HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-21
_,;:IIt.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of June 21, 2000
June 23, 2000
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1. Call to order. Meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m., by the
Chairman. All BOS members present.
Clerk: Laurie Bentley. ,
4. Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Clerk: Thank speaker for his comments.
. Mr. Tom Loach, Crozet resident, suggested that due to the
closing of the ConAgra plant, the Board consider moving up
work on the Master Planning process.
5.2. 1998 Virginia Assessment Sales Ratio Study as prepared by None.
the Virginia Department of Taxation. RECEIVED FOR
INFORMATION. Mr. Tucker commended County appraisers
and assessors for making the County #2 out of 135 localities,
and for exceeding minimum standards each year since they
were set in 1993.
6. SP-99-74. Townwood Mobile Home Park (Signs #75&76). Clerk: List conditions (attachment A).
APPROVED w/3 conditions. Note: Mr. Bowerman did not hear
this item due to a conflict of interest.
7. SP-00-01. (Crozet Commons) Clifford Fox (Sign #86). Clerk: List conditions (attachment A).
APPROVED w/11 conditions.
8. SP-00-005. Trinity Presbyterian Church (Sign #40&41). Clerk: List conditions (attachment A).
APPROVED w/5 conditions.
9. SP-OO-13. Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing (Sign #31). Clerk: List conditions (attachment A).
APPROVED w/7, revised conditions.
10. SP-00-14. The Hawksbill Pottery (Sign #29). APPROVED w/6 Clerk: List conditions (attachment A).
conditions.
11. Sale of the District Home property. APPROVED. County Attornev: Obtain signatures and return
copy to BOS Clerk's office.
12. Cancel July 19, 2000 Board of Supervisors meeting. MEETING None.
CANCELLED.
14. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda. County Executive: Send letter.
. CONSENSUS to have Mr. Tucker draft letter to ConAgra
owners to discuss potential use of vacated property.
15. Adjourn at 8:55 p.m.
Attachment A
CONDITIONS
SP-99-74 Townwood Mobile Park
A. Approval for the addition of 25 units and the internal relocation of the existing units within
Townwood Mobile Home Park. If the owner satisfies the issues identified by the Engineering
Department (2/22/00 memo, Attachment J) and Planning Department (including the
location/design of recreational facilities and the relocation of lot 16) to the satisfaction the
Agent and County Engineer, then up to seven additional lots shall be allowed (for a total of up
to 32).
B. Modify Section 31.2.4.4 to allow development improvements to commence within two years
of special use permit approval. This development project shall be completed within two years
from commencement of improvements from such date. The phases and sub-phases are
outlined in the following chronological timeline:
1. Phase 1:
a. Installation of necessary supporting infrastructure, which must include:
1. Installation of new water lines for domestic consumption;
2. Installation of the new water lines for fire safety (including three new fire
hydrants);
3. Installation of the new stormwater system; and,
4. Widening of the internal road.
a. Construction of the first 13 Lots (Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11 through 20) as depicted
on the application plan. No existing mobile homes are to be relocated during
Phase 1, except by request of any existing resident or for the purpose of
constructing the second entrance to Townwood Drive.
b. Install a recreation area of 10,000 square feet in size, in a location to be
determined with the review of the site plan.
c. Installation of Phase 1 landscaping, which includes compliance with the tree
preservation area located within the rear fifty-foot buffer and cemetery site.
Street trees a minimum of 50 feet apart as typically called for in the ordinance
shall be added along with screening along Rio Road. All trees should be a
minimum of 2" caliper. These additions are minimums and should not in any
way limit landscape treatment that the ARB might impose. If any subsequent
phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 1, the applicant can
bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be established during
other phases.
2. Phase 2:
a. Installation of a second entrance onto Townwood Drive at the northernmost
Intersection of Tower Court and Townwood Drive. The Planning Commission
may approve the Townwood entrance in the location shown on the
application plan if it is determined that this location will better address issues
of grading, and visibility of the site, including accommodation of
landscaping/fencing. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted for the 14th
unit until the second entrance is constructed. Townwood Drive must be accepted
into the state system with the construction of this second entrance.
b. Installation of a screening fence that must be entirely on the Townwood Mobile
Home Park property and must span the length of all developed lots adjacent to
Townwood Drive. The new screening fence shall be constructed prior to, or
simultaneously with the removal of the existing screening fence.
c. Installation of a screening fence that is entirely on the Townwood Mobile Home
Park property and must span the length of all developed lots along the Four
Seasons PUD property line;
d. Construction of Lots 6, 31, and 23 through 27, as it will not involve realignment of
any existing units;
e. Realignment of the existing units along Townwood Drive and within the center of
the Park's internal loop road to accommodate construction of Lots 1 through 6 and
Lot 8;
1. Construction of Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 8;
g. Installation of the second tot lot, fronting Rio Road West;
h. Installation of the final surfacing to the internal loop road; and,
i. Installation of Phase 2 landscaping. Landscaping shall include plantings at the
new second entrance and the new travelway, with major street trees every 50 feet
on both sides along this internal travelway, and street trees approaching Townwood
Drive. If any subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 2,
the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be
established during other phases.
3. Phase 3:
a. Realignment of the remaining units that are located along the Four Seasons PUD
side of the subject parcel;
b. Construction of Lots 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, and 32; and,
c. Installation of all remaining landscaping.
C. No trees are to be removed within the rear fifty-foot buffer and cemetery site. Preserve
trees along Townwood Drive to the greatest extent possible.
D. The applicant shall install a street light at the new second entrance onto Townwood Drive.
Staff will review the overall lighting needs for the site during the site plan review process,
and the applicant will provide lighting as recommended by staff.
