of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for cooperative parking. A waiver to Section 4.12.3.4(b) of the
Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow for parking that is greater than 500 feet from the
proposed use. The property, described as Tax Map 79 Parcel 23B and 23C, contains
10.36 acres, and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Route 729
approximately 0.25 miles from its intersection with US 250. The property is zoned RA-
Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Character of the Area: The property under review contains a total of 10.36 acres
(Pa?cel 23B = 7.85 ac and Parcel 23C = 2.51 ac), and the surrounding area can be
characterized as wooded. The nearest structure is Stone Robinson School and is
approximately 1,100' to the northeast, across Route 729 (Attachment D). The applicant
also owns Parcels 23F (28.045 ac), 24B (25.75 ac), and 36 (29.491 ac). Clifton Inn is an
early 19th century plantation home and is a state-registered historic landmark.
Piannin~ and Zoning History: In August of 1987, the Board of Supervisors
approved SP 1987-49, which allowed for a 7-room inn and a 50-seat restaurant. In April
of 1990, The Planning Commission recommended approval of SP 1989-83, a request for
a 12-room inn with a 50-seat restaurant, which was withdrawn prior to review by the
Board of Supervisors. In November of 1991, the Board of Supervisors approved SP
1991-58, an amendment to SP 1987-49 that allowed for a 14-room inn, a 24-seat
restaurant, and "occasional luncheons, wedding receptions, cocktail parties, and the like."
SP 2002-019 1
Last Revised: 6/11/02
In Dec. ember of 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved an amendment to SP 1991-058
that allowed for a 52-seat restaurant with full dinner hours available (no limited seating)
plus 14 guestrooms. At no time would the aggregate of guests of the Inn, the restaurant,
and any special events on the premises exceed 80 people. In addition, hours of restaurant
operation for the public, other than guests of the Inn, and those attending special events,
would be fi.om 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. These conditions can be found under SP 2001-039.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and surrounding
area as being located in the Rural Area. The Comprehensive Plan supports limited
commercial activity that provides services to the immediate local area. This site has a
history of expanding and may eventually reach the point where the scale and intensity of
the operation could conflict with the Comprehensive Plan Rural Area designation:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend approval
of SP 2002-019, based on safety concerns with pedestrians potentially crossing a state
road wliile their vehicles are parked on county-owned property. It should be noted that
the School Board has not granted permission to use the school parking lot to date. The
Department of Educ-ation has expressed reservations about this request.
STAFF COMMENT: Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all
special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as
provided in this ordinance may be: issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property..
Activities related to the special events would take. place in a tent installed in the center of
the parcel. Parking fo~ proposed special events would be off-site at Stone Robinson
Elementary School, located across Route 729. The 'existing on-site parking is not
adequate to serve both the regular Inn/restaurant customers and special events. The use
on the applicant's property would not affect adjacent properties; however, the use of
Stone Robinson's parking lot could cause conflicts with scheduled school functions and
sports events scheduled at the school's fields and gym. The off-site parking could create
safety concerns with pedestrians crossing Route 729.
It should be noted that under the definition of special events found in Section 5.1.25 Farm
Winery in the Zoning Ordinance, no more than 150 people are permitted per event and
only 12 special events are permitted per year. This is keeping within the designation of
the rural areas and limiting the size and intensity of activities in the rural areas.
SP 2002-019 2
Last Revised: 6/11/02
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
This amendment would allow for temporary structures, such as tents and port-a-toilets, to
be installed on a temporary basis. The proposed use would be held in the interior of the
applicant's property and would not be visible from adjoining properties or Route 729.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Section 1.4.2 refers to the reduction or prevention of
congestion of traffic in public streets. In addition, Section 1.4.6 refers to protecting
against danger and congestion in travel and transportation. In the opinion of staff, the
'proposed use would induce more traffic on Route 729. Shuttling attendees of special
events would create additional traffic already generated by the attendees traveling Route
729 to the school parking lot. Pedestrian activity in this area would also create a
congestion/conflict with traffic.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use could cause parking conflicts with events sponsored by Stone Robinson
Elementary School.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 for this use. However, currently there
are discussions being held to consider amending the parking section of the Zoning
Ordinance. In these amendments are provisions for shared parking, but the intent is for
pedestrian use in the urban areas, not "shuttled" sharing in the rural areas.
and with the public health, safe _ty and general welfare.
As previously noted, staff believes this proposal could be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and general welfare. The intent is for a shuttle service or limousine to transport
attendees to special events from the Stone Robinson Elementary School across Route 729
to Clifton Inn. Although the intent may be honorable, there is a high probability that not
all persons would utilize the shuttle service and for other various reasons, persons could
cross route 729.
It is the opinion of staffthat this request could result in the possibility of pedestrians
crossing Route 729 and could become a liability to the County. The speed limit on Route
729, a paved, two-lane state route, is 45 miles per hour. According to the 2000 Virginia
department of Transportation Daily Traffic VolUmes, this portion of Route 729 has an
aImual average daily traffic volUme of 5,600.vehicles.
The Health Department has commented on the septic system limitations and has
recommended that the aggregate number of guests of the Inn, restaurant, and special
events on the premises to not exceed 100 persons. Since there has been prior drainfield
SP 2002-019 3
Last Revised: 6/11/02
failures on the site, staff, supports the recommendation from the Health Department. It
would be very difficult for the staff of Clifton Inn to know which guests could use the Inn
facilities and which would be limited to port-a-toiletS if there are over two hundred
persons on the premises at once.
Both the Department of Building Code and Zoning .Services and Department of
Engineering have commented they cannot support this request due to the safety concerns
previously mentioned. In addition, the Albemarle County School Board has been asked
to give a recommendation. The School Board has not as-yet scheduled this matter for
review, but their staff, has expressed reservations about this request.
Staff has suggested that the applicant consider on-site or altemative parking to alleviate
the safety concerns, and the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services and
Department of Engineering have supported this suggestion. The Department of Parks
and Recreation would also like for the applicant to consider the possibility of developing
a pa/king lot in conjunction with the County on a parcel owned by the applicant (Tax
Map 79, Parcel 36) that could serve as a boat ramp to the Rivanna River, as well as
satisfy the parking requirements for Clifton Inn. This could provide a solution to provide
off-site parking without requiring the crossing of a heavily traveled public road.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The expanded use could promote greater economic stability of the area, which is
located within a historic property. This could help preserve this historic resource.
Staff. has found the following factors that are unfavorable to this request:
1. There is a potential safety concern with pedestrians crossing Route 729 and, for this
reason, the Zoning Department and Engineering Department do not support this request.
2. Alternative parking has not been explored.
3. The Health Department has recommended that the aggregate number of guests of the
Inn, restaurant, and special events on the premises to not exceed 100 people.
4. The applicant is proposing to accommodate more people (up to 200) than what is
permitted for farm winery special events (no more than 150. people).
Therefore, staff, is unable to support this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff, report, staff, recommends the request be
denied due to safety concerns and lack of support from the Zoning Department and
Engineering Department.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approving this request, and subsequently
the Board of Supervisors approves the request, conditions of approval would be
contingent upon recommendations from the School Board.
SP 2002-019 4
Last Revised: 6/11/02
Attachments:
A - Application and Plan
B - Location Map
C - Tax Map
D - Aerial Map
SP 2002-019 5
Last Revised: 6/t 1/02
County of Albemarle
OFFICE U_ . Y ~'~
Sign#' Mag. Dist. ~. f Staff
· :- Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
Application for Special Use Permit
ATTACHMENT A
Project Name tl,,,~.~..u,j ~ ,,:to. ,,, t~,. app.catam'l)
*Existing U~e Tourist Lodging
*Zoning District ~~
(*staff will assist, you with these items)
Clifton Inn
Proposed Use Expand attendance for special events
A~ead ~-I~'z°~i- 059
*Zoning Ordinance Section ,,umber requested
Number of acres to' be covered by Special Use Permit ¢,t. ~= tt,.~st ~,m~,~ oap,., see plat
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
Xlgl YesO No
0 Y est~":Nu
Contact Person (Whom. sh6uld wc call/write concerning this project?): Richard Arms trong
Address 300 Court Square City Charlottesville StateVA
Daytime Phone ( 434 ) 293-7817 Fax # 434-297-3083 E-mail
Zip22902
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records):
Address 1296 Clifton Inn Drive
Daytime Phone( 434 ) 971-1800
Country Inns Extraocdinaire, Inc./
Cit~harl°ttesville State VA
Fax # 434-971-7098 .E-mail
Zip22911
Applicant(Whoisthccontactpersonreprescmmg*Whoisrequestingthespecialuse?): T. Mitchell Wiley
Address 1615 L Street, ~N-W, Suite 900 CityWashington State DC
Daytime Phone (202 ) 778-1079 Fax# 202-223-8166 E-mail
Zip20036
Taxmapandparcel 79-23B & 23C
rn~ Dr~v~, Ch~rl~rro~vill~. VA 22911
Locationofproperty(l~dmarl~.mt:r~ctioas. oro~her) near the
State Route 729
Physical'P~ddress (ifassigned) 1296 Ciiftcn
intersection of U. S. Route 250 and
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
those tax map and parcel numbers Yes, the owner owns four (4) contiguous parcels: Tax Map 79, Parcels 23B, 23C, 23F and 24B.
OFnCE USE or~LY ~,~ ZZ>
Fee amount $
History: El Special Usc Permits:
Date Paid
~-J Vafi;l.qCtk.' __ ·
CI ZMAs and Proffers:
Concurrent rcvmw of Site Development Plan?
U.I Letter of Authorization
D Yes ~ No
Receipt
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance States that, "The board of supervisors
hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the C0mprehcnsive Plan designation for this property?
How will thc proposed special use affect adjacent property? Parking for additional guests--will be
in spaces designated at'Stone Robinson Elementary School (see attachment). A
small bus or limosene will transport guests to the Inn.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of thc district surrounding the property?
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
pursuant to a special use permit, therefore it has
The Inn currently ooerates
previously been deemed to be
in harmonv with the Ordinance.
Howistheuscinharmony withtheusespermittcdbyrightinthedistrict?
with a signific'ant amount of open space.
The Inn is an historic property
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
Tourist Lodging
5.1.17
How willthisusepromo)ethepublichealth, sa~ty, and generalwethreofthecommunity?.
and maintenance of an historic property.
Restoration
Describe your request in detH1 and include all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operaang hours, and any unique ~atfiiSs of the use: The current spec±~l
permit allows for special events with a seating not to exceed eighty (80)
persons. The owner.desires to expand seatzng Zor speczai events non no
exceed two hundred (200) persons.
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning..If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: II you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract, purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen5 acc~eptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
· Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behatf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify'that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Co~n~s/E)~tr a.o r dinaice, ~In~
By: ' /' /~, ~'-~ ~
Signature T.Mitchell Willey, Preside~Date
T. Mitchell Wil!ey
Printed Name
Daytime. phone n tuber o~ Sign,"rory
CU~~'
o~t
/
~ 85
ACRES
Z. 85 ACRES RESIDENCE F~CT
"CL/FTO~/"
A£BEMARLE COUN?Y. VIRG/Nt~J
8 AUBREY HUFFMAN a ~SSOC
VlRGii~IA:
THE CLERK'S CF?ICE OF ,\LBEZMARLF, CiRCUrT COURT,
!
,.,-,,,. .
0"'"',
IJ
ATTACHMENT B
SP 2002-019 =?ifton Inn Amend~ment - Expanding Seating
~.~ 1.~?.~,-'~1 ~." -' ' .... ~',', . _~.~'_ ."~. ........... ~',C- - -. ......
· .' ~. ' '-- . ..:.~,~.,,.~. ~ -._..~.
.~-'Ti/"'" ',:' ~/' ~ ,,,,~' ' /~ .~ "..-,~'., {7:~
,;., ,..~ "~ ,~ -'t' '/ - , '/--' · '------- ? "'. _-.--. ~
"~ ~ ~ / ' ~' ' ' ~ ~ /~c..~ ~ ..'~,,\
;%:..: ~ / .?/-.~' '.' V.: ', --. ,,'..,- ~ '..
'~F- .,,>' : Z-.-- ".-~/: ..... ;-,'- ~ ~ . .
.~q~: C f~- _ f ..' ' , ~. .: - ?~ - _: - : ..-
:;K-'~:../:: .:': - / . ~:.. _:,' -
-~ '-' "- k-. : : - --
//
/
/
SP 2002-019 Clifton Inn Amendm,
F
ATTACHMENT C
~0
"' SECT;CN 79~1/
RIVANNA
SCOTTSVtLLF_.
AND
DISTRICTS'
25
SECTION
79
ATTACHMENT D
LPDA
07-01-02P04:14 RCVD
June 25, 2002
Susan Thomas, AICP
Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Re: Albemarle Nursing & Rehabilitation Center SP2002-005
Susan:
On behalf of our client we are appealing the Planning Commissions decision to deny the critical
slope waiver and the special use permit for this project. We understand the concerns that were
raised during the Planning Commission meeting and would like the opportunity to address them.
At this time we feel that the Board of Supervisors Meeting will be the best venue for this.
If you should have any questions, please let me know. For Land Planning and Design
Associates, Inc.
Sincerely,
Bill Mechnick, ASLA
Principal
LAND PLANNING & DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lar~dscape Architecture Land Planning
3 ! 0 E. Main Street
Suite 200
Chmiottesvitte, VA 22902
434.296.2108 Fax: 434.29C2109
www.lpckt, set
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road. Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
June 26, 2002
Richard Armstrong
300 Court Square
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-2002-020 Pine Crest Orchids Amendment Tax Map 61A, Parcel 14
' Dear Mr. Armstrong:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board .of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the following conditions:
The entrance to the parcel containing this home occupation, Tax Map 61A Parcel 14, along
Route 631 (Rio Road) shall remain permanently closed;
The home occupation shall be limited to the greenhouses and the retail area and shall not exceed
3,500 square feet; and
The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 10, .2002. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m., Meeting Room
#241. Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application
must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at 'least seven days prior to your scheduled
hearing date.-
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerel y,
David B. Benish
~hief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve AIIshouse
06-28-02A09:28 RCVD
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUANDIEGO R. WADE
JUNE 18, 2002
JULY 10, 2OO2
SP 2002-020 PINE CREST ORCHIDS AMENDMENT
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant proposes to amend an existing Home Occupation
Class B by constructing an additional greenhouse to cultivate and sell orchids. The
applicant is requesting a waiver for the s'~ze of the Home Occupation, which exceeds
1,500 square or 25% of the main living area, to construct an additional 1,540 square feet
greenhouse to create a total of 3,124 square feet.
Petition: The applicant requests a special use permit to allow for a Home Occupation -
Class B to cultivate and sell orchids in an additional greenhouse. The applicant request
to construct a greenhouse. Home occupations are allowed in accordance with Chapter
18, Section 15.2.2.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property, described as Tax Map 61A
Parcel 14, contains 1.020 acres, and is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Penn
Park Lane [Route # 1481], at the intersection of Rio Road and Penn Park Lane. The
property is zoned R-4, residential. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as
urban density in Development Area 2. (Attachment A & B)
Character of the Area: The property is located on a heavily traveled urban road.
The surrounding area can be characterized primarily as single family detached,
suburban.
Planning and Zonin~ History:
SP-85-21 A Home Class B was administratively approved.
SP-90-69 An amendment to the Home Occupation was administratively approved for an
additional greenhouse.
(Home Occupations Class B were reviewed under a different procedure in 1985 and
1990)
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and surrounding
area as being located in the urban area. Operating a business that cultivates and sells
orchids, while not specifically identified as a Development Area priority in the
Comprehensive Plan, is compatible with the urban area
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the
provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of SP
2002-020 with conditions based on the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to ~ssue all special use
permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance
may be issued upon a f nding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of
substantial detriment to adiacent property.
The applicant proposes to construct a third greenhouse for growing orchids. The
applicant has been given admin istrative approval for two greenhouses. The third
greenhouse house would be connected to the existing greenhouses (Attachment C). The
applicant needs addition al space to grow orchids. The new greenhouse would not
intensify the current home occupation, but give existing plants more room to grow.
Orchids typically take ~eight to ten years to grow. The property is fenced and the addition
would not be readily noticed from the adjacent properties. The existing home occupation
has been in existence for seventeen years with no complaints from neighbors.
that the character of the district will not be chanqed thereby,
The character of the district will not be changed by the addition to the greenhouse.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,,
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is the opinion of staff that the proposed use would
not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use would not prevent by right use of adjacent property.
with additional re.qulat ons proVided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Home Occupations are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5.2.2 REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS
5.2.2.1 The following regulations shall apply to any home occupation:
ao
Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an accessory
structure, or both, provided that not more than twenty- five (25) 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 one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet; provided that the use of accessory structures shall be
permitted only in connection with home occupation, Class B;
The applicant is seeking a waiver from this regulation. The entire size of the
greenhouses, if approved, will be approximately 3,124 square feet. The current
home occupation also includes a small retail area adjacent to the greenhouses.
This area is approximately 234 square feet. The size of the home itself is
approximately 2,500 square feet. The applicant had previously received
administrative approval to exceed 1,500 square feet. If approved, this expansion
will bring the size of the home occupation to 3,358 square feet.
Staff supports the applicant's request to exceed the one thousand five hundred
(1,500) square feet.
b. There shall be no change in the outside ;'ppearance of the buildings or
premises, or other visible evidence of the conduct of such home occupation
provided that a home occupation, Class ,B, may erect one home occupation
Class B sign as authorized by section 4.15 of this chapter. Accessory
structures shall be similar in facade to a single-family, dwelling, private
garage, shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specifically compati,ble in design and scale with
other development in the area in which located. Any accessory structure
which does not conform to the setback and yard regulations for main
structures in the distdct in which it is located shall not be used for any home
occupation;
The addition to the greenhouse would be attached to the existing greenhouse;
hence it will give the appearance of one building. A well-kept fence encloses the
entire site. The front and side yards have many trees and bushes to help screen
to the greenhouse.
The re shal'l be no sales on the premises, other than items hand crafted on the
premises; in connection with such home occupation; this does not exclude
beauty shops or one-chair barber shops;
The applicant grows the orchid from a seed. The majority of the applicant sales
are from wholesale buyers. A very small part of the applicant's sales are retail.
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 normal operating hours for the current home occupation are 8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and generate approximately 7-10 customers
per week. Staff does not consider this to be a significantly greater volume than
would be expected in a residential neighborhood. There is space for customers
to park on site. The most current traffic count taken in year 2000 for this
segment of Rio Road is 23,000.
e. All home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in
section 4.14;
This home occupation will have to comply with performance standards set forth
in section 4.14. No violation of these standai'ds has been cited for the current
operation.
andwith the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the
special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permits are
a ppropr ate in the location requested.
VDOT had previously required the applicant to close the access to Rio Road. This
access has been closed and access is gained from Pen Park Lane. VDOT had no
comments on the current special use permit. However, the limited number of additional
trips associated with this expansion should have minimal impact on the Pen Park
Lane/Rio Road intersection.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to the two applications:
The home occupation only generates 7-10 customers per week.
The home occupation has been in existence for 17 years with no complaints from
neighbors.
Th e use will not produce any excess noise, waste, or light.
Staff has not found any factors that are unfavorable to this request. Therefore, staff is
able to support this request.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP
2002-020 with the following cohditions:
The entrance to the parcel containing this home occupation, Tax Map 61A,
Parcel 14, along Route 631 (Rio Road) shall remain permanently closed;
The home occupation shall be limited to the greenhouses and the retail area and
shall not exceed 3,500 square feet; and
The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday.