E. Planning Commission Modifications of:
1. Section 5.3.3.1 to allow for the reduction in the 4,500 square-feet area and required 45-
foot width for the 71 existing and realigned units;
2. Section 5.3.4.1 as noted in Section 5.3.7.2;
3. Section 5.3.4.3 to allow for a reduction to 30 feet distant to two dumpsters for five units.
A screening fence must be installed around both dumpsters;
4. Section 5.3.4.4 to allow for the reduction of the 30-foot minimum distance between the
existing and realigned 71 units. Issuance of the Modification is subject to Fire Official
approval of the Final Site Plan.
5. Section 5.3.5.1 to allow for a reduction of the 50-foot setback for 12 existing and
realigned homes along Townwood Drive, but not less than 3 feet between the homes and
the property line.
6. Section 5.3.5.2 to allow twenty-one existing and realigned homes, along the Four
Seasons PUD property line, a reduction of the 50 foot setback as follows:
Between Rio Road and new lot 28,
a. Seven homes to 3 feet;
b. Two homes to 13 feet; and,
c. One home to 30 feet.
Between new Lot 21 and the bioretention pond,
a. Eleven homes to 15 feet.
7. Section 5.3.5,3 to allow for 7 homes, of the existing and realigned 71 homes, a reduction
of the 15-foot setback to 5 feet from the internal private street;
8. Section 5.3.5.4 to waive the requirements for lot lines of the 71 existing and realigned
homes. Sheds and other storage structures may be constructed to a common wall.
9. Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.6.1 to allow for a waiver of application plan requirements,
conditioned that the County approve both preliminary and final site plans before any
construction activity is permitted. Site plan approval will not be granted unless adequate
parking and outdoor living areas are provided on each existing, realigned, and/or
proposed lot.
10. Section 5.3.7.2 to waive the requirements for all markers for the new, existing, and
realigned lots, conditioned that each mobile home be numbered and posted accordingly
to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual for E911 purposes.
11. Section 5.3.8.1 to waive the required six recreational vehicle parking spaces in the
common area.
F. The applicant shall provide screening of the dumpster site from the adjacent cemetery.
G. No waiver for provision of 100 square feet of outdoor living space.
SP-2000-01 Crozet Commons (Clifford Fox)
1. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the
concept plan entitled, "Crozet Commons Development Concept" dated 3/22/00;
2. In keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons (colored rendering)" dated 3/22/00,
the following features of the development will be provided:
. a sidewalk and street trees shall be provided across the public road frontage
. a "downtown" type streetscape shall be provided that includes the scale and alignment of
building shown in the illustration.
3. A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development;
4. Residential uses may be mixed with other C-1 uses within buildings or may be in separate
buildings;
5. If residential uses are mixed with other C-1 uses within a building; there shall be no
commercial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupations;
6. The following uses shall not be allowed on the parcel because of incompatibilities between
residential and nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in effect on S/23/00, attached):
a. funeral homes
b. movie theaters
c. automobile service stations
d. fire and rescue stations
e. automobile truck repair Shop
f. medical center;
7. A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.;
8. A convenience store may be allowed provided the hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m.
and 11:00 p.m.;
9. Interparcel vehicular and pedestrian access to the adjoining parcels shall be provided at
locations shown on the conceptual plan or otherwise approved by the Planning Director;
10. A condominium regime will be established for unified ownership and maintenance of the real
property; and,
11. The concept plan referenced in these conditions is not considered a "site plan" meeting the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a subsequent site plan is required.
SP-00-005 Trinity Presbyterian Church
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and
incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children's play
equipment, and walkways (approved with SP 99-063) and the modified area of
disturbance with recreational areas shown on the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian
Church Proposed Building Expansion dated 5/15/00.
,
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated
5/15/00. Applicant will present a clearing and grading plan to the Engineering
Department that minimizes clearing to the greatest extent possible.
3. Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be
allowed (approved with SP 99-063);
4. Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the plan entitled:
Master Plan Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 (approved with SP 99-063); and,
5. Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area (approved with SP 99-063).
SP-00-013 Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossin"
1. The driveway shall be limited to serve a single residence on the opposite side of the
stream from Route 620. Any additional residence beyond the stream crossing shall
be subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors;
2. The Special Use Permit shall not become valid unless the applicant demonstrates
that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the
culvert to remain in place. The applicant shall have 180 days to provide evidence of
this approval to the County Engineer. This approval is commonly known as the "Joint
Permit" and any approval conditions imposed by the approving government agencies
in their permit shall become approval conditions of this Special Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall provide to Engineering a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan that brings
the stream buffer into compliance with the County's Water Protection Ordinance.
This plan must be approved by Engineering within two months of receiving the above
mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval
and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within
three months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of
year.
4. The applicant shall provide end treatments for stabilization of the culvert and
adjoining stream banks. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control
Plan approved by Engineering and shall include additional measures determined to
be reasonably necessary by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed
driveway. This plan must be approved by Engineering within two months of receiving
the above mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon
approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field
within three months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the
time of year.
5. The applicant shall be expressly prohibited from placing any additional fill in the
floodplain unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Engineering this can
be done without increasing the 100 year water surface elevations. The applicant
shall be allowed to perform routine maintenance on the driveway and culverts
provided there is no additional fill in the floodplain.
6. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the
purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been
placed and the stream crossing remains stable;
~
It
7. In the event the applicant is required to substitute a bridge for the culvert as a
condition of the Special Use Permit. Engineering recommends this bridge be
approved subject to the following conditions:
a. This bridge shall have the lowest elevation on its span set above the stream
banks;
b. The streambank next to the bridge abutments shall be armored to protect the
abutments from erosion;
c. The bridge design shall be approved by Engineering prior to starting
construction of the bridge or its approaches and must include structural
design computations that demonstrate the structure can safely carry the
vehicles that use this bridge; and,
d. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream
banks. As part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert stream
crossing. The reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe such
that the pipe invert is at least six inches below the stream invert and shall
include sufficient separation between the culvert pipes that proper
compaction of the fill material can occur. These improvements shall be part
of an Erosion Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include
additional measures determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose of
stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by
Engineering within two months of approval of this Special Use Permit. The
plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all improvements
shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within three months of
receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
SP-2000-14 The Hawksbill Pottery
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on site;
2. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday;
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exist (1,614
square feet);
4. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric kilns;
5. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property; and,
6. Use shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, and shall verify compliance with all applicable waste handling/disposal and
water control regulations, including regulations for septic disposal of the Virginia
Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
1998 Assessment Sales Ratio Study
AGENDA DATE:
June 21,2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report by the Virginia Department of Taxation
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Gulati, Breeden, Walters, Woodzell
REVIEWED BY:
r
BACKGROUND:
The final 1998 Virginia Assessment Sales Ratio Study has been released by the Virginia Department of Taxation. There is
a two year lag between the year studied and release of the report.
The study estimates the existing assessment sales ratio in each locality by comparing assessed values to the selling prices
of bona fide sales of real property. This ratio, when divided into the fair market value of real estate, provides an estimate of
the total true (full) value of real estate and is an indicator of sound appraisal procedures to keep property values current. In
addition to this function, the study determines the average effective true tax rates throughout the state. The effective true tax
rate expresses the tax rate per $100 of true value and is an accurate means of comparing the real estate tax on similar
properties in different taxing jurisdictions. The effective tax rate is used in many calculations throughout the state. Some local
examples are: land use assessment, public service assessment, the revenue sharing payment to the City of Charlottesville,
and the composite index for distribution of state education funds.
County financial policies require that the County achieve an annual assessment to sales ratio of at least 95%.
DISCUSSION:
The 1998 study generated an overall 97.65% median ratio and a 5.61 % coefficient of dispersion for the County of Albemarle.
The median ratio is the comparison of assessed values to the selling price of bona fide sales of real property and is an indicator
of how closely County assessments match market values. The County's 1998 rate of 97.7% ranks 6th in the State and is much
higher than the statewide average rate of 89.27%. It also exceeds the prescribed minimum of 95% set out in the Financial
Policies. The County has exceeded the 95% minimum rate since 1993.
The coefficient of dispersion evaluates the level of uniformity of the assessments. The County's coefficient of dispersion (5.6%)
is better than the 10% benchmark for uniform assessments, and much better than the 16.99% average coefficient for localities
across the state.
The combined median ratio and coefficient of dispersion for the County of Albemarle ranked 2nd compared to the total 135
Virginia localities and cities studied by the Virginia Department of Taxation.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is presented for your information. It does not require any action.
00.125
Revised 06/07/00
Prepared by Robert Wa~ers
N/A not available with current report format
Regres.. Index = Regression Index The regression index guages the relationships between the ratios of high priced and low priced properties to determine if the value of the properly has any influence on the
assessment ratio. An index above 1.00 indicates that less expensive homes have a higher assessment sales ratio than more expensive homes: therefore, the assessments are regressive. Many experts believe an
index between .95 and 1.05 is reasonable.
Disper.. Coeffic.. = Coefficient of Dispersion The coefficient of dispersion is used to measure how closely Albemarle's ratios are arrayed around the median ratio. The smaller the measure of dispersion, the greater
the uniformity of the ratios. The more closely the ratios are grouped around the median, the more equ~able was the property assessment, since properties were assessed at similar rates, Experts feel that an index of
10 percent indicates a good distribution for residential properties.