Attachments:
A - Application
B - Location Map
C - Pi at of Site
4
County~of Albemarle
Department of Building Code and
ATTACHMENT A
Application fOr Special Use Permit
ProjectName(~,..~,,~..~:rcr,o~i..ov,~u,,.7) Pine Crest Orchids
*ExistitigUse Residential/~o~ O~Livn Proposed Use
*Zoning Dis~ct ~.!-:ar.r.a ~- . *Zoning Ordinance Section number requited
(*staff will assist you with ~ese items)
Numbcrofacresto~coveredbySpecialUsePcrmit(u.~a-~*~u~'~oao 2 acres, more or less
~. o~o (on)
Is tiffs an amendment to an ex.ting Spatial Use Pe~it? ~Y~ No
Are you submitting a site development plan with ~ appli~fion? D Ye~No'
Contact Person (Who,. should wc call/write concerning this project?): Richard Arms trong
IAddress 300 Court Square City Charlottesville
IDayti~ePhone(434 ) 296-4130 Fax# 434-297-3083
State VA Zip 22902
E-mail
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records):
Address 1100 Penn Park Lane
Daytime Phone( 434 ,) 293-7817
Leon L. Bl,,mreich w~
Fax #
City~/harlottes'villeState
E-mail
VA
Applicant(Whois~hecontactper$onrcpresenting?Whoisrequestingthespecialuse?): Leon L. Blumreich
Address 1100 Penn Park Lane Cit~harlott~svillestate VA Zi~2901
Daytime Phone (434_) 293-7817
Fax # ,E-mail
Tax map and parcel 6 lA- 14
Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Physical Address {ifa~signed) 1100 Penn Park
Location of property (landmatk~, intcr~ctions, orother) Corner of Penn Park Lane and Rio Road
Does the owner of this property own (or have any Ownership interest in) any abutting property?
lthose tax map and parcel numbers ~o
If yes, please list
OFFICE USE ONLY --
Fcc am0unt $~)
History: O Special Use Permits:
F~.c -- e~
I-! ZMAs and Proffers:
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
Letter of Authorization
Yes O No
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors
hereby res-erves unto itself the right to issue all speei~l Use permits permitted hereunder. Special use
permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors
that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district
Will not be changed thereby and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance, with the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section
5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete
this form and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Cotnprehensive Plan designation for this property?
How will th .e proposcd special use affect adjacent property? It will have virtually no impact. The
extended history of the existing greenhouses (two since 1990; one for five
years prior thereto) evidences the negligble impact upon the neighborhood.
Howwi~thepr~p~sedspecia~useaf~ctthecharacter~fthedistrictsurr~undingthepr~pe~y? It should have no
effect. There should be little, if any, increase in traffic. It will enable
the owner to grow larger plants, and a few more of them. 'The plants typically
take about 8 years to grow to matu['ity.
Howistheuseinharmonywiththepu~oseandintentoftheZoningOrdinancc? It will enable the existing
home business 6ccupant to grow larger plants offering a greater variety to his
customers with minimum, if any, impact on the residential character of the
neighborhood.
Howistheusginharmony withtheusespermittedbyrightinthedistrict? It does not disrupt the residential
~character of the neighborhood.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?_ The addition of a
third greenhouse for growing orchids will have little impact beyond what currently
exists.
Describe yofir request in d~t~l afid~in-Clude all pertinent information such as the numbers of persons
involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: The small amount of
traffic generated by the business has little impact on the neighborhood,
especially i~ light of the location of the property at the corner of Rio Road ---
average customer traffic is about 10 per week, commercial traffic is about
1 every other week.
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, Please provide legal description of the property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it
needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing.
Ownership information - If ownership of the Property is ir/' the name of any type of legal
entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, partnership
Or association, or in the name of a trust, orin a fictitious name, a document acceptable to
the County must be submitted certifying that the person signing below has the authority
to do so.
If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
If-the applicant is the agent ofthe owner, a documen.t acce. ptable to the County must be
stibmitted that is eVidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
Drawings or conceptual plans, if any.
Additional Information, if any.
I hereby certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in
filing this application. I also certify-that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my
knowledge.
Signature Date
Printed Name
Daytime phone number of Signatory
.,a. LBEM.t~LE ~ ATTACHMENT B
/
/
RIVA~iNA DISTRK~T
D. El. 628-599
~I'LD WOOD
rtl]. 662 - ~58
SECTK~ 6lA.
~ o u^, ?~Y ~ u /~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 01-021 Carriage Gate Apartments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential with proffers to allow apartments with a density of
14 dwellings per acre. The property, described as Tax Map
45 Parcel 91 ,'is located in the Rio Magisterial District on
Woodbrook Drive approximately 1/4 miles frorn the
intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Ddve. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional,
recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Denisty uses
and nOn-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood
Service and Office Service,
And
Request to increase distance of parking spaces from dwelling
unit in accordance with Section 4.12.3.4.c.
STAFF CON,TACT(S):
Ms. Echols
PLANNING COMM!SsioN AGENDA.DATE: ' ' '
June 18, 2002
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2002
RECOMMENDED ACTION,: Approval with Proffers
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal and asked the applicant to redesign
the site to better meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model with specific regard to relegated parking, more
accurate grading information, and a central amenity. Attachments A & B contain the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting as well as the original staff report with relevant attachments.
Di~USS,ION:
A revised plan and proffem was provided by the applicant (Attachment C). Also included in Attachment C are proffered
elevations for the buildings, staff has reviewed the modified plan and relationship of grading to the elevations provided,
The new plan relegates almost all of the parking and provides a central amenity. These changes are in keeping with the
changes requested by the Commission. The proffers have been reviewed by the appropriate staff and, with minor
changes, am ready for approval,
As shown on the plan, there are three buildings; two are anticipated to be four stories tall and one is proposed to be two
stodes tall. These buildings have architectural elements to break up the massing and also work better with the terrain.
Since the property is not in the Entrance Corridor, no review by the Architectural Review Board is required.
With this plan, the Commission is asked to increase the distance from the parking spaces to the units in accordance with
Section 4.12.3.4.c. of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirement is for spaces to be located within 100 feet of each unit and
the Commission can increase this distance to 200 feet. Staff recommends the distance be increased to 200 feet in order
to more easily relegate parking on the s'~e.
(Staff has recommended with the proposed parking ordinance amendment that the distance requirement be dropped
altogether since it supports a more land intensive suburban development style than promoted in the Neighborhood
Mod~J
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the proffers which include a plan of development and
elevations.
Off-O8-O2P03:04 RCVD
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Minutes of March 19, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting
Attachment B- March 19, 2002 Staff Report (relevant parts)
Attachment C - Proffers including plan of development and elevations
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596'
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
June 26,2002
06-27-02A~:46 RCVD
Stephen M. Melton
P O Box 8147
Charlottesville, VA 22906
RE: ZMA-01-21 Carriage Gate Apartments; Tax Map 45, Parcel 91
Dear Mr.. Melton:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 18, 2002, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this
approval is subject to the attached proffers.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 10, 2002. The meeting will be held starting at 6:00 p.m. in
Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding
your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to
your scheduled hearing date.
The Commission also approved your request to increase distance of parking spaces from dwelling unit in
accordance With Section 4.12.3.4.c.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate
to co ntact me.
Sincerely,
David B. Benish
Chief of Planning & Community Development
DBB/jcf
Cc:-
Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Ketsey
Steve AIIshouse '
Date: 7/10/02
22W. A # 01-021
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
45-91
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # )
2.742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15 with Proffers
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (I) the rez6ning itself gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
Charles W. Hkrt
prmted NamesofAllOwners
Shirley L. Fisher
Printed NameofAxomey-m-Fact
June 20,2002
Date
June 20,2002
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact .
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
OR
Attachment to Proffer Form
Dated July 10, 2002
ZMA 01-021Tax Map 45- Parcel 91
Development of the property shall be in general accord with the application plan
entitled, "Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Crate Apartments" (herein
referred to as the "Application Plan"), dated December 17, 2001 and last revised,
june 3, 2002. Residential buildings, parking areas, and the recreational area are
identified as essential features for the purpose of being in'general accord.
Architectural features, of the building shall be consistent with the elevations
entitled, "Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations", '~Right Elevation (Left Elevation
Mirror Image)", "Front Elevation", and "Rear Elevation", prepared by Keeney &
Co. Architects, dated May 28, 2002. "Architectural features" means building
forms and elements, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors, textures
and scale.
The owner shall install screening materiat.q satisfactory to the Director of Ptauning
and Community Development for the emire length of the southern property line
that adjoins school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Director of
Planning and Community Development around the stormwater facility..
Installation of the screening shall occur prior .to the issue ora certificate of
occupancy for any of the buildings or shall be bonded. Installation of the fence
shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the
buildings.
The pedestrian path shown on the Application Plan on the southern boundary of
the property creating access to the school grounds shall have a 5-foot wide
mulched surface and a I O-foot wide clear zone on either side of the mulch path
for safety and visibility.. The installation of the pathway shall be completed prior
to the issuance ora certificate of occupancy.for any of the buildings.
The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County of Albemarle,
a 20-foot fight of way, as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension
of Woodbrook drive to tax Map 45, Parcel 90.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZMA 01-021 Carriage Gate Apartments
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential with proffers to allow apartments with a density of
14 dwellings per acre. The property, described as Tax Map
45 Parcel 91, is located in the Rio Magisterial District on
Woodbrcok Drive approximately 1/4 miles from the
intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional,
recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Denisty uses
and non-residential land uses. on the scale of Neighborhood
Service and Office Service.
And
Request to increase distance of parking spaces from dwelling
unit in accordance with Section 4:12.3.4.c.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Ms. Echols
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE:
June 18, 2002
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA DATE:
July 10, 2002
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approval with Proffers
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the applicant's proposal and asked the applicant to redesign
the site to better meet the principles of the Neighborhood Model with s~)ecific regard to relegated parking, more
accurate grading information, and a central amenity. Attachments A & B contain the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting as well as the original Staff rePort with relevant attachments:
DISCUSSION:
A revised plan and proffers was provided by the applicant (Attachment C). Also included in Attachment C are proffered
elevations for the buildings. Staff has reviewed the modified plan and relationship of grading to the elevations provided.
The new plan relegates almost al~ of the parking and provides a central amenity. These changes are in keeping with the
changes requested by the Commission. The proffers have been reviewed by the appropriate staff and with minor
changes, are ready for approval.
As shown on the plan. there are three buildings; two are anticipated to be four stories tall and one is proposed to be two
stories tall. These buildings have architectural elements to break up the massing and also work better with the terrain.
Since the property is not in the Entrance Corridor, no review by the Architectural Review Board is required.
With this plan, the Commission is asked to increase the distance from the parking spaces to the units iR accordance with
Section 4.12.3.4.c. of the Zoning Ordinance. The requirement is for spaces to be located within 1.00 feet of each unit and
the Commission can increase this distance to 200 feet. Staff recommends the distance be increased to 200 feet in order
to more easily relegate parking on the site.
(Staff has recommended with the proposed parking ordinance amendment that the distance requirement be dropped
altogether since it supports a more land intensive suburban development style than promoted in the Neighborhood Model.)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request with the proffers which include a plan' of development and elevations.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Proffers including plan of development and elevations
rumtc near~ng ri:em:
ZMA-01-21 Carriaqe Gate (Sign #69) ~ Request.to rezone' 2;742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The property described as Tax
Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive approximately 1/4 miles
from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive, The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential
land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses are 6 - 34 units
per acre (if this applies) in Neighborhood 1. (Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols presented the staff report as attached. She asked that the Planning Commission address the
following questions taken from the staff report:
1. Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's recommendations
for the Neighborhood Model?
2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining property
boundary with the school, be provided?
3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown adequately
given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant.
4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better assess the
differences between the redesign suggested by staff?
5. If 'no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is viewed as
appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading information is no 19nger
impodant?"
Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 19; 2002
' DRAFT MINUTES - SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Rieley invited the applicant to speak.
Steve Melton stated that he represented the Berkmar Land Trust for the rezoning portion of the
application. Other persons present to speak for the request were Tim Miller, Design Engineer of Rivanna
Engineenng and Surveying; and Rick Carter and his son, the contract purchasers and developers of the
site. They were in agreement with the signed proffers, which were provided to staff earlier today.
Mr. Rieley asked if there was any public comment on this request.
Jack Schmidt, a resident of Woodbum Road, stated that he was happy to see a residential development
in this area. He voiced concerns abOut the site plan, pointing out that the proposed entrance and exit to
the development would be from Berkmar Drive and not Woodbum Road. He asked what the back of the
development would look like and what impact it would have on Woodbum Road. He questioned what
type of screening and setbacks would be required.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Planning Commission.
Mr'. Rieley suggested that the Commission begin with the list of questions on page 8 of the staff report.
Mr. Edgerton asked to hear the applicant's res ponse to these questions. Being sympathetic to staff's
concerns, he felt that these questions address the pertinent issues. He pointed out that he saw nothing in
the proposed project that resembled the neighborhood model principles, noting the following concerns:
the tot lot in the middle of the parking lot does not seem to be in the appropriate location; the grading
issue are unresolved, and parking seems contrary to what had been requested. He questioned why the
applicant has not been able to provide the information that staff has asked for.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Melton if they wanted to address that.
Rich Carter stated that in most respects he felt that they did meet the neighborhood model principles.
They wanted to get a waiver for the tot lot because of the school and Public Park Next Door. Then people
within the complex would have full access to the property of the school. There is kind of a struggle
between circulation versus central amenity. This is an opportunity to provide easy access for emergency
vehicles and the people moving in and out. They wanted to do something special with the interior by
creating a meeting place. For example, a place to go read. If you look in the back of the submission,
there is an actual layout of the park. The park would be heavily landscaped and at a raised elevation to
provide buffer from the street noise.
Ms. Hooper asked what were. the dimensions of the park.
Mr. Miller-stated that it was approximately 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Rieley .ascertained that Mr. Miller was referring to Attachment D of the staff report.
Mr. Carter stated that to be more central, it certainly could be pull.ed to the side and work the parking
around it so that it was against the school side of the ~roject, which would tone down the circulation.
That is something that could be done without too much of a problem. The only other criteria that he saw
from the neighborhood model that they really nad trouble with was the relegated parking. They want to
provide landscaping up front with some intricate features to buffer the Woodbrook cul-deosac from the
parking. They had investigated staff's proposal of turning the building and trying to get the parking inside
the project. There is a grading issue and a cost issue associated with the new layout. It became
apparent that they would need a retaining wall all the way down the right-hand side. In struggling with
that, they felt that this was a worse scenario--looking at the parking lot was one thing, but looking at the
retaining wall was something quite different.
Albemarle County Planning Commission - March 19, 2002
DRAFT MIN%WES - SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002
ATTACHMENT A
Ms. Hopper suggested that they lower the density, which would reduce the parking requirements and give
room to shift things.
Mr. Carter stated that it probably would, however lowering the density lowers the ability to provide income
to the owners of the land. By lowering that, the cost of the development does not go down. The building
cost may go down a little bit, but the ability to create income off the project also goes down. That was
what drives the project. Therefore, if you cannot achieve a breaking point in density, then the project
does not happen.
Ms. Hopper pointed out that was not a compelling reason for the rezoning.
Mr. Carter stated that'in the real world that is what drives the product.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions.
Mr. Thomas asked what the elevation was at the retaining wall and how tall would the retaining walt have
to be.
Mr. Carter stated that at the start of the wall, .close to the first parking space on the right as it was laid out
today, the wall was 4 feet tall, give or take, and runs the length of the site. All you would have to do is
transfer the elevation on the current site plan to within 3 feet of the property line and then tie the grades
together. That would give you the height of the wall today. They have met five different times with
Planning and Engineering in trying to come up with a way to make this work. Engineering has conceded
the fact that their plan may include more grading and that we might have to drop the site further. If all of
the grades stay the same, the back of the retaining walt would be about 7 foot.
Mr. Thomas agreed that the elevations are much different in the back of the lot than in the front.
Mr. Miller pointed out that Mr. Carter did not feel it was necessary to develop the entire site plan showing
staff's recommendation and grading when everything indicated that it was not a feasible option for this
site. That is in response to why we did not submit a plan showing the grading of staff's layout. After
review of the site, it became apparent for many reasons that the relegated parking would not work.
Ms. Ho3per pointed that it would not work at this density.
Mr. Edgerton voiced concern that the information pmvideC was not to scale.
Mr. Miller pointed out that although the plan is not to scale, it does show a 10-foot cut. The Commission
can interpret from this that there would be an additional ten-foot cut over the site. It is a copying reduction
issue, but the graph on that chart does show the graae and would be a map of that layout with a 10 foot
cut.
Mr. Craddock asked what the difference in elevation is from Woodburn Road to the back of the apartment
building.
Mr. Miller stated that there are actually two residential lots behind this parcel before you get to Woodburn
Road. There are approximately 300 to 400 feet between the back of this property and Woodburn Road.
Mr. Edgerton stated that there was a 25 to 30 foot grade change from Woodburn Road to the back of this
property.
Ms. Hopper suggested that they explore the maximum height of the building. She questioned if they
could reconfigure the project in a different way in order to be able to have the necessary density and at
the same time be able to'move the parking. She asked if they could make the buildings higher.
Albemarle Coun¢"Planning Coram:ss:oi~ - .vlarch 1.¢. 2,c02
DRAFT MIN'UTES - SLB:;d ~ Tr.L AP.LiL 9. 2002
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Miller pointed out that he would have to research this, pointing out that the setback limits affect the
height limitation.
Ms. Echols stated that the maximum height was 65 feet. Any building higher than 35 feet has to have an
additional setback. They could go as high as 65 feet if they could meet the setback. There is a 2-foot
setback for every 1-foot of height above 35 feet. Presently, a 35-foot building is proposed.
Mr. Rieley invited addition al public comment.
There 'being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed, and the matter placed before the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Rieley stated that the requests made by staff are reasonable. He personally wanted to see this
explored further. A request for a more detailed grading plan and how the building fits the land is not an
unusual request. Particularly, when there is a rezoning and a proposal for a development concurrent with
that. Saying that the plan has been looked at and the only feasible way is the way it is in the application
does not meet with favor. He asked that the applicants take a step back and look at each of these issues
more seriously.
Ms. Hopper concurred.
Mr. Rieley asked the applicants if they would like to request a deferral to look more carefully at these
issues or if they would prefer the Commission act tonight.
Mr. Carter asked if the Commission could define what they-needed for the resubmttal.
Mr. Rieley requested that they explore and address the items outlined in the staff report. The applicant
needs to provide enough information so that the Commission can make an informed judgement about
whether it will work. He asked for other comments.
Mr. Thomas stated that additional grading information/cross-section information needs to be provided to
better assess the differences between tile redesign suggested by staff?
Mr. Carter asked if they could demonstrate f the staffs recommendation for relegated parking would'
result in additiona grading and retaining walls, would this information put the Commission in a better
oosition.
Mr. Rieley stated.that he did not think that was quite what they meant.
Mr. Edgerton felt strongly, that the design needs to be reconfigured and at least an attempt is made to
provide relegated parking. He stated that the design needs to be reconfigured to try to make that central
amenity a little bit more appropriately sited. He stated that he was not in love with staffs alternative
scenario., but they should be able to come up with another solution that works better than the one that
they were looking at. This is a major rezomng request, and he could not support it with this plan.
Mr. Rieley stated that the benchmark was that this property has an existing zoning on it that can be
implemented by right. By asking for a higher density, they were asking that the design be to the greatest
extent ,2ossible and consistent to the neighborhood model. He stated that all of those five items relate
directly to that.
Mr. Carter stated that the applicant requests a deferral to the next Planning Commission meeting to give
them a chance to reevaluate the plans.
Mr. Rielty asked if there was room available on next week's docket for this case.
Albemarle CJunD' Planning Commission- March 19, 2002
DRAFt- N~L%'L'TES - SUBMITTED APRIL 9, 2002
ATTACHMENT A
Mr. Benish stated that it would depend on what the applicant wants out of the next meeting. If it was just
to determine whether the Commission can act or not~ then th~:oUid hear it next week. However, if they
were waiting for information to be submitted, it would depend on when that information was provided. He
wanted to make sure that they allowed enough time to discuss the items.