1997
1998
1997
1997
3.9%
5.5%
91.7%
91.1%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1,531
.852
96,9%
97.7%
7.1%
5.6%
921
,160
97.4%
97.7%
5.4%
4.2%
.00
.00
464
565
96.4%
97.5%
9.5%
8.1%
.00
.02
61
34
93.9%
97.9%
4.8%
3.5%
.01
.01
27
25
95.0%
100.7%
12.3%
7.4%
0.99
0.01
1995
1996
1995
1995
2.9%
3.6%
91.6%
91.5%
N/A
N/A
N1A
N/A
,530
,550
97.2%
98.4%
8.7%
6.8%
901
965
97.2%
98.5%
6.1%
4.5%
,00
,00
471
419
96.5%
98.2%
12,2%
11.2%
1.03
1.02
33
57
95.8%
96.4%
7.8%
4.1%
0.98
1.00
40
40
97.4%
99.1%
20.6%
14.4%
0.93
1.03
1993
1994
993
993
1.2%
2.7%
86.0%
91.3%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
325
399
96.6%
96.3%
6.9%
6.8%
N/A
2
N/A
96.4%
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
304
337
96.6%
96.2%
6.6%
7.0%
.00
.00
5
51
89.6%
97.1%
8.8%
5.2%
1,02
0.99
3
o
N1A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.02
N/A
1991
1992
1991
1991
1.3%
-0.2%
91.0%
91.7%
13.8%
N/A
1.04
N/A
641
649
92.7%
93.1%
6.1%
5.8%
o
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
617
623
92.8%
93.1%
6.1%
5.8%
1.01
0.99
7
N/A
92.6%
N/A
.9%
N/A
1.00
N/A
2
N1A
N/A
N1A
N/A
N/A
0.98
N/A
989
990
1989
1989
14.5%
7.8%
81.2%
88.0%
14.0%
14.4%
.04
.05
614
631
87.3%
81,9%
5.3%
6.7%
1
294
N/A
82,1%
N/A
5.7%
.00
.02
456
277
87.3%
81.3%
5.7%
7.4%
.00
.02
117
18
87.9%
87.1%
3.8%
6.0%
.00
.01
6
7
89.1%
103.5%
11.20%
9.60%
1.07
1.04
1987
1988
1987
1987
13.9%
16,2%
80.6%
82.2%
13.4%
13.6%
1.04
1.05
622
612
94.3%
88.3%
5.2%
5.5%
367
o
94.7%
N/A
4.5%
N1A
1,01
N/A
215
509
93.4%
87.7%
6.5%
5.7%
1.00
1.02
11
84
97.3%
90.9%
1.7%
4.6%
1,01
1.00
7
2
100.7%
N/A
8.30%
N/A
1.00
1.01
1985
1986
1985
1985
8,3%
14.0%
86.1%
83.2%
3.4%
13.4%
1.03
1.03
674
624
95.5%
93.3%
5.7%
6.2%
346
333
96.3%
93.7%
4.9%
5.8%
.00
.02
278
234
94.3%
93.2%
7.1%
6.6%
1.01
1.01
15
12
97.8%
94.8%
5.2%
7.3%
.01
.01
6
15
95.6%
91.8%
2.60%
3.90%
1.08
0.98
1983
1984
1975
1976
1977
1978
979
980
981
982
1983
1983
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
6.9%
7.2%
8.3%
8.1%
9.9%
13.4%
15.7%
12.8%
10.2%
5.3%
85.3%
84.5%
30.5%
31.0%
55.6%
64.3%
66.1%
71.7%
77.6%
84.5%
14.2%
13.5%
25.9%
25.5%
24.7%
20.5%
18.9%
19.7%
18.9%
16.0%
1.03
1.03
1.13
1.13
1.16
1.12
1.06
1.11
1.10
1.05
676
625
N/A
N/A
604
609
650
630
608
494
94.1%
92.5%
3.6%
3.2%
90,3%
79.6%
81,0%
74.4%
87.3%
87.9%
6.6%
7.2%
N/A
N/A
8.8%
9.4%
8.8%
9.5%
7.1%
7.7%
352
325
192
309
332
311
264
333
294
264
94.9%
94.1%
14.1%
13.5%
91.8%
82.0%
83.4%
74.3%
87.3%
88.5%
5.7%
6.3%
5.0%
8.7%
5.9%
7.6%
6.3%
8.2%
5.8%
6.0%
.01
.03
1.01
1.00
0.99
0.98
1,00
1,01
1.02
1.05
275
264
352
239
224
258
336
258
207
186
93.2%
90.3%
13.2%
12.8%
85.9%
77.0%
78.5%
74.5%
86.8%
86.8%
7.9%
7.7%
14.5%
14.8%
14.7%
11.7%
10.8%
12.3%
9.2%
11.3%
.00
.03
1.06
1.02
1.00
0.95
1,00
1.04
1.00
1.05
17
5
5
3
3
2
5
4
6
6
96.2%
95.8%
1.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
95.3%
78.2%
84.1%
88.0%
4.1%
5.5%
39.3%
N/A
N/A
N1A
14.3%
12.9%
5.7%
8.1%
.03
.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N1A
1.16
0.96
0,98
0,98
7
7
11
9
1
1
6
8
5
7
99.7%
64.8%
14.5%
12.7%
86.2%
76.7%
86.8%
70.1%
89.1%
86.1%
4.90%
3.90%
6.4%
4.6%
7.2%
11.3%
19.2%
4.40%
0.20%
23.50%
0.99
.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.87
0.93
0.92
1.08
Study Last
Year R_Year
True
Value
Change
Median
Ratio
Disper.
Coefflc.
Regres.
Index
Number
Sales
Median
Ratio
Dlsper.
Coefflc.
Number
Sales
Median
Ratio
Disper.
Coefflc.
Regres.
Index
Number Median
Sales Ratio
Dlsper.
Coeffle.
Regres.