Mr. Rieley stated that if the applicants were trying to decide amongst themselves whether to defer this,
then the Planning Commission could table this item until later this evenIng and bring it back for action.
Mr: Carter asked if they could have .a few minutes.
Mr. Benish stated that Ms. Echols has another meeting. Since this was only a question of whether they.
were going to defer it or not, he asked if the Commission minded if she left.
Mr. Rieley stated that that they had already asked all of the technical questions and felt that they had
been provided with enough information. They were aiming for the applicant to decide whether they
wanted to request a deferral.
The Board tabled the request for a few minutes until the applicants had a chance to discuss the issues
and decic~ e if th ey wanted to .request a deferral.
MOTION:
Mr. Edgerton moved to table the request until later in the meeting.
Ms. Hopper seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
ATTACHMENT B
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ZMA 01-021: Carriage Gate Apartments
SDP 02-016: Carriage Gate Apartments
ELAINE IC ECHOLS, AICP
MARCH 19, 2002
APRIL 3, 2002
Applicant's Proposal: Virginia Land Company has requested a rezoning of a property
located at the end of Woodbrook Drive adjacent to Agnor Hurt SChool from R-6 residential
to R- 15 residential. At present, the property is wooded and undeveloped. With this rezoning,
the applicant is requesting approval.of a 41-unit apartment complex with a density of 14 units
per acre. The applicant is proffering development in accordance with the "Rezoning
Application Plan dated 2/8/02". (See Attachment A for Plan and Proffers.) The applicant is
also proffering conformity with the building features and colors shown on the renderings
entitled "Carriage Gate Apartments." (see last attachment -- Attachment J.) It should be
noted that, due to their recent, receipt, these proffers have not yet been reviewed or approved
by the County Attorney's office for form.
A site development plan has been submitted to accompany this rezoning. The site plan
mirrors the "Rezoning Application Plan". The contract purchaser for the property, Rick
Carter with Southland Homes, has developed the site development plan.
Petition: The petition is a request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The petition also
includes a request for approval of a site development plan. The property described as Tax
Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive
approximately 1/4 miles from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates th_is property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use
areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood
Service and Office Service. Urban Density uses include 6 - 34 units per acre in
Neighborhood 1. (See Attachments B & C.)
Character of the Area: THe properties adjoining the parcel vary in their level and type of
development. Agnor Hurt Elementary School is located to the south of the property. To the
east are offices hnd small retail shops. Further to the east are two fairly large shopping areas
(Lowe's and Rio Hills Shopping Center). To the north is a fairly large wooded undeveloped
property which is also shown as Transitional on the Land Use Plan. To the west are two
parcels, which were recently subdivided from the property proposed for this rezoning. Two
houses are located on the parcel closest to-the parcel proposed for this rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and t_.he Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend
approval at this time.
Planning and Zoning History: The parcel was zoned from R-2 to R-6 in 1980 with the
County's entire new zoning ordinance and map revisions. The old R-2 district allowed up to
5.3 units per acre with public water and sewer. Prior to 1996, the parcel contained 5.'5 acres.
Approximately 0.5 acres was subdivided off to make the cut-de-sac of Woodbum Road.
ATTACHMENT B
Two new parcels were created at that time that are now I'MP's 45-91A and 91-B. (SUB 96-
056) The parcels contain an office building and the Northside Daycare. The original parcel
was further subdivided in September of last year (SUB 01- 175) to create two new parcels
whose access would be from Woodbum Road. The Planning Commission approved a private
road for these two parcels on September 18, 2001.
Specifics on the Proposal: The layout of the development is shown in Attachment A as the
"Rezonmg Application Plan". The apartment complex requested would allow for the
development of 41 units in this mixed use area in Neighborhood 1. The design and form of
the complex is fairly conventional. A recreational feature is provided at the rear of the site
surrounded by the parking lot for the Building C. The recreational feature has been described
verbally by the applicant as an area depressed and screened from the surrounding parking
area in which vegetation and benches will be provided (see Attachment D). The applicant
has said that the recreational feature and the configuration of the parking lot is important to
provide for circular movement for moving trucks and other emergency vehicles:
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has provided a narrative in
support of his rezoning which is shown as Attachment E. Key points are that the applicant
believes this project will provide housing in an area that is adjacent to an elementary school,
transit is nearby, and convenient shopping is within a short walking distance. The applicant
thinks that commercial development of this property (which could be requested since
"Transitional" uses include commercial uses) would be difficult because of the lot size and
configuration. He has said "the development of this site is contingent on getting maximum
density to make it economically feasible to build and lease".
By-right Use of the Property:. If developed under the current R-6 zoning, the property, could
provide 16 dwellings. With bonus densities or a cluster development, 24 units could be
provided.
Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for rezonings in the
Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land
Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan shows this area as Transitional, which should:
· Be used prim&rily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in
areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropri ate to blend changing
circumstances or areas where redevelopment/reuse is encouraged.
· Provide an opportunity to develop mixed-use areas with Urban Density Residential uses
and non-residential land uses on a scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service
· Include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses, and
apartment buildings
· Be developed under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure coordination of
uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally
sensitive areas.
ATTACHMENT B
The density of the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Density classification. The
addition of a residential use in this area provides for a mixed-use area of the county. Many
services for the residents are within walking d/stance of the proposed apartment complex.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to be in a significant wooded area shown between
Woodbum Road and Route 29 in Neighborhood 1. The Open Space Plan says, "Preserve or
estabhsh trees or vegetative buffers in the following specific areas as development occurs:
The wooded ridge along Berkmar~which is highly visible from Route 29 North and provides
a buffer between adjacent residential and commercial land uses. Staffnotes that keeping this
wooded area wooded with a Transitional Use or even the existing R-6 zoning could be
difficult. Much of the tree cover would be removed regardless of the development.
The ways in which'the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in
accordance with the Neighborhood Model are providedbelow.
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
Space
Neighborhood
Centers
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
Relegated '
Sidewalks extend from the cul-de-sac around all buildings and
parking. Sufficient pedestrian access is provided. Pedestrian access
would also be important with a modified design of the development.
No new streets are proposed; if the driveway were relocated to a
location parallel .with the northern property line, trees could be added
alongside the drive, A mulch pedestrian path has been proffered to
connect to the school. The Schools division of the County believes
the mulch path is adequate to provide for pedestrian access.
A proffer has been made for a 20 wide reservation ofr. o.w. for
dedication on demand, of the County to serve the ad'oining, j _parcel
TMP 45-90. An existing access easement of 30 feet on the adjacent
property could be added to provide for sufficient r.o.w, for a public
road, if necessary. Access to the property to the east is not provided
because the properties have access to Woodburn Road via a private
road. This access was approved with a recent subdivision.
The recreational amenity area is shown in the parking lot, which is
viewed as a lesS than ideal location. A more central location within
the complex and adjacent to the school would be safer and provide
for better amenity opportunities. It should be noted here that the
applicant will be requesting that the Planning Director substitute tot
lot equipment for landscaping and benches through the site plan
process. The reason for the substitution is that play~ound equipment
on the school property can provide for the needs of the younger
children in the development.
The property is located is in an area near several centers, including
the elementary school and nearby shopping centers. The location of a
multi-unit complex near the school and shopping centers is a very
· ' proposal.
Perspective drawings indicate shape, massing, and number of stories;
however the grades on the site plan don't match with the
perspectives. At this juncture it is difficult to tell whether or not
~s of human scale are provided adequately.
Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staffbelieves it
ATTACHMENT B
does not meet this principle o~the Neighborhood Model. .
Mixture of Uses As indicated:previously for"centers", the property is located in an
area near shopping centers, offices, and a school. In conjunction with
: these other uses, a "mixture of uses" is achieved with the surrounding
properties. This proposal provides for residential use currently not
present in the area.
Mixture of Housing' The proposed development does not provide a mixture of unit types
Types and (i.e., detached, attached, duplexes, etc.). Such a mixture could take
Affordability place on this small parcel, but it might be difficult to achieve because
of the size and shape of the parcel. The applicant intends this
complex to be a rental complex only. Affordability is unknown.
There are two single-unit dwellings to the rear that belong to the
property owner requesting this rezoning; however, the furore use of
those units on R-6 property is unknown.
Redevelopment Not applicable. .
Site Planning that How the proposed project respects terrain is still unknown. Minimal
Respects Terrain grading is shown; however, it doesn't match the perspective drawings
or indications by applicant that the unit type requires flat pads.
Clear Boundaries Not applicable - the property doesn't border Rural Areas
with the Rural
Areas
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zonine district According to the Zoning Ordinance, the R-15 zoning district is intended to
provide for compact, high-density residential development. The district permits a variety of
housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of
locational, environmental, and developmental amenities. The existing R-6 zoning district-is
intended to provide for compact, medium-density residential development. It also permits a
variew of housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision
of locational, environmental, and developmental amenities.
The application is. for a higher density residential use than the R-6 allows. The
ComprehensivePlan indicates that urban density residential uses are appropriate in
Transitional areas. R-6, R-10 or R-15 could fit into this category of Urban Density. Staff
believes that the R-15 zoning district, with proffers, could provide appropriate density if the
character and form of the development is supportive of the density requested.
Public need and justification for the change -- The County's policy for encouraging
development at higher densities within the Development Areas provides a public need and
justification for the request. Form and design are as important to a successful project,
though, as the density.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
ATTACHMENT B
Transportation -An additional 287 vehicle trips per day are expected from this
development. The surrounding road network ofWoodbrook, Berkmar, and Route 29 are
capable of absorbing this additional traffic with minimal impact.
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site. Off-site easements
from the school will be necessary at least for the sewer extension and possibly the water
extension, as currently proposed on the plan. There should be no issue with fire flow
because apartment buildings are required to be sprinkled.
Schools, Children from this development would attend Ag"nor Hurt Elementary School,
Middle School, and High School. Using the County's multipliers for multi-unit
development, a total of 8 children are anticipated with the 41 umts.
Stormwater Management - A stormwater facility is shown on the site. The site plan
comments note the needed changes in order for it to be approved.
Fiscal impact to public facilities - A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment F.
As with all residential rezonings, the fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated
to pay for services.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - The site is a gently
rolling, with trees. :There are no recognized cultural or historic resources located on the
property, which would be affected by either a by-right development or this rezoning. The~:e
is existing forest cover; however, the more intense and dense the development, the fewer
trees that can remain. It is likely that a by-right development of between 16 and 24 units,
designed to retain some of the trees, could successfully integrate wooded areas into the
development. Existing regulations for by-right development could not be used' to ensure
preservation of the trees on the site.
Other Issues Staff reviewed the "Application Plan" with the rezoning request during the
first month of review. Staff was concerned that two important principles of the
Neighborhood Model were not included as part of the design. These principles were
"relegated parking" and a "central amenity". Staff suggested to the applicant that the
buildings be rotated 90 degrees and parking be relocated so as to be less visible from the
public road. Staff also suggested that recreational amenity be located between the buildings
adjacent to the school property. (See Attachment G.)
The applicant countered that to make these changes would require an exorbitant amount of
grading and provided a cross-section elevation with the second submittal of the plan. (See
Attachment H.) The County Engineering Department found that the cross-section did not
scale and that the grades shown did not correspond to any plan 0fcomparison. Engineering's
comments are as follows:
The ZMA for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. Engineering staff reviewed the
crass-section to assess the difference in grading between the plan provided and the
design suggested by staff. A comparison of the two plans was nor practical for the
following reasons:
ATTACHMENT B
1. There was a cross-section of the "design'suggested by staff" but no cross section
of the applicant's plan to compare tt to.
2. The cross-section was not to scale.
3. The cross-section of the "design suggested by staff'; did not include the same
grading concepts as the originally submitted plan. These include 5% parking lot
grades, 10% travel way grades, and buildings constructed on slopes within the
original plan but shown on fiat pads with alternative plan. The original plan
shows an average grade around 6% while the cross-section plan shows an
average grade around 2%.
4. It is impractical to compare grading plans without an equivalent site plan with
grade lines for the "design suggested by staff."
Of difficulty to the staff is the fact that on the proposed site plan, the buildings are to be
constructed on the slopes; but with the cross-section (relating to staff's suggested
reorientation of buildings), the applicant has shown totally flat pads. Staff thinks that the
ability exists for the reorientation of buildings to occur without providing totally flat pads.
When asked about the need for totally flat pads with a change in building orientation, the ·
applicant said that the building design he wanted to use required flat pads. In the site plan
comments, Planning staff noted the discrepancy between the architectural elevations shown
with flat building pads and the site plan showing buildings to be constructed on slopes. (See
Attachment I.) Because of the lack of consistent information relative to grading and the
architectural designs, staff cannot determine how well the principle of "buildings and spaces
ofhurnan scale" is being met.
Although staff asked the applicant to provide additional information on grading or request
direction from the Planning Commission. through the worksession process, the applicant
declined. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission's public hearing and
decision on the plan submitted as the Rezoning Application Plan.
Preliminary Site Plan
A preliminary site Plan was received for this development following the submittal of the
rezoning request. The site plan has several deficiencies, which are noted in Attach_mere H.
At this time, staff cannot recommend approval of the site plan if the rezoning is approved.
The most important issues include:
Stormwater infrastructure and grading needs more' definition
Engineering Comment: The easternmost drop inlet and drainpipe system (adjacent to
TMP 45-91A) appears to drain uphill or flat. Please give details of the drainage
system from "Str-4" to the "SWM facility" that demonstrate proper drainage.
Tightness of the utilities and planting area widths may make .planting installation very
difficult:
Engineering Comment: Though not typically an Engineering concern, it should be
noted that the location of the proposed sewer lines would prevent a tree buffer
between the site and Agnor Hurt Elementary School.
Planning Dept. Comment: [32.7.9.81 Please be advised that screening at a' depth Of
20 feet may be required along the Stormwater Management Facility and the boundary
6
ATTACHMENT B
with the school. Plan accordingly to accommodate vegetation in such areas and be
aware of potential conflicts with utilities.
Planning Dept. Comment: [32.5.6s] It appears that there is insufficient space for
landscaping with the aforementioned utilities. A conceptual landscape plan shall be
submitted prior to preliminary site Plan approval to assess this issue. The plan must
meet the minimum requirements for screening along the stormwater facility and the
parking lots, as well as screening from the rear property and the school. The
conceptual plan need not specify the distinct species, but-rather.would describe the
vegetation by its type (i.e., medium shade tree, screening shrub etc.)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal is for a use, which is supported by the Land Use Plan at this location.
2. The proposed use provides for a "mixed-use" community in this part of Neighborhood
One.
3. Residential uses are supported by a pedestrian network, public services (schools, fire, and
rescue services, transit) and close proximity to shopping and employment.
4. The residential use next to the elementary school is viewed as extremely compatible.
5. Perspective drawings are proffered to-depict the appearance of the structures.
6. Pedestrian access to the elementary school is provided by the applicant and the proximity
of the complex to the school allows for recreational use of the school's Playground
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The design does not conform to the NeighbOrhood Model principles for relegated parking
and a central amenity.
2. While density is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, it is unclear why the R-15
designation is superior to the R-6 designation given the conventional design of the
development. Each of the factors above is also true for the existing R-6 district.
3. Insufficient information has been provided relative to grading to know what difference in
grading a redesign might have. For that reason, it is also not known whether or not there
is conformi.ty with the principle of"buildings and spaces of human scale".
4. As shown, it appears that insufficient screening and landscaping area exists in some
places, especially in relation to utility lines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
S taft believes that a residential use is appropriate for the property and that greater density
could be supported with a modified design. Without an alternative design or information
substantiating that grading with an alternative design is so massive as to make the alternative
infeasible, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time. Because there is no
recommendation for approval of the rezoning, and because the preliminary site plan
requirements have not been met, staff cannot recommend approval of the preliminary site
plan.
Because staffbelieves that density greater than that allowed by-rig.bt could be appropriate at
ATTACHMENT B
this location with a different design, we request that:the Planning Commission provide
direction to both the staff and the applicant on these ~uestions:
I Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's
recommendations for the Neighborhood Model?
2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining
property boundary with the school, be provided?
3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown
adequately given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant.
4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better
assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff?.
5. If no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is
viewed as appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading
information is no longer important?
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proffers dated 2/25/02 with Application Plan dated 2/8/02
Attachment B - Tax Map
AttaChment C - Vicinity Map
Attachment D - Drawing of Common Meeting Space/Tot Lot dated Dec. 2001
Attachment E - Applicant's Attachment to Rezoning Application dated 12/17/01
Attachment F - Fiscal Impact Analysis dated 3/12/02
Attachment G - Staff Comments dated 1/24/02
Attachment H - Cross-Section Based on Staff Recommendations for Site Layout dated 2/19/02
Attachment I - Staff Comments dated March 5, 2002
Attachment J - Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations dated 2/21/02 (3 pages)
8
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer.
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # __.
Date: 7/10/02
ZMA # 01-021
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
45-91
2.742 Acres to berezoned from R-6 to R-15 with Proffers
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezone& These conditions are
proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezonmg itsetf gives rise to the need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezonmg request.
(1)
Charles W. Hurt
Printed NamesofAll0wners
Shirley L. Fisher
Printed NameofAnomey-m-Fact
June 20,2002
Date
June 20,2002
Siznarure of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Pror>er Power of Attorney)
OR
Attachment to Proffer Form
Dated July 10, 2002
ZMA 01-021Tax Map 45- Parcel 91
Development of the property shall be in general accord with the application plan
entitled, "Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Gate Apartments" (herein
referred to as the "Application Plan"), dated December 17, 2001 and last revised,
June 3, 2002. Residential buildings, parking areas, and the recreational area are
identified as essential features for the purpose of being in ge~/eral accord.
Architectural features of the building shall be consistent with the elevations
entitled, "Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations", "Right Elevation (Left Elevation
Mirror Image)", "Front Elevation", and "Rear Elevation", prepared by Keeney &
Co. Architects, dated May 28, 2002. "Architectural features" means building
forms and elements, including roofs, windows, doors, materials, colors, textures
and scale.
The owner shall install screening materials satisfactory to the Director of Planning
and Community Development for the entire length of the southern property line
that adjoins school property and fencing materials satisfactory to the Director of
Planning and Community Development around the stormwater facility.
Installation of the screening shall occur prior to the issue of a certificate of
occupancy for any of the buildings or shall be bonded. Installation of the fence
shall occur prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the
buildings.
The pedestrian path shown on the Application Plan on the southern boundary of
the property creating access to the school grounds shall have a 5-foot Wide
mulched surface and a 10-foot Wide clear zone on either side of the mulch path
for safety and visibility-. The installation of the pathway shall be completed prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the buildings.
The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County of Albemarle,
a 20-foot right of way, as shown on the Application Plan, for the future extension
of Woodbrook drive to tax Map 45, Parcel 90.
VICINITY MAP
;CALE: "= :OEO'
?M 4,5 Par 91 Lot B
B~,rkmark Land Truest
DB 2097-286
Z¢~ed R-6
Use: Residentiat
-2
LEGEND
-- N/E-- ~'qstmg ,'tote¢ ne
--O/E-- )verBead E ecIr~c
'~CO (xlstmg Elevation/Conlour
, $OO .Dmaosed %or Elevation
S G2'_9'2~"E
T:t4 45 Pc~r 90
Chartie dc Cene'ue Anderson
DB 368-548
Zoned R-6
Use: Res~de~t~Z
CGt-6
.%.
24
Zoned R-6
CH.SE,:~. ~;G
S 4J'CF: £-" v
~Ou ·
REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR
CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS
TM-45, PARCEL 91
RIVANNA DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
' 5.'2:
TM z5 Par
Arthur .Y.
DB 189,i-288
Zoned C-2
Use: Commercia;~
ATTACHMENT B
/
' ,' 'Use: Day Care
SITE DATA
LEGAL REFERENCe;
TN ~5 PARCEL
~AAGESTERIAL }IS-RICT:
RIVANNA
SOURCE '~F 'JTLEI ;OR :DARCE_.
D8 1680 PAGE "360
OWNER:
8ERK~AR LAND ~UST
P O. BOX 8147
CHARLOT~SVlLLB vA 22906
DEVELOPER:
SOUTHLAND HOMES, NC.
2119 ~ERKMAR O~i~
CHARLOT~S'4~LL~. 'lA 2290~
CURRENT ZSNINGi ~-~
PROPOSED ZONiNg;: ~-'5
SOURCE '~
~, 3OLN]AR'¢ ~.R.E"'
:'_Z7 9Y 3 AUB¢v -".::gAN'~E';:]RSE2' ~ 7E 2~97-28fl
SOURCE SF FCP~SRAP~':
~LBE~ARLE
"CPOGR~P~IC
~UILD~NG $E~AOXS
FRONT 25
5~OE YARD '5'
REAR vAR0: 20'
PARKING SChEdULE.
~EQUIRED: 2 SPsCE5
~I 'J~ITS ~ 2 = ~2 i~C2~
=ROVID~: ~ S~ACES ~,CL.C;NG 2 ~0 SE~CES}
LAND U.E SCHEDULE:
:RE-DEV % POST-OEV. %
IUILDINGS O.O AC ].S 2!,~00 SF 18%
PARKING:
OPEN:
TO~AL: ~!9,4~2 SF 'CO ~,'9.~t2 SF 100%
GROSS RESiDEN~AL ~ENSiTY: !5 3NITS PER ACRE
MAXI~U~ DWELUNG JNITS:
· ~ APAR~ENTS
'~AXI~UV '~PERVIOUS :CVER:
/7
/
37
3Z
ATTACHMENT B
J
RIO , RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 45 .,~.,-
PROFFER FORM
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment #
Date: July 3, 2002
ZMA #01-021-
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
45~9i
2. 742 Acres to be rezoned from R-6 to R-15
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle Counw Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its dulv authorized agent, hereby
voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shatt be applied to the properw, if rezoned. These conditions are
proffered as a part oft. he requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itsetf gives rise tothe need for the
conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1)
Charles W. Hurt June 4, 2002
Printed NamesofAllOwners Date
Shirley L. Fisher June 4. 2002
Signature of Attorney-in-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
OR
Printed Name of Attorney-m-Fact
VICINITY MAP
. ~-LE.
REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR
CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS
TM45 PARCBL 91
RI'VANNA DIS!RICT
ALBEMARLE COUNT~, VIRGINIA
- \
SITE DATA
_Et, d [EFEfiENCE
M,a,)E TEM,',L O - Tr',i''~
OWHEF
BEF t,~,~.R LAIID fEtJS~
-IARD.ffTE'~>,/ILLE a
DEvEL OPEF
SOijTHLAMg 4m'~blE5 IIIL
tlIARLL 1TFS'~ILLE
L:l RREI'I] 'ZOHINC
PrrSFD ZO ]ltiO
F:LA1 B~ E m~BF H~JFm
~OpOL.~APFi.C
B l[ ,t, 5El'BALK':
FROHI
SIDE ~ARE' 5'
PE~F 'FARO
k~AXIhhU'A ~ ~[01
PARI I,IC- ~ HID .TE
REOI RE[ I SPa. rE} PEP II~
lC, 15
pRO liD[II d
(.D:~ 5' PF~JDEH B~L
ATTACHMENT C
Alofl
...... ATTACHMENT C
VICINITY MAP
-
LEGEND
-- ~ - - E ,: .b
REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR
CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS
TM 45 PARCEL 91
RIVANNA DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
-2.
SITE 'DATA
E(,~ 3f?E~Ef4tE
t,I ~ -/,TI;..%
:fEEl !,1 :: :i, r.917
C, LO
cH..F'I, ~T TE L',&LE - '
~C,I I T]iu *.1'[( H Ok,ii ':,
,',l~E:'E '"~- b)~
FF'",I t T
PEAF, ~ APl
H!lS
TL'Li
...... [ 4 LLh I'_
A1 of '
FRONT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0'
REAR ELEVATION
I--
Z
I
Z
LL~
LEFT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8",-1'-0"
Z
IL!
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
MARCH 19, 2002
APRIL 3, 2002
ZMA 01-021: Carriage Gate Apartments
SDP 02-016: Carriage Gate Apartments
Applicant's Proposal: Virginia Land Company has requested a rezoning of a property
located at the end of Woodbrook Drive adjacent to Agnor Hurt School from R-6 residential
to R-15 residential. At present, the property is ~vooded and undeveloped. With this rezoning,
the applicant is requesting approval of a 41-unit apartment complex with a density of 14 units
per acre. The applicant is proffering development in accordance with the "Rezoning
Application Plan dated 2/8/02". (See Attachment A for Plan and Proffers.) The applicant is
also pr. offering conformity with the building features and colors shown on the renderings
entitled "Carriage Gate Apartments." (See last attachment -- Attachment J.) It shoiald be
noted that, due to their recent receipt, these proffers have not yet been reviewed or approved
by the County Attorney's office for form.
A site development plan has been submitted to accompany this rezoning. The site plan
mirrors the "Rezoning Application Plan". The contract purchaser for the property, Rick
Carter with Southland Homes, has developed the site development plan.
Petition: The petition is a request to rezone 2.742 acres from R-6 Residential to R-15
Residential to allow apartments with a density of 14 dwellings per acre. The petition also
includes a request for approval of a site development plan. The property described as Tax
Map 45 Parcel 91 is located in the Rio Magisterial District on Woodbrook Drive
approximately 1/4 miles from the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Transitional recommended for mixed-use
areas with Urban Density uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood
Sepvice and Office Se~'ice. Urban D~nsity uses include 6 - 34 units per acre in
Neighborhood 1. (See Attachments B & C.)
Character of the Area: The properties adjoining the parcel vaN, in their level and type of
development. Agnor Hurt Elementary School is located to the south of the property. To the
east are offices and small retail shops. Further to the east are. two fairly large shopping areas
(Lowe's and Rio Hills Shopping Center). To the north is a fairly large wooded undeveloped
property which is also shown as Transitional on the Land Use Plan. To the west are two
parcels, which were recently subdivided from the'property proposed for this rezoning. Two
houses are located on the parcel closest to the parcel proposed for this rezoning.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and cannot recommend
approval at-this time.
Planning and Zonin~o History: The parcel was zoned from R-2 to R-6 in 1980 with the
County's entire new zoning ordinance and map revisions. The old R-2 district allowed up to
5.3 units per acre with public water mad sewer. Prior to 1996, the parcel contained 5.5 acres.
Approximately 0.5 acres was subdivided off to make the cul-de-sac of Woodburn Road.
Two new parcels were created at that time that are now TMP's 45-91A and 91-B. (SUB 96-
056) The parcels contain an office building and the Northside Daycare. The original parcel
was further subdivided in September of last year (SUB 01- 175) to create two new parcels
whose access would be from Woodburn Road. The Planning Commission approved a private
road for these two parcels on September 18, 2001.
Specifics on the Proposal: The layout of the development is shown in Attachment A as the
"Rezoning Application Plan". The apartment complex requested would allow for the
development of 41 units in this mixed use area in Neighborhood 1. The design and form of
the complex is fairly conventional. A recreational feature is provided at the rear of the site
surrounded by the parking lot for the Building C. The recreational feature has been described
verbally by the applicant as an area depressed and screened from the surrounding parking
area in which vegetation and benches will be provided (see Attachment D). The applicant
has said that the recreational feature and the configuration of the parking lot is important to
provide for circular movement for moving trucks and other emergency vehicles.'
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has provided a narrative in
support of his rezoning which is shown as Attachment E. Key points are that the applicant
believes this project will provide housing in an area that is adjacent to an elementary school,
transit is nearby, and convenient shopping is within a short walking distance. The applicant
thinks that commercial development of this property (which could be requested since
"Transitional" uses include commercial uses) would be difficult because of the lot size and
configuration. He has said "the development of this site is contingent on getting maximum
density to make it economically feasible to build and lease".
By-right Use of the Propertw: If developed under the current R-6 zoning, the property could
p~Zovide 16 dwellings. With bonus densities or a cluster development, 24 units could be
provided.
Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for rezonings in the
Development .~U-eas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land
Use Plan.
The Land Use Plan shows this area as Transitional, which should:
Be used primarily between residential areas and commercial or industrial areas, or in
areas where flexibility of land uses may be necessary or appropriate to blend changing
circumstances or areas where redevelopment/reuse is encouraged.
Provide an opportunity to develop mixed-use areas with Urban Density Residential uses
and non-residential land uses on a scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service
Include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses, and
apartment buildings
Be developed under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure coordination of
uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of natural/environmentally
sensitive areas.
The density of the proposed project is consistent with the Urban Density classification. The
addition of a residential use in this area provides for a mixed-use area of the county. Many
services for the residents are within walking distance of the proposed apartment complex.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to be in a significant wooded area shown between
Woodburn Road and Route 29 in Neighborhood 1. The Open Space Plan says, "Preserve or
establish trees or vegetative buffers in the following specific areas as development occurs:
The wooded ridge along Berkmar which is highly visible from Route 29 North and provides
a buffer between adjacent residential and commercial land uses. Staff notes that keeping this
wooded area wooded with a Transitional Use or even the existing R-6 zoning could be
difficult. Much of the tree cover would be removed regardless of the development.
The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in
accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below.
Pedestrian
Orientation
Neighborhood
Friendly Streets
and Paths
Interconnected
Streets and
Transportation
Networks
Parks and Open
Space
Sidewalks extend from the cul-de-sac around all buildings and
parking. Sufficient pedestrian access is provided. Pedestrian access
would also be important with a modified design of the development.
No new streets are proposed; if the driveway were relocated to a
location parallel with the northern property line, trees could be added
alongside the drive. A mulch pedestrian path has been proffered to
connect to the school. The Schools division of the County believes
the mulch path is adequate to provide for pedestrian access.
A proffer has been made for a 20 wide reservation of r.o.w, for
dedication on demand of the County to serve the adjoining parcel
TMP 45-90. An existing access easement of 30 feet on the adjacent
property could be added to provide for sufficient r.o.w, for a public
road, if necessary. Access to the property to the east is not provided
because the properties have access to Woodburn Road via a private
road. This access was approved with a recent subdivision.
The recreational amenity area is shown in the parking lot, xvhich is
viewed as a less than ideal location. A more central location within
the complex and adjacent to the school would be safer and provide
for better amenity opportunities. It should be noted here that the
applicant will be requesting that the Planning Director substitute tot
lot equipment for landscaping and benches through the site plan
>rocess. The reason for the substitution is that playground equipment
on the school property can provide for the needs of the younger
children in the development.
Neighborhood
Centers
Buildings and
Spaces of Human
Scale
Relegated Parking
The property is located is in an area near several centers, including
the elementary., school and nearby shopping centers. The location of a
multi-unit complex near the school and shopping centers is a very,
positive aspect of this proposal.
Perspective drawings indicate shape, massing, and number of stories;
however the grades on the site plan don't match with the
perspectives. At this juncture it is difficult to tell whether or not
buildings and spaces of human scale are provided adequately.
Since all parking is shown in front of the buildings, staff believes it
Mixture of Uses
Mixture of Housing
Types and
Affordability
Redevelopment
Site Planning that
Respects Terrain
Clear Boundaries
with the Rural
Areas
STAFF COMMENT
does not meet this principle of the Neighborhood Model.
As indicated previously for "centers", the property is located in an
area near shopping centers, offices, and a school. In conjunction with
these other uses, a "mixture of uses" is achieved with the surrounding
properties. This proposal provides for residential use currently not
present in the area.
The proposed development does not provide a mixture of unit types
(i.e., detached, attached, duplexes, etc.). Such a mixture could take
place on this small parcel, but it might be difficult to achieve because
of the size and shape of the parcel. The applicant intends this
complex to be a rental complex only. Affordability is unknown.
There are two single-unit dwellings to the rear that belong to the
property owner requesting this rezoning; however, the future use of
those units on R-6 property is unknown.
Not applicable.
How the proposed project respects terrain is still unknown. Minimal
grading is shown; however, it doesn't match the perspective drawings
or indications by applicant that the unit type requires flat pads.
Not applicable - the property doesn't border Rural Areas
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested
zoning district According to the Zoning Ordinance, the R-15 zoning district is intended to
provide for compact, high-density residential development. The district permits a variety of
housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of
locational, environmental, and developmental amenities. The existing R-6 zoning district is
intended to provide for compact, medium-density residential development. It also permits a
variety of housing types and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision
of locational, environmental, and developmental amenities.
The application is for a higher density residential use than the R-6 allows. The
Comprehensive Plan indicates that urban density residential uses are appropriate in
Transitional areas. R-6, R-I0 or R-15 could fit into this categou of Urban Density. Staff
believes that the R-15 zoning district, with proffers, could provide appropriate density if the
character, and form of the development is supportive of the density requested.
Public need and justification for the change -- The County's policy for encouraging
development at higher densities within the Development .&teas provides a public need and
justification for the request. Form and design are as important to a successful project,
though, as the density.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation -An additional 287 vehicle trips per day are expected from this
development. The surrounding road network of Woodbrook, Berkmar, and Route 29 are
capable of absorbing this additional traffic with minimal impact.
Water and Sewer - Water and sewer are available to serve the site. Off-site easements
from the school will be necessary at least for the sewer extension and possibly the water
extension, as currently proposed on the plan. There should be no issue with fire flow
because apartment buildings are required to be sprinkled.
Schools - Children from this development would attend Agnor Hurt Elementary School,
Middle School, and High School. Using the County's multipliers for multi-unit
development, a total of 8 children are anticipated with the 41 units.
Stormwater Management - A stormwater facility is shown on the site. The site plan ·
comments note the needed changes in order for it to be approved.
Fiscal. impact to public facilities - A fiscal impact analysis is provided as Attachment F.
As with ail residential rezonings, the fiscal impact is greater than the revenue generated
to pay for services.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources - The site is a gently
rolling, with trees. There are no recognized cultural or historic resources located on the
property, which would be affected by either a by-right development or this rezoning. There
is existing forest Cover; however, the more intense and dense the development, the fewer
trees that can remain. It is likely that a by-right development of between 16 and 24 units,
designed to retain some of the trees, could successfully integrate wooded areas into the
development. Existing regulations for byTright development could not be used to ensure
preservation of the trees on the site.
Other Issues - Staff reviewed the "Application Plan" with the rezoning request during the
first month of reviexv. Staff was concerned that two important principles of the
Neighborhood Model were not included as part oft.he design. These principles were
"relegated parking" and a "central amenity". Staff suggested to the applicant that the
buildings be rotated 90 degrees and parking be relocated so as to be Jess visible from the
public road. Staff also suggested that recreational amenity be located between the buildings
adjacent to the school property. (See Attachment G.)
The applicant countered that to make these changes would require an exorbitant amount of
grading and provided a cross-section elevation with the second submittal of the plan. (See
Attachment H.) The County Engineering Department found that the cross-section did not
scale and that the grades shown did not correspond to any plan of comparison. Engineering's
comments are as follows:
The ZMA for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. Engineering staff reviewed the
cross-section to assess the difference in grading between the plan provided and the
design suggested by stair ,4 comparison of the two plans was not practical for the
following reasons:
1. There was a cross-section of the "design suggested by staff" but no cross section
of the applicant's plan to compare it to.
2. The cross-section was not to scale.
3. The cross-section of the "design suggested by staff'' did not include the same
grading concepts as the originally submitted plan. These include5% parking lot
grades, 10% travel way grades, and buildings constructed on slopes within the
original plan but shown on fiat pads with alternative plan. The original plan
shows an average grade around 6% while the cross-section plan shows an
average grade around 2%.
4. It is impractical to compare grading plans without an equivalent site plan with
grade lines for the "design suggested by staff."
Of difficulty to the staff is the fact that on the proposed site plan, the buildings are to be
constructed on the slopes; but with the cross-section (relating to staff's suggested
reorientation of buildings), the applicant has shown totally flat pads. Staff thinks that the
ability exists for the .reorientation of buildings to occur without providing totally flat pads.
When asked about the need for totally flat pads with a change in building orientation, the
applicant said that the building design he wanted to use required flat pads. In the site plan
comments, Planning staff noted the discrepancy between the architectural elevations shown
with flat building pads and the site plan showing buildings to be constructed on slopes. (See
Attachment I.) Because of the lack of consistent information relative to grading and the
architectural designs, staff cannot determine how well the principle of "buildings and spaces
of human scale" is being met.
Although staff asked the applicant to provide additional information on grading or request
direction from the Planning Commission through the worksession process, the applicant
declined. The applicant has requested the Planning Commission's public hearing and
decision on the plan submitted as the Rezoning Application Plan.
Preliminary Site Plan
A preliminary site plan was received for this development following the submittal of the
rezoning request. The site plan has several deficiencies, which are noted in Attachment H'.
At this time, staff cannot reconm~end approval of the site plan if the rezoning is approved.
The most important issues include:
Stormwater infrastructure and grading needs more definition
Engineering Comment: The eastern.most drop inlet and drainpipe system (adjacent to
TMP 45-91A) appears to drain uphill or flat. Please give details of the drainage
system from "Str-4" to the "SWM facility" that demonstrate proper drainage.
Tightness of the utilities and planting area widths may make planting installation very
difficult:
Engineering Comment: Though not typically an Engineering concern, it should be
noted that the location of the proposed sewer lines would prevent a tree buffer
between the site and Agnor Hurt Elementary School.
?lanni~g Dept. Comment: [32.7.9.8] Please be advised that screening at a depth Of
20 feet may be required along the Stormwater Management Facility and the b.oundary
with the school. Plan accordingly to accommodate vegetation in such areas and be
aware of potential conflicts with utilities.
Planning Dept. Comment: [32.5.6s] It appears that there is insufficient space for
landscaping with the aforementioned utilities. A conceptual landscape plan shall be
submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval to assess this issue. The plan must
meet the minimum requirements for screening along the stormwater facility and the
parking lots, as well as screening from the rear property and the school. The
conceptual plan need not specify the distinct species, but rather would describe the
vegetation by its type (i.e., medium shade tree, screening shrub etc.)
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the follo~ving factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposal is for a use, which is supported by the Land Use Plan at this location.
2. The proposed use provides for a "mixed-use" community in this part of Neighborhood
One.
3. Residential uses are supported by a pedestrian network, public services (schools, fire, and
rescue services, transit) and close proximity'to shopping and employment.
4. The residential use next to the elementary school is viewed as extremely compatible.
5. Perspective drawings are proffered to depict the appearance of the structures.
6. Pedestrian access to the elementary school is provided by the applicant and the proximity
of the complex to the school allows for recreational use of the school's playground
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The design does not conform to the Neighborhood Model principles for relegated parking
and a central amenity.
2. While density is supported by the Comprehensive Plan, it is unclear xvhy the R-15
designation is superior to the R-6 desig~nation given the conventional design of the
development. Each of the factors above is also true for the existing R-6 district.
3. Insufficient information has been provided relative to grading to know what difference in
grading a redesign might have. For that reason, it is also not known whether or not there
is conformity with the principle of"buildings and spaces of human scale".
4. As shown, it appears that insufficient screening and landscaping area exists in some
places, especially in relation to utility lines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staffbelieves that a residential use is appropriate for the property and that greater densi¢'
could be supported with a modified design. Without an alternative design or information
substantiating that grading with an alternative design is so massive as to make the alternative
infeasible, staff cannot recommend approval of the rezoning at this time. Because there is no
recommendation for approval of the rezoning, and because the preliminary site plan
requirements have not been met, staff cannot recommend approval of the preliminary site
plan.