Index
Number
Sales
Median
Ratio
Disper. Regres
Coefflc. Index
Number Median
Sales Ratio
Dlsper. Regres
Coefflc. Index
Total Virginia
Total Albemarle
Single Residential Urban
Summary of Sales Ratio Studies for the County of Albemarte
Single Residential Suburban
Multi-Family Residential
Commerclalllndustrial
Revised 06/07/00
Prepared
by Robert Walters
1997
1998
1997
1997
46
60
92.2%
98.3%
3.3%
8.7%
.00
.00
12
5
89.1%
96.8%
24.1%
7.6%
0.93
.09
96.9%
97.7%
0.72
0.72
0.70
0.70
6,041,067,553
6,236,541,651
219,839,788
224,525,841
6,260,907,341
6,461,067,492
4.4%
3.2%
79,200
80,700
76,276
77,281
2,776
2,782
79,052
80,063
1995
1996
1995
1995
83
66
99.2%
98.9%
11.2%
8.9%
1.03
.02
2
3
70.6%
98.7%
N/A
N/A
0.96
0.99
97.2%
98.4%
0.72
0.72
0.70
0.71
5,677,358,961
5,787,970,132
206,010,001
207,680,207
5,883,368,962
5,995,650,339
5.7%
.9%
75,500
78,400
75,197
73,826
2,729
2,649
77,926
76.475
1993
1994
1993
1993
12
8
94.5%
86.6%
10.91 %
9.9%
.05
.04
N/A
98.7%
N/A
N/A
.00
.00
96.6%
96.3%
0.72
0.72
0.70
0.69
5,227,733,908
5,369,525,286
188,566,393
195,549,967
5,416,300,301
5,565,075,253
8.6%
2.7%
71,700
73,700
72,911
72,857
2,630
2,653
75,541
75,510
1991
1992
1991
1991
14
19
90.9%
94.3%
13.30%
16.69%
.09
.14
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.00
N/A
92.7%
93.1%
0.72
0.72
0.67
0.67
4,659,370,000
4,806,786,242
173,615,000
181,571,450
4,832,985,000
4,988,357,692
11.1%
3.2%
69,700
70,300
66,849
68,375
2.491
2,583
69,340
70,958
1989
1990
1989
1989
27
30
83.6%
77.6%
12.40%
10.40%
0.98
.04
7
5
92.2%
94.4%
9.60%
2.50%
.00
.00
87.3%
81.9%
0.72
0.74
0.63
0.61
3,754,984,000
4,183,152,000
148,429,000
165,551,000
3,903,413,000
4,348,703,000
7.9%
11.4%
65,600
68,040
57,317
61,481
2,266
2,433
59,583
63,914
1987
11188
1987
1987
20
14
96.0%
92.2%
8.20%
8.70%
0.99
.03
2
3
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.05
.00
94.3%
88.3%
0.72
0.72
0.68
0.64
2,855,907,000
3,174,398,000
120,204,000
137,382,000
2,976,111,000
3,311,780,000
12.2%
11.3%
61,700
63,200
46,287
51,449
1,948
2,227
48,235
53,676
1985
1986
1985
1985
23
26
98.5%
89.9%
8.10%
11.70%
.00
.02
6
4
87.0%
84.3%
8.80%
18.90%
.04
.00
95.5%
93.3%
0.77
0.77
0.74
0.72
2,385,291,000
2,538,079,000
107,563,000
114,333,000
2.492,854,000
2,652,412,000
12.7%
6.4%
60,200
60,900
39,623
41,676
,787
,877
41,410
43,553
1983
984
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1983
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
21
23
23
25
17
11
29
17
29
22
90.5%
95.1%
12.1%
12.1%
79.8%
80.2%
79.6%
68.0%
92.1%
81.6%
9.50%
10.90%
22.0%
16.7%
21.9%
11.9%
16.3%
24.50%
10.40%
6.00%
.02
.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.98
.04
.06
.07
4
13
19
17
5
10
10
4
9
104.4%
N/A
12.7%
11.7%
87.5%
74.9%
75.0%
76,2%
72.4%
85.9%
7.60%
N/A
14.4%
16.1%
10.5%
15.7%
12.2%
11.70%
16.30%
8.70%
.04
.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.96
0.97
.04
.00
94.1%
92.5%
13.6%
13.2%
90.3%
79.6%
81.0%
74.4%
87.3%
87.9%
0.77
0.77
4.70
4.80
0,72
0.72
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.77
0.72
0.71
0.64
0.63
0,65
0,57
0.54
0.50
0.58
0.68
1,990,763,000
2.112,285,000
895,796,000
949,195,000
1,063,692,000
1,239,284,000
1,414,876,000
1,634,054,000
1,750,341,000
1,793,088,000
103,720,000
99,517,000
62,897,000
65,368,000
68,355,000
71,706,500
75,058,000
81,522,000
86,351,000
89,974,000
2,094.483.000
2,211,802.000
958,693,000
1,014,563,000
1,132,047,000
1,310,990,500
1.489,934,000
1,715,576,000
1,836,692,000
1,883,062,000
11.2%
5.6%
N/A
5.8%
11.6%
15.8%
13.6%
15.1%
7.1%
2.5%
58,200
58,600
46,700
48,200
50,000
49,950
49,900
55,800
56,800
57,500
34,206
36.045
9,182
9,693
21,274
24,814
28,354
29,284
30,816
31,184
,782
1,698
1.347
1.356
1,367
1.436
1.504
1,461
1,520
1.565
35,988
37,743
20,529
21,049
22.641
26,250
29.858
30,745
32,336
32,749
Study Last
Year R_Year
Number
Sales
Agricultural/Undeveloped
20-100 Acres
Median Disper.
Ratio Coeffic.
Regres
Index
Number
Sales
Agricultural/Undeveloped
Over 100 Acres
Median Disper..
Ratio Coeffic..