Because staffbelieves that density greater than that allowed by-right could be appropriate at
this location with a different design, we request that the Planning Commission provide
direction to both the staff and the applicant on these questions:
1. Does the design shown on the plan, in general, meet the Planning Commission's
recommendations for the Neighborhood Model?
2. Should a more central amenity, located closer to the center and along the adjoining
property boundary with the school, be provided?
3. Should the parking be relegated, at least in part, to the rear of the structures or is it shown
adequately given the type of apartment complex requested by the applicant.
4. Should additional grading information/cross-section information be provided to better
assess the differences between the redesign suggested by staff?.
5. If no comparative grading information is necessary is it because the existing design is
viewed as appropriate or is it because a redesign is necessary and comparative-grading
information is no longer important?
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Proffers dated 2/25/02 with Application Plan dated 2/8/02
Attachment B - Tax Map
Attachment C - Vicinity Map
Attachment D - Drawing of Common Meeting Space/Tot Lot dated Dec. 200 !
Attachment E - Applicant's Attachment to Rezoning Application dated 12/17/01
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
Attachment
F - Fiscal Impact Amalysis dated 3/12/02
G - Staff Comments dated 1/24/02
H - Cross-Section Based on Staff Recommendations for Site Layout dated 2/19/02
I - Staff Comments dated March 5, 2002
J - Carriage Gate Apartments Elevations dated 2/21/02 (3 pages)
ATTACHMENT ,4.
PROFFER FOPdM
Original Proffer
Amended Proffer
(Amendment # ____._)
Date: 4/3/2002
ZYLA #_01-021
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s)
45-9i
2,742 Acres ro be rezoned from R-6 ro R-15
Pursuant ro Section 33.3 of the Albemarle Count,,' Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duty authorized agent, hereby
voiunrar/ty proffers the conditions listed below ,,~hich shall be applied to the property., if rezone& ~ese condinons art
proffered as a parr 0f~e requested rezonmg and it is agreed that:- (1) the rezonmg itsetf gives r/se ro ~e need for the
conditions; and (2) such condiriohs have a reasonable relation ro the rezonmg request.
~)
SEE A ~
T~ACHED
3Y:
CHARLES W. HURT
Pnn[ed NamesofAllOwners
SHIRLEY L. FISHER
Pnnred Nameof.e~omey-m-Facr
2/25/2002
Date
2/25/2002
Signature * ~ .
: (Anich Procer Power of Anomey}
OR
Attachment To Proffer
Dated May 3, 2002
ZMA 01-021
Tax Map 45 - Parcel 91
The developmem shall be in general accord with the application plan entitled
"Rezoning Application Plans for Carriage Gate Apartments," dated December 17,
2001 and last revised February 8, 2002.
a) Conformity with the building features and colors shown on the renderings
emitled "Carriage Gate Apartmems".
b) Additional vegetative screening of a portion of the Southern property line
with Tax map 45-Parcel 95A (Agnor Hurt School) if reqttired by the
schook
c) Appropriate fencing and vegetative screening around the storm water
management facility.
d) A central amenity consisting of approximately 4000 sq. ft. that would
provide a private landscaped area with benches for residents and guests.
e) Tenant and guest parking along with pedestrian access via concrete walks
accessing Woodbrook Drive and buildings "A", "B" and "C".
A pedestrian path located on the southern property, I/ne that would create access to
the Agnor Hurt School grounds. The pathway would be a 5' wide mulched
surface with 10' cleared on either side for safety and v/sibifi~. This pathway
would be complete before the release of the performance bond.
The owner shall reserve the number of residential units on the above-mentioned
parcel to 41.
The owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand by the County of Albemarle
a 20' r.o.w, as shown on the Plan, for the future extension of Woodbrook drive to
· Tax map 45-Parcel 90.
ATTACHMENT B
VICINITY MAP
;CAKE: "= 2GO0'
?.V 45 Par 91 Lot B
Berkmark Lancz T~zst'
DB 2097-286
Z~ed R-8
L's~: Res~de~tm~
'l
LEGEND
'~ Benchmark
--,',/E-- E×is[in§ Woterfine
--0 E-- Overneoo Electric
~ Power Pole
~ Prop. LKJnl Po~e
:.GO ~xisbng Eleva[ion/Contour
· ]500] Proposed ~oot Elevat,on
!
?',VI 45 Par 90
DB 388-548
Zo~ecz R-8
Use: Res~de~tm~
C616
./
STR-8 '8'
j .q' SOR-~5
-; ¢[ I ~5' $:O~ YARD SE~AC'~
/~ TM 45 Par 95A
~:4~' C~n[y Schoot Board of Albemarle
~ DB 1128-650
.~RC 2ELTA CHORD CH.EE.Z R NG
~'2.52 -tS'z, 6' 4.£" 105.9" S
Zoned R-6
3- $FORF
90
SiRUC?dRE
REZONING APPLICATION PLANS FOR
CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS~
TM-45, PARCEL 91
RIVANNA DISTRICT'
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
S 27'30' 39" ,v
~ ,cz c-i
/ "Csd: Day Care
TM 45 Par 9lB
Arthur M. Vatente
DB 1894-268
Zonecz C-2
[.,'"'se: Commerc~a~
SITE DATA
LEGAL REFERENCE;
TM 45 PARCEL 91 LOT 3
MAGESTERIAL DISTRICT:
RIVANNA
SOURCE OF 2[LE FOR PARC£L~
OB 1680 PAGE ~60
)WNER:
BERKMAR LANO T~UST
P.O. BOX 8147
CNARLOT~SVlLLE, VA ~2905
DEVELOPER:
SOUTHLAND HOME~,
2M9 9ERKMAR ORI~
2HARLOT~SVILLE. VA 22g0~
CURRENT ZONING: ~-~
~ROPOSED ZONING: ~ '5
SOURC[ ]F ~OUNDA~v S:.R'.F':
~LAr 3Y 3 AUBRv '.bFnJA"~ :'~::?SE- ', 7~
SOURCE SF -~POGR*P~'
ALBEMARLE ]DUNTM S?%~CE a~C~''v
TOPOORAPNIC 'JAP _~GS 3A~JM
BUILDING SE~ACXS
F~ON T: 25'
SIDE YARD:
REAR YARD:
MAXIMUM BUiLDiN~ aSCaT 55
PARKING SCHEDULE:
REQUIRED: 2 SP~CES ~ER .NIT.
~ b~TS , 2 = ~2'SF~CES
~RO~DED: g2 ~PXCES (~,CL.3;~iG 2 "D S~ACES
LAND USE SCHEDULE:
ORE-DEV % POST-DEV.
BUILDINGS: }.0 AC 0.0 IL6OO SF 18%
PARKING: 0.0 ~C '}.0 56,316 SF 30.~%
OPEN: I19.~42 S~ 'CO51.528 SF 5].5%
TOTAL: !19,4~2 SF '00'~9,~42 SF
GROSS ~ESiDEN~AL 5ENSiTY S ;NITS PER ACRE
MAXIMUM OWELUkG JNITS;
41 APAR~ENTS
MAXIMUM MP~RV[)US ]OVE~: J2.4~6 SF
~2.
Sheet No:
Alofl
39~ \
37
,52
k
ZMA-01-21 Carriac
95,
RIO , RIVANNA
JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 45
ATTACHMENT C
00~bO
l
ATTACHMENT D
ATTACHMENT E
APPLICATION DATE:
December 17, 2001
PROJECT NAME: CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS
OWNER: BERKMAR LAND TRUST
LOCATION: Woodbrook Drive - West of Intersection with'Berkmar Drive
CURRENT ZONING: R-6
PROPOSED ZONING: R-I 5
PROPOSED USE: Apartments
The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office service.
The public need and benefit this rezoning would serve is to bring about the availability of
housing in an area that is adjacent to an elementary school, buses and convenient
shopping within walking distance.
Public water, sewer, gas and road (Woodbrook Drive) is available and in place to serve
this site. It is c ur opinion that the additional 42 apartments would not impact the road or
utility services in the area. A traffic signal is located at the intersection of Woodbrook
and Berkmar Drive.
There will not be an impact to the natural, scenic and historical resources with the
construction of iris project. The site sits off from the commercial buildings and is not
heavily wooded.
There are plans to develop the property, if the rezoning is approved: A contract is in place
and site plan preparation is underway (see attached) to Start the project a soon as approval
can be obtained. The plan calls for 42 apartments that will be owned, leased and
maintained by Southland Homes, Inc.
As shown on the attached site plan drawing, this Property consisting of 2.742 acres is
ideal for the residential buildings that are proposed. Surrounded on the South by Agnor
Hurt Elementary School (Kindergarten - 5th grade) the two sites are buffered by a
wooded tract. It would be desirable to be able to provide a walkway thru the wooded area -
to access the playground facilities of the school. ~s would be a natural pathway of
mulch that would meander through the woods to minimize the need to cut trees. The
construction and maintenance of the pathway would be borne by the developer. A
meeting on site with the.project manager of Albemarle County Building Services will
take place December 20~to see if a pathway would be feasible. Some of the factors to be
considered will be the topo, accessibility and visibility around the pathway for safety.
Although the current land use designation for this property is office service (currently
zoned R-6), due to the size (narrow width) and the distance from Berkmar Drive, this
would be a difficult site to market commercial property becaUse it is not visible from a
main road CBerkmar Drive).Also, trying to design commercial buildings on the narrow lot
with the setbacks/buffers that are required for commercial use adjacent to residential
zoning (South and West boundary) would be difficult. Business and office buildings
require large tracks for'service and parcel delivery on a daily basis. The configuration of
this site hampers design for these vehicles. There is ample land along Berkmar Drive that
is better suited for commercial use, allowing easier access and visibility.
The topo of this land and the location presents a quiet, safe and very convenient location
for residential development along the fringes of commercial development that would
allow a nice mixed use. The site is adjacent to Agnor Hurt Elementary school to the
South, two homes to the West, vacant land zoned R-6 to the North, Legend Development
Office building to the north entrance of the site and. Northside Christian School to the
South. A planting area around the perimeter of the. site would allow for additional
privacy and screening.
The site will have a protected tot lot of approximately 4,500 sq. ft. with benches, trees
and playground equip.men[. This area on site along with the recreational facilities
provided at Agnor Hurt School, if approved, will allow ample play area for children.
The development of this site is contingent on getting maximum density (42 units) to
make it economically feasible to build and lease. This p)an has been engineered with
buildings positioned to allow for ample parking with tree islands and giving each tenant 2
parking spaces plus 8 for guests.
In summary, this site is a natural for residential use. The interior sidewalks on the site
will be connected to the existing walk on Woodbrook Drive, which ties to Berkmar Drive
allowing for a good mixed use flow. The walks allow for safe pedestrian access to school
or shopping in the Rio Hill Center, Woodbrook Center, Lowes and even Walmart. Public
transit is available on the comer of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar (Bus Route #7).
The buildings will be owned and leased by Southland Homes, Inc., and will be similar in
building materials to Lakeside and Carriage Hill.
42
-12/14/2001 13:32 2969641 MCCALI_UM&KUDRAVETZ PAGE 01
BERKMAR LAND TRUST
THIS TRUST AGREEMENT made this 28th day of September, 1995, by
and between Charles Wm. Hurt and Shirley L. Fisher, as Trustees,
(whether 'one or more and which designation shall include all
successor or substitute Trustees), and all other parties who shall
execute this Trust Agreement as.evidencedby their signatures set
forth below, who are hereinafter col!ectively referred to as the
"Beneficiaries,, (which designation shall include all successors and
assignees who have acquired a beneficial interest as contemplated
by and in accordance with '~he terms of this -Trust Agreement),
provides:
I. RECITALS - OBJECTS AND PURPOSES
The Beneficiaries are about to cause to be conveyed to the
Trustees, as Trustees under this Trust Agreement, the property
described on Exhibit A attached hereto, reserving to themselves as
Beneficiaries only those rights in the nature of personalty as
expressly set forth herein. Whenthe Trustees have taken title to
the trust property as Trustees u~der this Trust Agreement, and any
other property subsequently conveyed to them, and added to Exhibit
A, all collectively hereinafter the "Property',, the parties agree,
for ~hemselves and their successors and assigns and any other
person or persons who may become entitled to any interest in the
Property by operation of law or as provided herein, that the
Trustees shall hold the Property for the following uses and
purposes and subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein.
4~
E}mmX mUST
CERTIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY'S INTEREST
The undersigned Trustees under a certain Trust Agreement dated September 28, 1995,
establishing the Berkmar Land Trust, hereby certify as of the date set forth below, that Charles Wm.:
Hurt is the beneficiary and beneficial owner of 100% of the Berkmar Land Trust. A copy of the
original Trust Agreement, described below, is retained at the office of McCallum & Kudravetz, P.C.,
250 East High Street, P.O. Box 224, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902.
This certificate does not embody .any legal 'title and is non-transferrable. The beneficial
interest owned by the aforenamed Beneficiary is transferrable only pursuant to the provisions of the
Trust Agreement and any amendments thereto.
DATED:
December 24. 1996
6-
BERKMAR LAND TRUST
CERTIFICATION OF BENEFIcIARy,S INTEREST
Thc undersigned Tmsiees under a certain Trust Agreement dated Sepmmber 21t, 1995,
establishing the Berkrnar Land Trust, hereby certify as of the datcset forth below, that Virginia
Land, L.L.C., a Virginia limited liability company, is the beneficiary and beneficial owner of 100%
ofthe Berkmar Land Trust A copy of the original Trust Agreement, described below, is retained
at the office ofMcCallum & Kudravetz, P.C., 250 East High Street, P.O. Box 224, Charlottesville,
Virginia, 22902.
This certificate does not embody any legal title and is aomtransferrable. The beneficial
interest owned by the aforenamed Beneficiary is transferrable only pursuant to the provisions of the
Trust Agreement and any amendments thereto.
DATED: _ January_ t. 1997
arles Wm. Hurt, Truste~ ' '
6-- C:\Wt~DATA~LRB~iIJRT~0374.bn2.w~i
ATTACHMENT F
January 24, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mc[ntire Road, Room 2 l 8
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
Mr. Steve Melton
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ZMA 01-021 CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS
Dear Steve:
The staff has reviewed your recently submitted rezoning proposal referenced above. The following
paragraphs and pages provide comments that are designed to provide information and suggestions
for this rezoning. I am scheduled to meet with Kennan Blackwood with Rivanna Engineering
tomorrow to review the specific design elements.
Please be advised that this project is scheduled for a Planning Commission public hearing on March
19, 2001. The staffwoutd like to provide a second set of comments to you on this project pr/or to
your final submittal of plans for the rezoning. In order to provide a second set o£comments, staff
needs to have your second submittal of plans and a first draft of proffers no later than February 4,
2001.
Comments from the Planning Department are below. Comments from Building Codes and Zoning
Services, Fire and Rescue, Engineering, and the Service Authority are provided on the attached
pages. VDOT Wilt provide comments next week. Additional design comments may be provided
after I meet with my Planning team on Monday.
Design
The parcel is small (2.74 acres) and its shape is "long and narrow" which limits the number of
designs for residential units that could go on the site. The site has rolling topography and is adjacent
to an elementary school. Both of these features are advantageous to the proposed use of the
property.
Planning staff believes that a less conventional design may be able to occur on this site which does.
not significantly affect the density you desire for the site. Please also be advised that you have
proposed one more unit than'is allowed for this zoning district (see Zoning's comments).
were to make your buildings st.~r~ tip the Nil rather ti'.,an be parallel to the hill, you could
Page 2
Steve Melton - Carriage Gate Apartments
January 24, 2002
provide parking behind the first building and provide for a central green area that is outside of the
parking lot. We have done a rough sketch that is attached to this letter that will be explained further
to Mr. Blackwood at our meeting tomorrow. Most likely, this change would involve a different
architectural style for the. buildings. Because of required distances from the parking to the entrances
to the units, you would want to have fewer units in the. buildings closest to' the cul-de-sac and more
units to the rear o f the site. One idea staff had was for-"townhouse" appearing units in the front and
an "apartment building" look in the rear.
Connection of Woodbrook to the Ad|oininll Property
Please consider extending a reservation for dedication of r.o.w, for a' future extension of Woodbrook
Drive to Tax Map 45 Parcel 90. A redesigned entrance would be necessary if this occurs; a
redesigned entrance may be necessary with the change in layout proposed above.
Connection to Tax Map 45 Parcel 91 Ii
A connection from this property to Tax Map 45 Parcel 91 B is strongly recommended to allow for
access to Berkmar. If built, the western bypass will have limited access and it is unlikely that it
would provide the best access to 9lB.
Elevations
As indicated in early meetings on this project, the Planning Commission has an expectation that
elevations will be provided with proposed developments accompanying a special use permit or
rezoning. When you decide on the building types for the parcels, please provide elevations and
consider proffering characteristics of those elevations.
Screenine
Vegetative screening along property lines will help to create privacy for the development. I am
asking the School Division.right now if they believe screemng is needed between the apartment
complex and the school. Please consider the appropriateness of screening between this parcel and
TM 45 Parcel 91B given your knowledge of the future use of that parcel.
Central Amenity
You provided some detail on the tot lot in the parking lot. We believe that the design you provided
is innovative but a safer design (i.e., one that doesn't require all residents from all three units to cross
over the parking lot) would be between units.
Pedestrian Access
Pedestrian access ts shown well throughout the site. With a redesign, you can also provide for
similar pedestrian access. It appears that there is no sidewalk extending from the day care along the
,'/7
Page 3
Steve Melton - Carriage Gate Apartments
January 24, 2002
bulb of the cul-de-sac in front of your property. This sidewalk will need to be extended across the
bulb and into your site. Staff notes your contacts with Lisa Glass in the Schools Division and
appreciates your efforts towards making a pedestrian connection. We are also working on this item.
R-15 Zoning District Request and Proffers
My impression from your submittal is that you are requesting this rezoning with proffers. Because
of the size of the parcel, a "planned district" designation is not possible. Planned districts have an
"application plan" that is part of the rezoning. The plan provided with this submittal could be
proffered with this rezoning. Please be advised that the level of variation from the plan would be
entirely within the purview of the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Director could not approve
variations to the plan. For that reason, if you proffer the plan, it is important that you highlight the
features that are essential 'to the design and development.
Some standard language for proffers is provided below:
Development of the parcel shall be in general accord with the (application) plan entitled "xx"
dated "xx" and last revised "xx" (~vhere apPlicable) herein referred to as "The Plan" Specific
features of The Plan which are proffered are:
a. spell out the feature, such as, "a central amenity", relegated Parking as shown on the plan.
pedestrian access as shown, ect.
b. Conformity with the following features of the elevations entitled "xx" dated "xx".
c. Screening for the full-length of the southern boundary of the site where the parcel adjoins
with TM 45 Parcel 95A (if considered necessary by the Schools Division).
Pedestrian paths consisting of (specs - asphalt, concrete, mulch whatever) shall be installed
(where specifically) and completed before release of the performance bond.
o
Where site grading is performed, the owner shall minimize use of slopes steeper than 3:1, .subject
to approval by the Department of Engineering and Public Works. The Applicant shall install
additional low maintenance vegetation to provide stabilizatioh for proposed slopes steeper than
3:1 as approved by the County's Landscape Planner. Nothing contained in these proffers shall be
deemed a waiver of the Planning Commission's review of Applicant's critical slope waiver under
Section 4.2.5 of the Ordinance.
4. The Owner shall limit the number of residential units on the parcel to "xx" residential units.
5. The Owner shall reserve for dedication upon demand of the County sufficient r.o.w to extend
Woodbrook Drive to the adjoining property Tax Map 45 Parcel 90, as shown on The Plan.
(If you want to make a cash proffer or off-site improvement) By not later than (some point in
time or key event), the owner shall provide to the County (cash for a County improvement
relating to the rezoning or and off-site improvement). Should (that improvement) not take place
within the next (specific time period) from the approved proffer date, it shall be refunded to
(whom?).
Page 4
Steve Melton - Carriage Gate Apartments
January 24, 2002
[ hope this information is useful to you with your next submittal.
have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Principal Planner
attach
Please feel free to call me if you
/t3
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Building "Application Plan"
ZMA-2001-021
Carriage Gate Apartments
revision 1
reviewer received reviewed decision
Jay Schlothauer 12/21/01 1/2/02 approved
Based on information submitted December 17, 2001.
No comments or conditions concerning this zoning map amendment. Comments will follow when a
detailed site plan is developed.
1/24/02 09:03 AM
Page I of 7
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Engineering ,'Application Plan"
ZMA-2001-021
Carriage Gate Apartments
revision
reviewer received reviewed
steven snell 12/21/01 1/22102
decision
approved with conditions
FROM:Steve Snell, Engineer
DATE:22 January 2002
RE:Carriage Gate, ZMA-2001-021
The ZMA for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. The Engineering Department can recommend approval
when the following conditions:
1. The proposed internal sidewalk must connebt to the existing sidewalk on Woodbrook Drive.
Though not typically an Engineering concern, it should be noted that the location of the proposed sewer
lines will prevent a tree buffer within this site. Any tree buffer between this site and the Agnor Hurt
Elementary School will thus have to be located on school property. It is possible that an insufficient tree
buffer exist on the school property.
Please contact me if' you have questions or require additional information.
1/24/02 09:03 AM Page 3 of 7
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Fire/Rescue "Application Plan"
ZMA-2001-021
Carriage Gate Apartments
revision 1
rewewer received reviewed decision
Jay Schlothauer 12/21/01 1/2/02 approved
Based on information submitted December 17, 2001.
No comments or conditions concerning this zoning map amendment. Comments will follow when a
detailed site plan is developed.
1/24t02 09:03 AM
P,age ,~ of 7
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Service Authority "Application Plan"
ZMA-2001-021
Carriage Gate Apartments
revision 1
reviewer received reviewed
Pete Gorham 12/21/01 1/23/02
decision
approved with conditions
We do not object to the zoning map amendment for this development. Existing
water and sewer lines of sufficient diameter are immediately adjacent to the
site, on the Northside Ministries School property. Off-site easements from
the school will be necessary at least for the sewer extension and possibly
the water extension, as currently proposed on the plan. Final approval will
not be granted until the water and sewer construction drawings have been
approved by our office. As We uriderstand it apartment buildings are required
to be sprinktered so there shouldn't be an issue with fire flow. In any case
the flow at the intersection of Woodbrook Drive and Berkmar Drive is in the
range of 2700 gpm at 20 psi residual i~ressure. Let us know if you have any
questions. Thanks.
1/24/02 09:03 AM
Page 6 of 7
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comments
Zoning "Application Plan"
ZMA-2001-021
Carriage Gate Apartments
revision I
reviewer received reviewed
John Shepherd 12121/01 1/16/02
decision
Pending BOS approval
This parcel contains 2.74 acres. If it is rezoned to R-15 the parcel can contain 41 not 42 dwelling units.
(2.74 x 15 =41.1) '
If the applicant submits proffers with this proposal, this department would appreciate the opportunity to
review them. -
The Application Plan is being rewewed as just that. If the rezoning is approved, this project will be subject
to a separate rewew and approval of a site plan.
1/24/02 09:03 AM
Page ~' of 7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ATTACHMENT G
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Elaine Echols, Principal Planner
Steven A. Allshouse, Fiscal Impact Planner
March 12, 2002
ZMA 01-21 (Carriage Gate Apartments)
I analyzed two separate scenarios for the properties in question. The first scenario involved the
maximum new development that could take place under existing zoning, while the second scenario
involved the new development that would occur if the County approved the proposed zoning changes
for the property. The results of these two analyses appear in the attached "Budget Summary: Existing
Zoning" and "Budget.Summary: Proposed Zoning" documents.
In the case 0fthe first scenario, I assumed that 24 multifamily units (MF's) would be built during the
course of the next year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out, the type and level of development that
could take place Under existing zoning would result in the following net annual fiscal impact:
Fiscal Impact -- Current Zoning
Property Taxes $14,000
Other Revenues 31,000
Total Revenues $45,000
School Expenditures ($53,000)
County Govt. Expenditures (13,000)
Total Expenditures
($66,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($21,000)
ZMA 01-21 -
March 12, 2002
Page Two
In terms of the annual impact that the development of three SFD's would have on the County's capital
costs, CRIM estimates the following result:
CIP Impact -- Current Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
Schools CF Debt Service ($22,000)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($22,000)
County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CH' Impact ($22,000)
Note that these CIP figures are included in the fiscal impact numbers listed on the previous page.
(The $22,000 tn capital costs is part of the $66,000 in the estimated total annual expenditures
resulting from the development of 24 MF's). These CIP numbers are presented separately to
highlight the magnitude of the capital costs that wouM be associated with such development.
The second scenario that I ran involved the proposed construction of 41 MF units on the property.
I assumed the development would be completed in one year. CRIM estimates that, after build-out,
this project would have the following net annual fiscal impact:
Fiscal Impact ' Proposed Zoning
Property Taxes $23,000
Other Revenues 54,000
Total Revenues $77,000
School Expenditures
County Govt. Expenditures
($95,000)
($24,000)
Total Expenditures
($119,000)
Net Annual Fiscal Impact ($42,000)
Note that, although the proposed development would have not quite twice as many MF's as would
the maximum allowed under existing zoning, CRIM estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the
ZMA 01-21
March 12, 2002
Page Three
development associated with the proposed zoning would be twice as great as the net annual fiscal
~mpact associated with the existing zoning. This seeming discrepancy results from rounding errors
~n the CRIM program.
Asfor the impact of this proposed development on the County ofAlbemarle's capit~ costs, CKIM
estimated the following outcome:
CIP Impact -- Proposed Zoning
Schools CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
Schools CF Debt Service ($33,000)
Total Schools CIP Impact ($33,000)
County CF Pay-As-You-Go ($0)
County CF Debt Service ($0)
Total Cty. Govt. CIP Impact ($0)
Net Annual CIP Impact ($33,000)
Again, these CIP numbers are included in the total annual expenditures of $119,000 shoWn on the
previous page, and are presented separately to il/ustrate the relative ma~onitude of capita/costs.
.The numbers generated by the two scenarios that I ran indicate that, if the Count). approves
ZMA 01-21, the differential net annual fiscal impact would be $21,000 - $42,000 = -$21,000.
This number means that, annually, the County would be $21,000 worse off approving. ZMA
01-21 than denying the proposal.
Notes: (1) Although my analysis suggests that the approval of ZMA 01-21 would result in a net
annual fiscal drain to the County, this fact alone does not necessarilv mean that ZMA 01-21 should
be denied, since the total mix of development taking place in Albemarle County in any given year
might generate a revenue-neutral outcome; (2) If Albemarle does not approve ZMA 01-21, the
growth that is assumed to be associated with this proposed development would likely take place
somewhere .else in the County; and (3) When deciding whether or not to approve a proposed
development, Albemarle takes into consideration a number of issues' other than just the project's
fiscal impact. These issues include, but are not necessarily limited to, affordable housing,
transportation impacts, and environmental well-being
SAA/saa
Budget Summary -- Existing Zoning
(Values in $000's)
REVENUES
PR DP
I aXES
Residential Real
Nonresidential Real
Res Personal Prop
Nonres Personal Prop
Other (Agricultural)
Sdbtotal: Property Taxes
OTHER
1 Public Service Tax
2 Pers Prop Tax-Resid
3 Pers Prop Tax-Nonres
4 Mach & Tools Tax
5 Sales & Use Tax
6 Cons Util Tax-Resid
7 Cons Util Tax-Nonras
8 BPOL Taxes
9 Util Co Licenses
10 Motor Vehicle Licenses
11 Permits & Fees
12 Fines & Forfeitures
13 Charges for Services
14 State Aid
15 Categorical Aid - Federal
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax
17 Delinquent RE/Pealfies
18 State Aid to Schools
19 Meals Tax
20 ANNUAL REVENUES
21 SF Detached
22 SF Attached/TH
23 Multifamity
24 Mobile Homes
Subtotal: Other Revenues
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REVENUES:
EXPENSES
SCHOOLS
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay-As-You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS
COUNTY GOVT.
Operating Costs
Staff Costs
CF Pay-As-You-Go
CF Debt Service
SUBTOTAL. COUNTY
10 [AL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS:
NET FISCAL IMPA~T
Annual
Cumulative
1 2 3
2003 2004 2005
$14 $14 $14
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$14 $t4 $14
$0 $0 $0
' $12 $12 $12
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$3 $3 $3
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1
$11 $11 $11
$1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0.
$2 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
.$34 $32 $32
4
2006
Average Costs
5 6 7 8 9 10
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
$14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14 $14
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12 $12
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3 $3
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 .$0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32 $32
$48 $45 $45 $45
$19 $19 $19 $19
$11 $11 $11 $11
$5 $0 $0 $0
$22 $22 $22 $22
$58 $53 $53 $53
$14 $11 $11
$4 $4 $4
$17 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$34 $14 $14
$92 $67 $67
$45 $45 $45 $45 $45 $45
$19 $19 $19 $19 $19 $19
$11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$22 $22 $22 $22 $22 $22
$53 $53 $53 $53 $53 $53
$1t $11 $11 $11 $11 $11 $11
$4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4 $4
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$o $o $o $o $o $o $o
~]4 $14__ ~!4 $14 $14 $14 $14
$67 $67 $67 $67 $67 $67 $67
~[4_4_)_ _ ___(~ 2;1_)_ 11~2.1)
($44) ($66) (~87)
_{~1) ($21) ~$21) · ($21) ($21) ($21)___~.,~2_!)
($109) ($130) ($151) ($173) ($194) ($216) ($237)
,;- t'~.r) l 2. i A,WK4 - --
)
CRIM Propr etary S~,~are 03/1212002
03/12/200209:13 AM
Page I
Budget.Sum., - Proposed Zoning
Year =>
(Values in $000's) 2002
REVENUES
PROP Residential Real
TAXES Nonresidential Real
Res Personal Prop
Nonres Personal Prop
Other (Agricultural)
Subtotal: Propemj Taxes
OTHER I Public Service Tax
2 Pets Prop Tax-Resid
3 Pets Prop Tax-Nonres
4 Mach & Tools Tax
5 Sales & Use Tax
6 Cons Util Tax-Resid
7 Cons Util Tax-Nonras
8 BPOL Taxes
9 Util Co Licenses
10 Motor Vehicle Licenses
11 Permits & Fees
12 Fines & Forfeitures
13 Charges for Services
14 State Aid
15 Categorical Aid - Federal
16 Hotel/Motel Room Tax
17 Delinquent RE/Pealties
18 State Aid to Schools
19 Meals Tax
20 ANNUAL REVENUES
21 SF Detached
22 SF Attached/TH
23 Multifamily
24 Mobile Homes
Subtotal: Other Revenues
TOTAL ADDITIONAL
EXPP. NSES
SCHOOLS
COUNTY GOVT.
1 2 3 4 5
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
$23 $23 $23 $23 $23
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$23 $23 $23 $23 $23
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$20 $20 $20 $20 $20
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$5 $5 $5 $5 $5
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$o $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$20 $20 $20 $20 $20
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$4 $0 '$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$58 $54 $54 $54 $54
6
20D8
.7
2009
Average Costs
8 9 10
2010 2011 2012
$23 $23 $23 $23 $23
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$23 $23 $23 $23 $23
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$20 $20 $20 $20 $20
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 - $0 $0 $0 $0
$5 $5 $5 $5 $5
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 $0 $0 '$0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$1 $1 $1 $1 $1
$20 $20 $20 $20 $20
$2 $2 $2 $2 $2
$0 ,$0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
$54 $54 $54 $54 $54
ANNUAL REVENUES: $81 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78 $78
Operating Costs $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33
Staff Costs $29 $29 $29 $29 $29 $29 $29 $29 $29 $29
CF Pay-As-You-Go. $8 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF Debt Service $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33 $33
SUBTOTAL, SCHOOLS $103 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95 $95
Operating Costs $24 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18 $18
Staff Costs $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6 $6
CF Pay-As-You-Go $28 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
CF Debt Service $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUBTOTAL, COUNTY $58 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24 $24
TOTAL ADDITIONAL ANNUAL COSTS: $161 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119 $119
NET FISCAL IMPACT
Annual
Cumulative
(iS_q) .......... (~_4__2) ........ L~_4_21 .... /.~L4_2) ($'!2) ($42)_
($80) ($121) ($163) ($204) ($246) ($287)
1~47J
($329)
($370) ($4~)) ($453)
MA0121B.WK4 CRIM Proprietary Software 03/12/2002 03/12/200209:16 AM Page 1
ATTACHMENT H
CARRIAGE GATE APPARTMENTS
CROSS-SECTION BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR SITE LAYOUT
1" = 10' Vertical
1" = $0' Horizontal
I
I
l'
I
--.
~5'0 t
5 7o
570
ATFACHMENT I
March 5, 2002
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Commumty Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 21 $
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Mr. Steve Melton
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SDP 01-016 CARRIAGE GATE APARTMENTS
Dear Mr. Melton:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above.
Preliminary comments from the following agencies, as applicable, are attached.
Albemarle County Department of Engineer/ng and Public Works
Albemarle County Department of Building Code Enforcement and Zoning Services
Albemarle County Department of Planning & Community Development
Albemarle County Division of Fire Safety
Albemarle County Service Authority
Virginia Department of Transportation
Albemarle County E-911 Mapping
Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and
should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify
all issues, which could affect approval of the proposed project. Please note that, in addition to
the comments attached; approval of this site plan is contingent on the approval of the pending
rezoning ZMA-01-21. These comments could change subject to the approved proffers, actions of
-the Planning Commission, or action of the Board of Supervisors.
This site devdlopment plan will be heard with ZMA 01-016 at the Planning Commission meeting
on March 19. At that meeting, the Commission will advise you of any additional changes
necessary to the site plan for preliminary site plan approval if the rez0ning is approved.
Please contact me at your earliest convemence if you have questions or require additional
information.
Sincerely, _
Karl Guiler
Piannl,-~ Techn~.cian
Albemad'~' County Development Departments SDP-2002-016
SPIN Submission and Comment Cardage OateApartments
Preliminary
Building preliminary site plan revision 2
reviewer received reviewe decision
Jay Schlothauer 2/14/02 2/20~02 requested changes
Based on plans dated February 8, 2002.
Rearrange the barrier-free parking space at Building "C" so that it is van-accessible (similar to the one
at Buildings "A"/"B".). [2000 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code; 1996 BOCA National Building
Code, Section 1105.4]
Note: The buildings must include sprinkler systems.
3/'5/02 11:26 AM
Page I of I
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comment
SDP-2002-016
Carriage Gate Apartments
Fire/Rescue
preliminary site plan
revision I
reviewer received reviewe decision
Jay Schlothauer 2/14/02 2/20/02 approved
Based on plans dated February 8, 2002.
No comments or conditions.
Note: The buildings must include sprinkler systems.
3/6/02 09:10 AM
Page I of 1
Aibemad'~ County Development De partments SDP-2002-016
SPIN Submission and Comment Cardage GateApartments
Preliminary
Engineering preliminary site plan revision 2
reviewer received reviewe decision
steven snell 3/-4/02 3/4~02 requested changes
DATE:[]4 March 2002
RE: [] [] Carriage Gate, SDP-2002-0161
The Preliminary Site PLan for Carriage Gate has been reviewed. The Engineering Department can
recommend approval when the following items are addressed:
1. The BMP appears to have no berm. The bottom of the BMP is at 555-feet and the next downhill
elevation is shown to be 555-feet. Please show more detail for the BMP structure. [18-32.5.6d]
2. The parking grades vary from 5-1/2% to 8%. Parking grades cannot exceed 5%. Please show
grading that does not exceed 5% for all parking areas.
3. The parking space just east of the dumpster will need a drop inlet at its lowest elevation or another
means to alleviate stormwater at this location.
4. The easternmost drop inlet and drainpipe system (adjacent to TMP 45-91A) appears to drain uphill
or fiat. Please give details of the drainage system from "Str-4" to the "SWM facility" that demonstrate
proper drainage.
5. All VDOT comments must be addressed.
The following items must reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department before the final plat
can be recommended for approval. A complete<; submittal form and application, available at the
Engineering Department, must accompany all submittals: The required number of copies and the
required fees are indicated on the form and application.
a. An erosion control plan, narrative and computations. E17-203]
b. A completed application and fee for erosion control and sto rmwater management. [17- 203, 17-303]
c. A stormwater management/BMP plan and computations. Computations must include water quality,
and detention routing for the 2~jr and 10yr storms. [17-304]
d. Acom pleted stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement and fee. [17.323]
e. Drainage computations. [Policy]
Please contact me if you have questions or ;equire additional information.
It is the applicant's responsibility to verify that all conditions and proffers are met by this plan. Any
conditions not satisfied may, at the discretion of the County, delay or invalidate .this site plan.
316/02 09:09 AM
Page I of 1
65
Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016
SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage GateApartments
Preliminary
Planning preliminary site plan revision.8
reviewer received reviewed decision
Elaine Echols 2/14/02 3/11/02 requested changes
The Department of Planning and Community Development has reviewed the preliminary site plan
referenced above and will recommend preliminary approval once the following conditions are satisfied.
The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments may be
· addedreference.Or eliminated based on further review. Each comment is preceded by the applicable zoning.
Please note that approval of this site plan is contingent on the approval of the pending rezoning ZMA-01-
21. These comments could change subject to the approved proffers, actions of the Planning
Commission, or action of the Board of Supervisors.
1. Plea se correct the spelling of 'Apartments' on the title of the oover sheet.
2. The property being reviewed in this case is designated "TM 45 Parcel 91 ." Please remove any
references to Lot C on the plan. See title and legal reference.
3. TM 45 Parcel 91 lot B has also been given a new lot designation. It is now TM 45 Parcel 91D. Please
make this change as well on the plan. This property is directly behind the Parcel 91.
4. Please correct the spelling of 'Aubrey' in the source of 'boundary survey' note.
5. For clarification purposes, please add "For R-15 districts" after the 'building setbacks' note.
6. [32.5.6a] One datum elevation reference was not found on the plan. Please add this feature.
7. [4.16] Please identify the Recreation Area on the plan.
8. [32.5.6b] A note stating the square footage of recreation area must appear on the plan. Please add
this note to the plan.
9. [32.5.6d] The code requires that at least 50 feet of offsite topography and pertinant features must be
on the pla. n. The rear portion (northern) of the property does not meet this requirement. Please extend
the topography and show any relevant features (structures') a full 50 feet from the rear proper~y line.
10. [32.7.9.8] Please ~)e advised that screening at a depth of 20 feet may be required along the
Stormwater Management Facility and the boundary with the school. Plan accordingly to accommodate
vegetation in such areas and be aware of potential conflicts with utilities.
11. [32.5.6s] It appears that there is insufficient space for landscaping with the aforementioned utilities.
A conceptual landscape plan shall be submitted prior to preliminary site plan approval to assess this
issue. The plan must meet the minimum requirements for screening along the stormwater facility and the
parking lots, as well as screening from the rear property and the school. The conceptual plan need not
specify the distinct species, but rather would describe the vegetation by its type (i.e medium shade.tree,
screening shrub etc.)
3/13/02 10:54 AM
Page I of 2
Albemarle County Development Departments SDP-2002-016
SPIN Submission and Comments Carriage GateApartmentSpreliminary
Planning preliminary site Plan revision 8
reviewer received reviewed decision
Elaine Echols 2/14/02 3/11102 requested changes
12. [32.7.9.9] Also be advised that the landscaping on the site must meet afifteen (15) percent tree
canopy. This is required for any residentia development that is between 10 and 20 dwelling units per
· acre. Please demonstrate this on the conceptual landscape plan.
13. [18.3] Please add notes to each ~3uilding stating as follows, "Building not to exceed 65 feet in height."