Regres
ndex
Average Tax Rates
Median Average Average
Assess Nominal Effective
Ratio Tax Rate Tax Rate
Real
Estate
Public
Service
Total
True
Value
Chang
Population
Real
Estate
Public
Service
Total
Estimated True Value Taxable'
Summary of Sales Ratio Studies for the COUllty of Albemarle
Estimated True Value Per Capita
Page 1 of 3 Preliminary Report on the 1998 Assessment/Sales Ratio Study
Reassmt Combined Median Coefficient
Type Locality Cycle Med & Coef Rank Ratio Rank Dispersion Rank Taxable FMV Rank
City of Alexandria Annual 0.1049 6 97.39% 10 7.88% 19 10,984,596,300 8
City of Bedford 1995 0.2846 79 84.98% 103 13.44% 53 222,488,80~ 127
City of Bristol 1997 0.3023 83 86.72% 97 16.95% 72 568,887,400 99
City of Buena Vista 1995 0.4029 108 78.86% 123 19.15% 88 152,723,105 133
City of Charlottesville Annual 0.2119 51 92.57% 52 13.76% 55 1,879,322,000 35
City of Chesapeake Annual 0.0819 3 95.77% 25 3.96% 1 8,981,779,000 9
City of Clifton Forge 1998 0.2381 62 96.74% 18 20.55% 95 95,384,700, 135
City of Colonial Heights 1998 0.1787 38 90.91 % 68 8.78% 25 826,130,780 80
City of Covington 1995 0.3043 85 82.34% 110 12.77% 48 181,977,130 131
City of Danville 1998 0.2588 71 89.58% 77 15.46% 65 1,508,331,800 45
City of Emporia 1998 0.2651 74 90.51 % 71 17.02% 73 206,969,200 128
City of Fairfax City Annual 0.1382 18 94.80% 26 8.62% 22 1,918,845,067 34
City of Falls Church Annual 0.1133 9 97.40% 9 8.73% 23 1,115,428,000 59
City of Franklin 1995 0.2368 61 91.11 % 66 14.79% 62 298,601 ,000 124
City of Fredericksburg 1995 0.1598 26 99.05% 3 15.03% 63 1,143,681,600 56
City of Galax 1996 0.3247 93 88.46% 88 20.93% 97 223,835,620 126
City of Hampton Annual 0.1156 10 98.00% 4 9.56% 27 4,836,763,000 15
City of Harrisonburg 1997 0.1683 31 90.89% 70 7.72% 18 1,530,717,600 44
City of Hopewell 1997 0.1789 39 92.59% 51 10.48% 34 743,360,600 85
City of Lexington 1995 0.1843 43 97.57% 8 16.00% 67 261,779,100 125
City of Lynchburg 1997 0.1891 44 91.64% 61 10.55% 35 2,347,542,075 29
City of Manassas Annual 0.1077 8 96.17% 21 6.94% 9 1,975,223,000 32
City of Manassas Park Annual 0.1033 5 96.75% 17 7.08% 10 386,423,000 113
City of Martinsville 1997 0.1736 35 94.03% 38 11.39% 43 483,149,200 106
City of Newport News Annual 0.0828 4 96.28% 19 4.56% 3 6,400,990,427 12
City of Norfolk Annual 0.1648 30 93.97% 42 10.45% 33 7,008,307,530 11
City of Norton 1996 0.2560 70 90.47% 72 16.07% 69 126,674,600 134
City of Petersburg Annual 0.1773 36 94.12% 35 11.85% 45 849,579,200 77
City of Poquoson 1997 0.1049 7 94.57% 29 5.06% 4 590,969,508 98
City of Portsmouth Annual 0.1632 29 93.87% 43 10.19% 31 2,714,457,740 27
City of Radford 1996 0.3316 94 81.27% 115 14.43% 60 414,703,250 112
City of Richmond City Annual 0.2326 58 92.17% 56 15.43% 64 8,799,955,175 10
City of Roanoke City Annual 0.1354 16 94.03% 37 7.57% 16 3,572,205,000 21
City of Salem 1997 0.2490 66 83.00% 107 7.90% 20 1,035,946,400 63
City of Staunton 1997 0.2389 63 89.38% 80 13.27% 52 818,057,615 81
City of Suffolk Annual 0.1929 46 92.52% 54 11.81% 44 2,653,234,900 28
City of Virginia Beach Annual 0.1541 25 92.03% 57 7.44% 12 19,220,645,104 2
City of Waynesboro 1997 0.2219 57 89.10% 85 11.29% 42 746,988,775 84
City of Williamsburg Annual 0.1474 22 92.53% 53 7.27% 11 742,773,900 86
City of Winchester 1995 0.1609 27 95.92% 24 12.01% 46 1,316,109,100 52
County of Accomack Annual 0.4448 118 79.76% 121 24.24% 107 1,270,294,578 53
County of Albemarle 1997 0.0796 2 97.65% 6 5.61% 5 6,093,101,193 13
County of Alleghany 1998 0.3551 98 81.62% 112 17.13% 74 491,047,700 104
County of Amelia 1994 0.4881 127 74.93% 131 23.74% 105 444,592,809 110
County of Amherst 1998 0.3014 82 85.88% 101 16.02% 68 1,039,262,300 62
County of Appomattox 1996 0.3746 104 81.53% 113 18.99% 87 467,810,650 107
County of Arlington Annual 0.1911 45 91.33% 63 10.44% 32 19,049,629,300 3
County of Augusta 1997 0.1782 37 91 .11 % 65 8.93% 26 3,110,639,600 23
County of Bath 1997 0.4259 116 87.29% 94 29.88% 124 338,491,100 120
County of Bedford 1995 0.3177 92 86.86% 96 18.63% 86 2,823,640,462 26
County of Bland 1996 0.5068 128 75.00% 130 25.68% 116 198,589,900 129
Page 2 of 3 Preliminary Report on the 1998 Assessment/Sales Ratio Study
Reassmt Combined Median Coefficient
Type Locality Cycle Med & Coef Rank Ratio Rank Dispersion Rank Taxable FMV Rank
County of Botetourt 1998 0.1362 17 96.21% 20 9.83% 28 1,690,912,329 42
County of Brunswick 1994 0.6279 134 70.97% 133 33.76% 132 488,326,241 105
County of Buchanan 1995 0.4059 110 88.13% 91 28.72% 121 923,737,200 74
County of Buckingham 1998 0.4209 114 88.25% 90 30.34% 128 501,247,270 102
County of Campbell 1997 0.1714 33 94.00% 40 11.14% 41 1,742,878,969 39