14. The note under 'Woodbrook Drive' is incorrect. The distance is actually to the intersection with
'Berkmar Drive." Please replace 'Greenbriar' with 'Berkmar.'
15. There is a 20' access easement shown on the property. Please clarify whether it is an access
easement or a R.O.W. Please label accordingly and specify whether it is existing or proposed.
16. [4.12.6.2] Please be advised that for the purposes of safety, internal signage for pedestrianS may be
required before final plan approval.
17. The buildings on the site do not accurately match the submitted elevations for the site. It should be
noted that the buildings be drawn to show their exact footprint on the final site plan.
Page 2 of 2
3/13t02 10:54 AM
Albemarle County Development Departments
SPIN Submission and Comment
Zoning
SDP-2002-016
Carriage Gate Apartments
Preliminary
[description and date] revision 1
reviewer
received
reviewe ,decision
susan snead
3/4/02
3/4~02
requested changes
FROM:
DATE:
Susan Carol Snead, Zoning Plans Reviewer
March 4, 2002
RE: [] SDP 02-016 Carriage Gate Apartments Preliminary Site Plan
The Albemarle County Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will approve this preliminary
site plan for zoning compliance when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. The
Building Official may provide separate comments. [Each comment is preceded by the applicable
reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinance unless otherwise specified.]
1. [ZMA 01-021] Once the rezoning is approved it may be necessary to list some or all proffers on the
site plan. Final approval of the site plan is subject to compliance with all proffers.
2. [32.5.6(a)] The zoning for adjacent parcel 91B is C-1. Please revise.
3. [32.5.6(b)] It is necessary to provide the acreage of the parcel in order to verify density.
4. [32.5.6(b)] [4.12.6.6] The parking requirements are based on number of bedrooms per unit. Please
note on the plan the number of bedrooms in each unit. If there are variations on the number of
bedrooms ~n units, please note on the plan the number of units with each variation.
5. [4.16] A recreation area. which must include a tot lot, is required for a facility of 30 units or more.
Substitutions for the tot lot may be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development.
6. [32.5.6(b)] Please note on the plan the acreage of Recreation Area and Open Space.
7. [32.5.6(n)] Please show and label the locations of Open Space and Recreation areas.
Final tentative approval from the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services will. be subject to
the following conditions: (The following conditions are those that have been identified at this time.
Additional conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.)
1. [32.5.6(n)] Show the location of all outdoor lighting on the plan.
2. [32.6.6(j)] Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each type of
outdoor luminaire that emits 3,000 or more initial
lumens. Please be aware that installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this
plan shall require an amendment to this plan.
3. [32.6.6(j)] [4.17.4(b)] Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that parking area
3/6/02 09:18 AM
Page 1 of 2
Albemad'~' County Development Departments SDP-2002-016
SPIN Submission and Comment Carriage GateApartments
Preliminary
Zoning [description and date] revision 1
reviewer received reviewe decismon
susan snead 3~4~02 3~4~02 requested changes
luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4(b).
3~6~02 09:18 AM
Page 2 of 2
~:6~ NO.UU1 d.Uo
AJbemar!e County .
5 rvlce 'Authbrity
TO~
FROM~
DATEs
Elaine K. Echols, Principal 'Planner
Gotham, Senior Civil Engineer~
Peter
C,
March 7, 2002
RE ~
.X
X
Site Plan Technical Review for: Carriage Gate
The below checked items apply to this site. ZMA-01-021
SDP-02-016
.... X 1. This site.plan is within the Authority,s
Jurisdictional area for:
A. Water and sewer
B. Water only
C, Water only to existing structure
D. Limited service
2. An . 8 inch water line is located approximately I0
distant. ., ,
3. Fire flow from nearesu public hydrant, located 950~
residual.distant from this site plan, is 2700 gpm ~ at 20 psi
4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 10
distant. ,
5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be
completed.
6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed
within existing or future easemen=s
7. and
~ plans are currently under review.
8.~ppr6ved..and __ plans have been received and
9. No .plans are required.
I0. Final wate~ and sewer plans are required for our
r~view and approval prior to granting tentative
approval.
.11. Final site plan may/may not be 'signed.
~ 12. RWSA approval for water and/or sewer connections.
Comments: Offsite. easement for the .sewer extension, will be
re-~~i~ ~ th_~_water exten~!on as well.
The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows:
meter locations
waterline loca=ions waterline size
sewer line size
~-~ sewer line locations
easements __ expected was~ewater flows
.... expected water demands
68 SpotnapRoad · RO. Bax2738 · Charlo~esvJl]e, VA 22902 · ~1~434) 977~511 ' fax(434) 979~698
www. acsan el,corn
o~ =-= ~-~°~+=~=+~v~a VDOT CVILLE ~ ALB CO ENG ~002
002
12:10
FAX
RAY D. PETHTEL
~NTERtM cOMMISS~:3t, IER
:", 'WEAL TH of VIRGINIA.
/
~ El: '~ ~:tTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA 22911
Feb~arY ~'7, 2002
Site Kcv[ew l'v[¢etm[
1V[arch 7, 9.002
JAMES I. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Mr. Glenn Brooks
Dept. of Encneering
401 McIntire Kd.
Charlottesville, VA
Dear Mr. Brooks:
'[~e following are our com:r'~ents:
SDP 2002-016 C ~r~_.[~_~!.~ ,g;ate A artments Preliminary Site Plan-Route 1417
Minimum 30' ent~'mace wid r. ix required at r(ght-of-way.
Entrance design s[xould
CG-12 handicap -tamps c¢,( :ired in radii.
Label Woodbrook Driv.; E::u[e 1417.
Drainage compu¢ etions re,:: tared for review.
~- r ---------.ne"artr!tent °[I!:! ,,tor Vehicles old site .Ma'or Amendment- Route 852/1452
2002-015
SDP
y Plan appears to have acLc:h: :::;sed comments from previous review and should be
satisfactory.
,[,~SPORTATIOiq FOR THE 21sr CENTURY
REAR ELEVATION
SC, ALE: 1/8'-1',.-0'
!jlJJ JjJjll~l ~
I-
Z
ILl
0131 ~. ,,~
FRONT ELEVATION
~ '1/'~'-1'-0'
~ ~'VATIONI!
RIGHT ELEVATION
S~J5 1/~-1'-0'
LEFT ELEVATION MIRROR IMAGE
STAFF CONTACT:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Scott Clark
June 10, 2002
July 2, 2002
July 10, 2002
· REVIEW OF BLUE RUN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate,
modify, or continue the district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the
next review of the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when
the district was created. Any such different conditions or period must be described in a notice to
landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of
the ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall
continue as originally constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review (10
years) as were established when the district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner's
discretion by filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board
acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to
encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands
for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and
protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide
essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes."
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting
farmlands and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open
space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local
nuisance laws) to protect the agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the
landowner agrees not to develop the property to a "more intensive use" during the
specified number of years the district is in effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value
assessment, a district designation may not provide any additional real estate tax
deductions. Land in a district is protected from special utility assessments or
STAFF CONTACT:
ADVISORY COMMITTEE:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Scott Clark
June 10, 2002
July 2, 2002
July 10, 2002
· REVIEW OF BLUE RUN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT
Procedure: In conducting a review, the Board shall ask for the recommendations of the local
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission in order to determine whether to terminate,
modify, or continue the district.
The Board may stipulate conditions to continue the district and may establish a period before the
next review of the district, which may be different from the conditions or period established when
the district was created. Any such different conditions or period must be described in a notice to
landowners in the district, and published in a newspaper at least two weeks prior to adoption of
the ordinance continuing the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board of Supervisors, the district shall
continue as originally constituted, with the same conditions and period before the next review (10
years) as were established when the district was created.
When each district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner's
discretion by filing a written notice with the Board of Supervisors at any time before the Board
acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Purpose: The purpose of an agricultural/forestal district is "to conserve and protect and to
encourage the development and improvement of the Commonwealth's agricultural/forestal lands
for the production of food and other agricultural and forestal products..." and "to conserve and
protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which provide
essential open space for clean air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes."
Effects of a District:
The proposed district provides a community benefit by conserving and protecting
farmlands and forest; environmental resources such as watersheds, air quality, open
space, and wildlife habitat; and scenic and historic resources.
The State Code stipulates that the landowner receive certain tax benefits*, and
restrictions on public utilities and government action (such as land acquisition and local
nuisance laws) to protect the agricultural/forestal use of the land. In exchange, the
landowner agrees not to develop the property to a "more intensive use" during the
specified number of years the district is in effect.
*Since Albemarle County currently permits all four categories of use value
assessment, a district designation may not provide any additional real estate tax
deductions. Land in a district is protected from special utility assessments or
taxes.
07-01-02A10:50 RC. VD
The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use
planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the
purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect on adjacent development by
right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are
determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must
now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district
are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and
that they would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property
owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of
adjacent lands
Staff Analysis
The Blue Run District was created on June 16, 1986 and included 1136.08 acres. The table below
summarizes the history of the District:
Date- · Action
06-18-86 District Created
01-04-89 Addition
07-13-94 District Reviewed
0~-12-95 Addition
08-08-01 Addition
Location: The Blue Run district is located east of Route 20, just south of the Orange County
border.
Acreage: The District now includes 3865.024 acres in 26 parcels. The County Code currently
contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29,
31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5,
5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not
more than 8 years and last reviewed on July 13, 1994, shall next be reviewed prior to July 13,
2002.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01)
This description has been checked against staff's records and is correct. Only one parcel in the list
has an addition date not reflected in the action-histoD' table above. This parcel, 35-26D, was
created by permissible subdivision of a District parcel on July 5, 1989.
· - 2
The State Code stipulates that, "Local ordinances, comprehensive plans, land use
planning decisions, administrative decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to any district shall take into account the existence of such district and the
purposes of this chapter." The district may have no effect on adjacent development by
right, but could restrict proposed rezonings or uses by special use permit which are
determined to be in conflict with the adjacent agricultural/forestal uses. Districts must
now be shown on the official Comprehensive Plan map each time it is updated.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The property owners in the district
are making a statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and
that they Would like the area to remain in the agricultural and forestal uses. Adjacent property
owners may be encouraged to continue agricultural uses if they do not anticipate development of
adjacent lands
Staff Analysis
The Blue Run District was created on June 16, 1986 and included 1136.08 acres. The table below
summarizes the history of the District:
Date Action"
06-18-86 District created
01204-89 Addition
07-13-9~ Distn'ct Reviewed
04-12-95 Addition '
'08-08-01 Addition
Location: The Blue Run district is located east of Route 20, just south ofthe Orange County
border.
Acreage: The District now includes 3865.024 acres in 26 parcels. The County Code currently
contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29,
31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5,
5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 5t, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for not
more than 8 years and last reviewed on July 13, 1994, shall next be reviewed prior to July 13,
2002.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01)
This description has been checked against staff's records and is correct. Only one parcel in the list
has an addition date not reflected in the action-history table above. This parcel, 35-26D, was
created by permissible subdivision ora District parcel on July 5, 1989.
Time Peri, od: Until this point, the Blue Run District has been on an 8-year review cycle. Staff
recommends that this be increased to 10 years in order to conform to the County's current
standard practices.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the District is primarily forested, with some
agricultural and residential use.
Agricultural and Forestal Si~.tmifiCance: Land in the District is in agricultural and forestal use.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Fores~l Production:. None.
Land Us~ other than Agricul ~tm'e and 1 ~orest~: There are approximately 22 dwellings within the
District, for an average of approximately one dwelling unit per 175 acres.
Local Development PaRer. ns and Needs: The area has many large farm and forest parcels; this
addition helps to protect that pattern
Comprehemive. plan and. Zoning Regu!atiom: The Blue Run District is located within the Rural
Area of the Comprehensive Plan and all of the included parcels are zOned RA, Rural Areas. The
nearest Development Area to this District is the Piney Mountain Community, located 5 miles
west of the District.
The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, mountains, and stream
valleys.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water, wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the
historic landscape, and open space.
StaffReeommendation: Given that this District protects agricultural land and other valuable
resources, and has successfully expanded since it was established, staffrecommends renewal of
the Blue Run District for a ten year period.
A~ricultural/Fores~!, Districts.Committ.ee R~. ommendafi.o.n: At its meeting on June 10, 2002,
the committee unanimously voted to recommend renewal of the Blue Run District for a ten-year
period.
Planning Commissi0.n. Recommendation.'. At its meeting on July 2, 2002, the Planning
Commission unanimously voted to recommend renewal of the Blue Run District for a ten-year
period.
Time Period: Until this point, the Blue Run District has been on an 8-year review cycle. Staff
recommends that this be increased to 10 years in order to conform to the County's current
standard practices.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the District is primarily forested, with some
agricultural and residential use.
Agricultural and Forestal Significance: Land in the District is in agricultural and forestal use.
Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: None.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry_: There are approximately 22 dwellings within the
District, for an average of approximately one dwelling unit per 175 acres.
Local Development Patterns and Need.q: The area has many large farm and forest parcels; thi~
addition helps to protect that pattern
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Blue Run District is located within the Rural
Area of the Comprehensive Plan and all of the included parcels are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The.
nearest Development Area to this District is the Piney Mountain Community, located 5 miles
west of the District.
The Open Space Plan shows'this area to have important farmlands, forests, mountains, and stream
valleys.
Environmental Benefits: Conservation of this area maintains the environmental integrity of the
County and aids in the protection of ground and surface watei', wildlife habitat, critical slopes, the
historic landscape, and open space.
Staff Recommendation: Given that this District protects agricultural land and other valuable
resources, and has successfully expanded since it was established, staff recommends renewal of
the Blue Run District for a ten year period.
AgriculturaFForestal Districts Committee Recommendation: At its meeting on June 10, 2002,
the committee unanimously voted to recommend renewal of the Blue Run District for a ten-year
period.
3
Review of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District
zc \
AL B EMARLE-'--¢Ou NTY
36
'%.
Review of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
Review of Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District
RIVANNA DISTRICT SECTION 36 ;'"5
Review of Blue Ridge Agricultural/Forestal District
Mr. Scott Clark stated that the Blue Ridge Agricultural/Forestal Distdct was
created in June, 1986 and has grown to 3,865 acres. This is the third addition
and one review since its existence. He noted that the maps on the wall
designated the location of the district. There have been no other requests for.
additions'to this district. Staff has'had one request for a form. To match the
other districts, staff has changed the review to a 10-year review cycle.
Mr. Murray asked if there was a soil's report.
Mr. Clark stated that there was no soil's report since there were no changes.
MOTION:
Mr. Jones made a motion to continue the district and. place it on the 1 O-year
review cycle instead of the 8-year review cycle.
SECOND:
Mr. Woodzell seconded the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The motion to continue this district for a review period of 10 years was
unanimously approved.
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:23 p.m.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary,
Department of Planning & Community Development.)
Draft: 06/17/02
ORDINANCE NO. 02-3( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF
STATEWlDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By amending:
Sec. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District
ARTICLE II. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
See. 3-208 Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Blue Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 35, parcels 22, 23, 24A, 26, 26B, 26C, 26D, 28A, 29,
31, 32A, 43; tax map 36, parcels 6A, 9, 20; tax map 49, parcels 4A5, 24; tax map 50, parcels 5,
5B, 32A, 45B, 47, 47A, 47B; tax map 51, parcel 13. This district, created on June 18, 1986 for
not more than 8 years~ a~nd ~* ---~ ..... .~ ^_ T..~.. 3
~.o,o~, t~v.t~vv~,u. ~.t~_ oo..t.,v ] ~ lOff~A ~1~11 .... 4- 1~ ..... ~ ..... ,-1 ~,...i~
· -,, ......... amended at its last review on July 10~ 2002 to continue for not more than 10
years, shall next be reviewed prior to July 10, 2012.
(5-11-94; 7-13-94; 4-12-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(d); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(3), 8-8-01)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
__ to __., as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Mr. Bowerman
Ms. Dorrier
Mr. Martin
Mr. Perkins
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Aye Nay
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use temg(ate ~
YOUNG, SPENCER F
4069 ECHO VALLEY ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE VA
22923
YOUNG, HAROLD E JR
381B VINEYARD ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE VA
22923
KORETZ, W~LLA P
113 TURTLE CREEK RD APT 11
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VA 22901
NICEWONDER. CAROLYN L
5313 STONY POINT RD
BARBOURSVtLLE VA
22923
SLATER. DONALD J OR VALERIE P
4304 CREEKSTONE DRIVE
PLANO TX
75093
SWANSON, MICHAEL T & THE SWANSON
FAMILY TRUST
3898 VINEYARD RD
BARBOURSVILLE VA
22923
GOODLOW-PETERS MOUNTAIN LAND
TRUST; HAROLD E YOUNG JR TRUSTEE
3816 VINEYARD ROAD
BARBOURSVILLE VA
22923
YOUNG, ELLORA
6775 WILDON GROVE RD
GORDONSVILLE VA
22942
DENSMORE, JOHN J OR JEANNE M
5407 TURKEY SAG ROAD
KESWICK VA
22947
HARDINGTON, lAN OR SHANNON
CIO JIM FAULCONER
503 FAULCONER DRIVE SUITE 5
CHARLOTTESVILLE
VA 22903
AUGUSTUS. PEGGY
OLD KESWICK
KESWICK VA
22947
MACKEY, M JILL
6997 GORDONSVILLE ROAD
GORDONSVILLE VA
22942
COX, FLORENCE ROBINSON
7090 GORDONSVILLE ROAD
GORDONSVILLE VA
22942
BLOCH. ROBERT A OR DARTHULA ROMINE
1972 HARRINGTON ROAD
GORDONSVtLLE VA
22942
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier. Jr.
Scottsvilie
Charles S. Martin
[~ivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX I434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hal~
Dennis $. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 19, 2002
Mr. Harold E. Young, Jr.
3816 Vineyard Rd.
Barboursville, VA 22923
Dear Mr. Young:
I am writing to thank you for your participation in the Blue Run Agriculturat/Forestal District. These
districts are a vital part of our efforts to protect Albemarle's farmlands, forests, and rural.way of life. The
districts enable Albemarle government to determine what areas of the coumy are serious about supporting
that rural way of life so we can make more appropriate land-use decisions. The districts also reassure
rural landowners that there are enough other landowners with similar interests to create a critical mass of
sup¢ort. Although there are nor many tangible benefits to the landowners, the intangible support for rural
values is crucial in shaping the future of Albemarle County.
The program could not exist without you and your fellow District members. Your commitment to
protecting our County's rural areas is greatly appreciated.
As you know, the Blue Run Agricultural/Forestal District was recently reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors. On July 10, 2002, the Board ~xtended the district for another ten years. Of course we
welcome new additions to the Districts at any time. If you have'neighbors who are interested in joining a
District, please have them call Scott Clark in our Planning Department at 296-5823 x3325.
Thank you again for your participation.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
cc:
Scott Clark
Janice Farrar
development patterns to better meet the growth management goals. Such adjustments can include
more active County support of Development Areas development, adjustments to location and/or
holding capacity, and additional protective or support measures for the Rural Areas. This
emphasizes the County's role in providing
support services and infrastructure for development, and more efficient use Areas.
includin more urban and oriented
RECEIVE[:) AT BOS MEE'rlN~
Dar,,: __ '7//o/0 2_
Clerk's Init~l~ (~ ..... --
density scale that is recommended on the land use plans for the individual Development Areas. To
achieve that density, the form of development must change and that form must be more urban and
less suburban.
Another key element is that master planning process guide growth in the Development Areas. Also
included with the Neighborhood Model are descriptions of innovative design tools for creating
more urban livable nei Master Plannin and revisions uire time for
writing, and
As
a result, there will be a time lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and its full
implementation. It is intended that the parts of this Plan which do not require a Master Plan or
ordinance revision, including but not limited to the 12 Principles described in later paragraphs, will
guide a new form of development for the County's designated Development Areas.