County of Caroline 1998 0.2546 68 94.02% 39 19.48% 90 967,712,393 67
County of Carroll 1998 0.5539 131 75.73% 127 31.12% 130 955,806,400 68
County of Charles City Cnty 1997 0.4266 117 80.73% 117 23.39% 103 316,415,176 122
County of Charlotte 1997 0.4623 123 89.92% 75 36.15% 134 441,964,170 111
County of Chesterfield Annual 0.1272 12 93.62% 45 6.34% 7 12,303,104,591 7
County of Clarke 1994 0.1997 47 94.65% 28 14.62% 61 927,768,846 73
County of Craig 1994 0.5802 132 69.35% 135 27.37% 119 172,724,800 132
County of Culpeper 1998 0.1316 15 97.78% 5 10.94% 38 1,755,100,700 38
County of Cumberland 1998 0.2857 80 94.30% 33 22.87% 100 376,181,752 117
County of Dickenson 1994 0.5175 129 78.44% 124 30.19% 127 534,458,840 101
County of Dinwiddie 1997 0.3029 84 88.04% 92 18.33% 83 922,188,400 75
County of Essex 1997 0.2007 49 97.31 % 11 17.38% 77 643,264,825 91
County of Fairfax County Annual 0.1804 40 88.53% 87 6.57% 8 75,889,799,800 1
County of Fauquier 1998 0.1731 34 93.32% 49 10.63% 36 4,464,778,600 17
County of Floyd 1995 0.4601 122 72.27% 132 18.28% 82 499,911,700 103
County of Fluvanna 1998 0.2139 52 94.39% 32 15.78% 66 930,887,100 71
County of Franklin 1995 0.3097 87 86.24% 99 17.21% 75 2,267,445,039 31
County of Frederick 1997 0.1699 32 96.76% 16 13.75% 54 3,093,790,995 25
County of Giles 1994 0.4735 125 75.74% 126 23.09% 101 463,389,000 108
County of Gloucester 1998 0.1275 13 97.30% 12 10.05% 30 1,693,450,074 41
County of Goochland 1997 0.2677 75 87.13% 95 13.90% 56 1 ,483,154,968 46
County of Grayson 1998 0.6155 133 70.00% 134 31.55% 131 445,213,240 109
County of Greene 1997 0.2515 67 91.48% 62 16.63% 71 640,630,700 92
County of Greensville 1995 0.3875 106 90.25% 73 29.00% 122 311,164,210 123
County of Halifax 1998 0.2203 55 97.63% 7 19.66% 91 1,400,646,370 50
County of Hanover Annual 0.2188 54 89.15% 83 11.03% 40 5,033,996,100 14
County of Henrico Annual 0.1831 41 89.27% 81 7.58% 17 13,365,559,000 5
County of Henry 1997 0.2923 81 83.92% 105 13.15% 51 1,735,479,500 40
County of Highland 1994 0.6489 135 75.24% 129 40.13% 135 194,203,900 130
County of Isle of Wight 1995 0.2104 50 89.95% 74 10.99% 39 1,424,837,254 49
County of James City Cnty Annual 0.1177 11 93.99% 41 5.76% 6 3,957,911,100 20
County of King and Queen 1996 0.3855 105 86.65% 98 25.20% 110 324,028,000 121
County of King George 1996 0.3170 90 90.91 % 69 22.61% 99 836,097,900 78
County of King William 1997 0.2006 48 94.04% 36 14.10% 58 653,298,855 90
County of Lancaster 1994 0.2331 59 96.96% 14 20.27% 93 1,056,390,255 60
County of Lee 1998 0.5399 130 80.75% 116 34.74% 133 536,981,195 100
County of Loudoun Annual 0.1407 20 93.43% 47 7.50% 14 12,588,960,200 6
County of Lousia 1997 0.2341 60 94.74% 27 18.15% 80 1,337,031,600 51
County of Lunenburg 1998 0.4545 120 80.61 % 118 26.06% 117 372,839,600 118
County of Madison 1996 0.2702 78 92.38% 55 19.40% 89 691,888,100 89
County of Mathews 1993 0.2698 77 89.26% 82 16.24% 70 611,760,880 95
County of Mecklenburg 1998 0.2685 76 93.39% 48 20.24% 92 1,434,563,348 48
County of Middlesex 1995 0.3168 89 92.01 % 58 23.69% 104 828,886,400 79
County of Montgomery 1995 0.3689 102 75.60% 128 12.49% 47 2,319,517,000 30
County of Nelson 1997 0.3081 86 96.00% 22 26.81% 118 1,136,385,500 57
County of New Kent 1996 0.3494 97 83.43% 106 18.37% 84 772,327,614 83
Page 3 of 3 Preliminary Report on the 1998 Assessment/Sales Ratio Study
Reassmt Combined Median Coefficient
Type Locality Cycle Med & Coef Rank Ratio Rank Dispersion Rank Taxable FMV Rank
County of Northampton 1998 0.4592 121 79.67% 122 25.59% 115 632,458,400 94
County of Northumberland 1994 0.4119 112 87.48% 93 28.67% 120 1,026,205,784 65
County of Nottoway 1994 0.4531 119 80.00% 120 25.31 % 111 384,394,544 114
County of Orange 1998 0.1397 19 95.93% 23 9.90% 29 1,446,389,715 47
County of Page 1997 0.3735 103 93.67% 44 31.02% 129 932,641,300 70
County of Patrick 1997 0.4257 115 82.16% 111 24.73% 109 637,582,900 93
County of Pittsylvania 1998 0.2588 72 91.85% 60 17.73% 78 1,946,101,300 33
County of Powhatan 1998 0.1836 42 94.44% 31 12.80% 49 1,132,883,200 58
County of Prince Edward 1997 0.3899 107 85.73% 102 24.72% 108 595,892,009 97
County of Prince George Annual 0.2170 53 89.11% 84 10.81% 37 1,051,894,000 61
County of Prince William Annual 0.1306 14 94.44% 30 7.50% 13 13,698,696,500 4
County of Pulaski 1998 0.2458 65 88.25% 89 12.83% 50 1 ,208,682,000 55
County of Rappahannock 1998 0.2453 64 99.22% 1 23.75% 106 806,651,600 82
County of Richmond County 1997 0.4036 109 89.58% 78 29.94% 125 378,482,837 116
County of Roanoke County Annual 0.1621 28 91.30% 64 7.51% 15 4,048,509,100 19
County of Rockbridge 1996 0.3491 96 82.42% 109 17.33% 76 1,017,723,853 66