What the Neighborhood Model Offers
The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling,
isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model:
1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for
the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles.
2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public
park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces.
3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian
friendly.
4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the
Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to
work, to services, and to entertainment.
Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that
pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are
reduced in number and length.
7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking.
8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the
neighborhood.
9. Emphasizes re-use of sites.
10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved.
10
11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas.
12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity
to a neighborhood.
The Neighborhood Model Goals:
Goals for the Neighborhoods are as follows:
Centers Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or focal points for
congregating. These may include schools, parks, places of worship, civic centers, or small
commercial and social areas. Such features will be an easy walk for most residents in the
neighborhood,
· Open Space - Each Development Area will offer opportunities for public and private outdoor
recreational areas for active and passive recreation.
· Network - A network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new
neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential districts.
· Mixed Uses - Neighborhoods will contain a tree mix of uses, including residences, shops, and
places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions.
Building Placement and Scale Consideration will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and
orientation of buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public realm. In particular,
garages will be less dominant at street view than houses.
· Alleys Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing for and
facilitating the provision of garages and utilities to the rear of houses.
Relegated Parking - Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount of )aved
on the street will be the norm, and
the rear and/or sides of buildings.
Variety of Housing Types - Each neighborhood will possess a variety of housing types
accommodating a range of incomes. Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the
Neighborhood and will be visually indistinguishable from other units.
Appealing Streetscapes - As the fundamental element of public space within the neighborhood,
the street will make the neighborhood inviting with street trees and landscaping. Sidewalks or
paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and common areas will be the norm.
Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main entrances.
· Transportation Options - Convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses and other
11
A General Description of Development Areas
OBJECTIVE: Direct growth into designated Development Areas.
A long-standing goal of Albemarle County's comprehensive planning effort has been to direct
development into designated Development Areas. With the continuance of County growth
management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical planning component.
The Land Use Plan, including the Neighborhood Model, presents mechanisms that will provide the
best oppommity for the Development Area concept to work. In combination with objectives and
strategies presented in the Community Facilities section of this Chapter, this requires establishing in
the Land Use Plan a Development Areas concept and design that demonstrates efficient utilization
of land and services, while responding to long-term market demands (see Map A).
As the Development Areas are intended to capture the wide range of development and land uses
necessary in Albemarle County, it should be recognized that complete separation of different uses is
not expected. Rather, a balance of efficient land use and appropriate separation and buffeting is
sought which may result in areas with a variety and mix of uses. Residential uses may end up next
to, or near, non-residential uses, with the goal of achieving a harmonious relationship between the
twO.
Functional Description of Development Area
OBJECTIVE: Establish functional descriptions of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages.
Three types of Development Areas are traditional to the County's comprehensive planning. As a
group, they are intended to provide for the variety of land use designations necessary to meet varied
local market demands. They are also considered the focal point for the provision of public services
and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level.
There are no minimum or maximum population standards for the different types of Development
Areas. It is intended that the functional descriptions guide the development scale of the Urban Area,
Communities, and Villages. Determination of boundaries for each Development Area is necessary
to distinguish a self-contained geographic place and preclude sprawl of development. For the
purpose of accommodating future growth, boundaries do not necessarily reflect entire existing
social communities, but instead attempt to delineate areas with some sense of place that contain
13
natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village,
development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village
density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is
created. Elements, which can contribute to such a quality, could
include:
· A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without cul-
de-sacs;
· Connections to existing streets;
· Compact lots;
· Shallow front/sideyard setbacks;
· A village center of mixed uses and public facilities and
spaces;
· Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to be
the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and
· Preservation and reuse of existing structures.
;
A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a
planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on existing
development should be emphasized. It is expected that consideration will be
given to the needs and wishes of those already living and owning property in
the area.
17
~osals consistent with the
Plan is essential in facilitatin
The Master Planning effort for each Development Area will help to implement infill development
and will address impediments limiting the opportunity or attractiveness of sites for development.
It will also encoura forces to ~erate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for
Strategies for Infill Development
Strategy:
Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are
currently impediments to development of vacant sites.
Recommendations:
Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage inflll development
within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas;
Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion so that they may be
incorporated into new developments, as necessary.
Strategy:
Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of
development.
Recommendations:
Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use
Plan residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities.
Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the
recommended densities of the Land Use Plan.
Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that
maximize gross density of development.
Strategy:
Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which may
limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of
19
general health or safety).
Recommendations:
Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in
opportunities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to:
critical slope regulations and open space requirements; reduction of area
requirements for planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial
parking requirements, subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible
impediments to "alternative" development designs).
Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps as a guide for
waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations.
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas
Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth
Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These
standards provide the basic framework for the review of development proposals for the
Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations.
General Land Use Standards
Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided as
"General Land Use Standards." These standards include the twelve principles of the
Neighborhood Model. More specific standards for non-residential and residential land uses are
provided to address the different locational and surrounding character aspects of those categories.
General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas
Pedestrian Orientation - A pedestrian orientation should be reflected throughout the
Development Areas. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths should be provided in new developments,
redevelopment projects and in County projects funded through the Capital Improvements
Program.
20
Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths -- Streets should be recognized for their function
within neighborhoods rather than merely transportation routes for cars. Curb and gutter, sidewalks
and street-trees help to give streets a more human scale.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks -Connections between developments
with an appropriately scaled transportation network, should be provided to maximize a sense of
community and provide additional transportation links. Emphasis is placed on linkage between
developments and just not within each development. Minimize t The impact of developments
should be minimized on major roads to thc greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to
major roads arterials such as Route 29, by providing side street access, service roads, and/or joint
accesses. Provide for Ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations should
take place through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing
utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. While interconnected
street systems will be the primary form of interconnection, other modes of travel should be
incorporated into thc transportation system including bikeways, pedestrian paths and mass transit.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space - Parks and recreational amenities should
become centralized features in the Development Areas and in individual developments. Important
environmental features, such as floodplains, critical slopes, and forested areas shown on the
County's Open Space Plan, should be protected and preserved as open space. Development
should be concentrated and clustered around these features to the maximum extent possible and
provide vistas for public enjoyment. Existing forested areas acting as buffers between
subdivisions should be maintained.
Neighborhood Centers - A neighborhood center provides a focal point for residents and
pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs, areas of mixed uses, parks, places of worship, or
other activity areas. Centers should be recognized and enhanced within neighborhoods. New
centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind.
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - New and redeveloped buildings should be sited and
arranged to emphasize a positive relationship between pedestrians and buildings and to provide
appropriate spatial enclosure. As a rule, building orientation should be to public streets and to
private streets when the private street is in located in front of the building. Yards should be
shallow in order to allow for good spatial enclosure. Massing and scale should be appropriate to
the area in which buildings are proposed. Attention should be paid to architectural details.
Relegated Parking - Parking should be located to the side and rear of structures
ibe the dominant feature seen from the public road New
development or major redevelopment design plans should include features to prevent impact from
impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and other impervious areas should
meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid areas
which exceed that which is ne~ for the
Mixture of Uses --Where appropriate, residences can exist side-by-side or within close proximity
21
to shops and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability--The Development Areas should reflect a variety
of housing types and costs. Unless a mixture of housing types can be found in close proximity to
an infill site, new development proposals should offer a variety of housing types for different
income levels. The Development Areas are recognized as the most appropriate places in the
County for affordable housing. Provision of services to the Development Areas as well as a more
compact area for development increases opportunities for use of transit. The Development Areas
also offer opportunities for housing to be in close proximity to jobs, shopping, parks, and public
schools. Affordable housing should not be built in "enclaves; rather, it should be incorporated
into new housing developments and units should have a similar exterior appearance to other units
in the neighborhood.
Redevelopment -The County and developers alike should concentrate on redeveloping existing
sites where the capacity of development has not been met. Adding second stories to buildings and
mixing residential uses with commercial uses make for better urban/rural relationships and can
reduce pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries. Adaptive re-use of historic
buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture and site character should be
encouraged as a method of historic preservation.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain - New development and redevelopment should reflect
sensitivity to existing grades to the greatest extent possible and promote architectural design that
fits into grades. Emphasis should be placed on preserving areas of environmental sensitivity
shown on the Open Space Plan. Where extensive grading is necessary, site grading should result
in slopes that are attractive, functional, easy to maintain, and which promote interconnectivity of
parcels.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas -Distinctive boundaries should be made between the
Development Areas and the Rural Areas. In most cases, development should abut the rural
boundary rather than transition down to it.
Fis~ }act An~ should
Appropriate
planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should
be established.
Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and
Industrial Land Uses
Residential Land Use Standards
In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented here as a
basic framework to guide future residential development proposals. It should be recognized that
substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing industry may warrant flexibility
22
in the application of these standards. These standards are intended to encourage the provision of
various housing types and provide for affordable housing. It is intended that all dwelling types
and forms of ownership be permitted within the County.
Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses
that where possible, and practical
due to terrain, availability of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure and
consistency with the Neighborhood Model, that overall development density, be at
as high a level as practical.
The use of bonus provisions to increase density and provide for affordable housing
is encouraged. Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations, that
density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to accommodate
an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be provided.
In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage
infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development
Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public
health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan
recommended land use density-ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale) should
be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments.
Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomphshed with
standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential uses.
Buffering, screening and physical separation of non-residential uses can alleviate
such relational problems. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance
addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for
appropriate protection. These features should be retained. In addition to these
regulatory requirements, care should be taken in residential design to provide for
buffering, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses.
Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land
use designations as well as in considering development proposals.
Commercial Land Use Standards
In addition to the general standards noted above, the following standards are recommended to
guide commercial development. These standards apply to commercial, commercial-office and
service type uses.
Commercial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Villages,
Communities and the Urban Area. Only limited supporting commercial uses
23
appropriate to the Rural Areas should be included in the Rural Areas zoning
provisions.
Rezoning to a commercial designation for sites of three acres or more should be
accomplished under a planned approach accompanied by a traffic analysis.
Mixed commercial and residential areas as well as mixed uses within buildings
should be encouraged as land with infill
commercial s. ~
Commercial uses should locate in areas where public utilities and facilities are
adequate to support such uses. Upgrading and extension of roads, water, sewer,
electrical, telephone, natural gas systems, and community facilities should be
considered in review of a commercial rezoning request.
Industrial Land Use Standards
In addition to the general standards, the following standards are recommended to guide industrial
development. These standards apply to light and heavy industrial uses, warehousing, "flex" type
uses, and research/development/technology centers having characteristics more in keeping with
industrial type uses.
Industrial zoning districts should be permitted only in designated Communities and
the Urban area.
While single-use industrial sites must be accommodated, rezonings which propose
multiple sites served by common access points should be encouraged. To
encourage multiple-site development, areas designated for industrial development
should not be less than five acres and should be of reasonable topography to allow
unified access.
Mixtures of residential, commercial, and industrial uses may be appropriate where
objectionable aspects can be addressed through a combination of realistic
performance standards, buffering, and special setback regulations. This approach
should be flexible so as to accomplish the objective without creating burdensome
and arbitrary regulations. Methods to mitigate objectionable aspects should be
addressed at the time of rezoning. Industrial traffic should avoid residential areas
and roadways not designed for such traffic.
24
Transitional areas are intended to be used primarily between residential areas and
commercial or industrial areas, or in areas where flexibility of land uses may be
necessary or appropriate to blend changing circumstances (e.g., where long-term
public improvements are anticipated, or areas where redevelopment/re-use is
encouraged).
Transitional areas provide an opportunity to develop mixed use areas with Urban
Density Residential uses and non-residential land uses on the scale of
Neighborhood Service and Office Service, as defined in the next section of this
chapter.
Uses include neighborhood-scale commercial areas, office buildings, townhouses
and apartment buildings.
Areas should be developed under an overall plan for the designated area to ensure
coordination of uses, access and circulation, landscaping, and maintenance of
natural/environmentally sensitive areas.
Transitional designation requires a small to medium size site (1-30 acres), collector
road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent
land uses.
Other Land Use Designations
OBJECTIVE:
Establish a mix of commercial, industrial, residential, open
space, and public land uses in designated Development Areas to
support County needs.
The County's Neighborhood Model calls for a mix of residential with non-residential uses where
such uses can be made compatible. To that end the Other Land Use Designations category of uses
provides for commercial uses, industrial uses, and office uses that support the Economic
Development policy of the County and allows for residents to live, work, and shop in close
proximity.
27
The County's Economic Development policy indicates the desirability of a wide range of business
and employment opportunities. The availability of jobs and services for the County's future
population requires sufficient land to locate such activities. The County's growth management
approach requires that such land be located in Development Areas. Commercial and industrial
designations are confined to designated Development Areas. It was established that more than
sufficient designated acreage exists to meet commercial and industrial land use needs for the next
twenty years. The actual use of this land will be dependent on its deVelopability, availability, and
locational desirability.
To assure that development of these areas adequately address environmental, infrastructure, and
land use considerations necessitates appropriate County standards and guidelines identified in this
Plan.
Strategy:
Establish land use designations for Development Areas that provide for a variety of
scales of commercial, industrial, and service uses that may be developed with
associated residential uses.
Designations:
Neighborhood Service
Uses allowed in this designation include neighborhood-scale commercial; specialty
shops; professional and office uses providing retail, wholesale, and/or business
within a Village, Urban Neighborhood, Community, or Village.
Areas designated as Neighborhood Service typically comprise (1-5 acres), collector
road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with adjacent
land uses.
Areas designated as Neighborhood Service a to
nearby and surrounding residential uses and, be
connected to those uses through a system of sidewalks or pedestrian paths.
A mixture of Urban Density residential uses and Neighborhood Service uses is
encouraged within this designation.
Larger areas may be designated as Neighborhood Service if a mixture of uses
includes residential units relating to the commercial area. In these mixed use areas,
green space (vegetated areas) should occupy at least 20% of the area. Amenities
should occupy at least 20% of the area.
28
Communi _ty Service
Uses allowed in this designation include community-scale commercial,
professional, and office uses providing retail, wholesale, business, medical offices,
small office buildings, mixed-use core communities and/or employment services to
the Development Areas and larger geographic sections of the County.
Areas designated as Community Service typically encompass a medium site size (5
to 30 acres), collector road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and
compatibility with adjacent land uses.
A mixture of Urban Density Residential uses and community service uses is
anticipated within this designation.
Larger areas may be designated as Community Service if a mixture of uses
includes residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion of
residential square footage to non-residential square footage may be as high as 50%.
In these mixed use areas, green space should occupy at least 20% of the area.
Amenities such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes,
pedestrian paths, and the like should occupy at least 20% of the area.
Regional Service
Uses allowed within this designation include regional-scale commercial, regional
malls, medical centers, m~xed-use develo ments, ~el:/~ ~t~ eo _ , ~ ~
professional ~qO ~o~ ~ mterstate interchange developments
providing retail, wholesale, business, and/or employment services to Albemarle
County and the region.
Areas designated as Regional Service typically encompass a large site (+ 30 acres),
arterial road accessibility, water and sewer availability, and compatibility with
adjacent land uses. Both vehicular and pedestrian interconnections are expected to
nearby residential areas.
A mixture of Urban Density Residential uses and community service uses is
anticipated within this designation.
Larger areas may be designated as Regional Service if a mixture of uses includes
residential units relating to the commercial area. The proportion of residential
square footage to non-residential square footage should be at least 25 %. In these
mixed use areas, green space should occupy at least 15% of the area. Amenities
such as parks, paved plazas, indoor or outdoor gathering areas, lakes, pedestrian
paths, and the like should occupy at least 10% of the area.
Office Service
29
Commercial uses are allowed in this designation as a secondary use.
Residential uses may be appropriate in the Industrial Service designation if such
uses are compatible with the nearby and adjacent Industrial Service uses. Care
should be taken to insure that the impacts of the Industrial Service uses, including
traffic, noise, odors, and vibrations will not affect residential uses. Where
residential uses are provided, both vehicular and pedestrian interconnecfions are
expected to nearby industrial areas.
Industrial Service designation requires appropriate site size (+ 5 acres), arterial
road accessibility, water and/or sewer availability, compatibility with adjacent
uses. Rail access may be necessary.
Areas for less-intensive industrial uses may act as transitional areas between
commercial and industrial areas. Uses in these areas may not require major
infrastructure provisions. A zoning district to distinguish between general
industrial and transitional industrial may be appropriate as an amendment to the
zoning ordinance.
Institutional
Uses allowed within this designation include public and
universities colle and facilities such as
Also
included are public facilities and utilities, including police, fire and rescue stations,
libraries, solid waste facilities, major public water and sewer facilities, an he
This land use designation also includes undeveloped land reserved or dedicated to
future public use. It may include a mix of commercial and residential uses,
depending on the compatibility with the institutional uses.
The scale of the facilities in the Institutional designation should be in keeping with
the design characteristics promoted in the Neighborhood Model. Of particular
importance are the principles of pedestrian access, interconnected streets and
transportation systems, and site planning that respects terrain.
Parks and Greenways
Uses allowed within this designation include public and private parks, and existing
and proposed greenways along streams.
Although public schools, identified on the Land Use Plan as institutional uses, may
provide active recreation facilities/parks (ballfields, courts, playgrounds) to the
community, they are not to be considered the sole providers of parks and open
space to a neighborhood.
31
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
40I Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
!434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 15, 2002
Ms. Lisa Dockery-Boyce
975 Crozet Ave.
Crozet VA 22932
Dear Ms. Dockery-Boyce:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 10, 2002, you were appointed to the Jefferson
Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee, with said term to run from July 1, 2002 through June 30
2005.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your'willingness to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
cc:
Commonwealth Attorney
Chris Gensic
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
APPI,ICATION TO SERVE ON ]~OARD/COMMI,~ION/COMMi.ioi. i~,F,
(Please ~ or print,)
I)rcwiou~ Rc.kicn~ ~ Number of(:bfldmn
Albemarle (
,harlotttmvdle, VA
VAX: (R~) 2~0
David P. Bowerman
Rio
Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr.
Scottsville
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Dennis S. Rooker
Jack Jouett
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
July 15, 2002
Mr. Rob Jiranek
400 Forest Ridge Rd.
Earlysville, VA 22936
Dear Mr. Jiranek:
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 10, 2002. you were appointed to the Jefferson
Area Bicycle and Walking Advisory Committee, to complete Mr. John Bunch's term. Your term will run
from July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for
your willingness to serve the Coun[y in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Sally H. Thomas
Chairman
SHT/lab
Enclosure
CC:
Commonwealth Attorney
Chris Gensic
Printed on recycled paper
County of Albemarle
Office of Board of County Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE
(Please type or print.)
Board/Commission/Committee Jefferson Area Bicycle & Walking Advisory Committee
Applicant's Name Rob Jiranek
Home Phone 434-975-0784
Full Home Address 400 Forest Ridge Road, Earlysville, VA 22936
Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Albemarle County
Employer Blue Ridge Outdoors Magazine
Business Address 222 South Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434-817-2755 x22
Occupation/Title Publisher Date of Employment
Years Resident in Albemarle County 8 Spouse's Name Pam
Previous Residence ,Danville, Va: :_ -~..:~. Number of Children 3
Education IDegrees ~nd Graduation Dates] BA English Princeton University 1985, MBANorthwestem University 1991
I/1/1995
Memberships in Fraternall Business, Charch and/or Social Groups member. Buck Mountain Church
Public. Civic and Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Chair, Patterson Associates Board of Martha Jefferson Hospital:
Coach, YMCA Youth Basketball; Member, Rivanna Trail Foundation
Reasontsl for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee Personal and professional interest in human-powered activities.
concern for community health and development, will to make a difference.
The informatio.n provided on this application will be released to the public upon request.
Signature Date
3/19/2002
Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Albemarle County
~,.~ ~- ~ . 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA ~.2902-4596
~,,-~ .... ,,-'~-~ ~:,~ FAX: (804) 296:5800