County of Rockingham 1998 0.2206 56 91.96% 59 14.02% 57 3,099,765,400 24
County of Russell 1995 0.4742 126 77.94% 125 25.36% 112 712,532,365 88
County of Scott 1998 0.4062 111 89.53% 79 30.15% 126 610,167,075 96
County of Shenandoah 1996 0.2637 73 96.80% 15 23.17% 102 1,861,481,000 36
County of Smyth 1998 0.3566 99 89.88% 76 25.54% 114 902,768,598 76
County of Southampton 1996 0.3583 100 84.94% 104 20.77% 96 720,095,600 87
County of Spotsylvania 1998 0.1522 24 93.53% 46 8.75% 24 4,441,134,500 18
County of Stafford 1998 0.1425 21 94.22% 34 8.47% 21 4,669,850,700 16
County of Surry 1996 0.1500 23 99.14% 2 14.14% 59 343,631,300 119
County of Sussex 1994 0.4699 124 82.86% 108 29.85% 123 384,226,515 115
County of T azewell 1994 0.3685 101 81.41% 114 18.26% 81 1,231,472,300 54
County of Warren 1997 0.2557 69 93.05% 50 18.62% 85 1,560,276,900 43
County of Washington 1997 0.3176 91 86.06% 100 17 .82% 79 1,819,438,306 37
County of Westmoreland 1995 0.3428 95 91.11 % 67 25.39% 113 929,833,820 72
County of Wise 1997 0.3149 88 88.89% 86 20.38% 94 1,029,560,765 64
County of Wythe 1997 0.4176 113 80.54% 119 22.30% 98 933,340,000 69
County of York ll9.a ~ 1 97.12% 13 ~ 2 3.200.330.900 22
Total Cities and Counties 0.2772 135 89.27% 135 16.99% 135 365.068.729.978 135
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 99-74 Townwood Mobile Park
AGENDA DATE:
June 21,2000
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: CONSENT AGENDA:
Review and approval of modifications to conditions
proposed by the Board ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish
REVIEWED BY:
~
/
BACKGROUND:
The Board of Supervisors reviewed this proposal at their meeting on May 1 yth and deferred the special use
permit request to allow staff to comment on and provide revised recommendations for: 1) the location of the
new entrance on to Townwood Drive; and, 2) establishing a requirement to provide storage units for each
mobile home lot. A revised set of conditions reflecting the changes suggested by the Board, including
conditions for the two issues noted above, are attached (Attachment A). The new or revised conditions
addressing these two issues are in bold italic type. (References to Greenbrier Drive in the conditions have
been changed to its current name, Townwood Drive).
DISCUSSION:
Townwood Drive Entrance - Staff has revised condition B. 2 (Phase 2) a., which addresses the
construction of the Townwood Drive entrance. The condition now states:
"Installation of a second entrance onto Townwood Drive at the northernmost intersection of Tower Court and
Townwood Drive. The Planning Commission may approve the Townwood entrance in the location
shown on the application plan if it is determined that this location will better address issues of
grading and visibility of the site, including accommodation of landscaping/fencing. A Certificate of
Occupancy will not be granted for the 14th unit until the second entrance is constructed. Townwood Drive
must be accepted into the state system with the construction of this second entrance. "
This revision allows the Planning Commission the flexibility to allow the entrance to be located at one of two
locations based on which one will better address the issues of traffic management, grading impacts, and
visibility of the site.
Storage Shed Requirement - The Chief of Zoning Administration has provided comments on the
implications of requiring storage sheds for each lot (Attachment B). In summary, there is concern that such a
requirement could have financial implications to residents, may become a maintenance issue and possible
enforcement problem. Should the Board choose to require storage facilities, the Zoning Department has
recommended conditions for that requirement, which are reflected as condition B. 2. (Phase 2) j., of
Attachment A (page 2).
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP 99-74 with the conditions provided in Attachment A. The Board of
Supervisors may wish to delete condition B. 2. J. (the condition requiring the installation of storage
sheds) as recommended by the Department of Building Code and Zoning Services.
Attachments:
A-Conditions of Approval
B-Zoning Department Comments
00.128
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ATTACHMENT A
SP-99-74 TOWNWOOD MOBILE HOME PARK
REVISED CONDITIONS
(INCLUDES CORRECTIONS AND PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO CONDITIONS.
BOARD PROPOSED/MODIFIED CONDITIONS IN BOLO ITALICS)
A. Approval for the addition of 25 units and the internal relocation of the existing units within
Townwood Mobile Home Park. If the owner satisfies the issues identified by the Engineering
Department (2/22/00 memo, Attachment J) and Planning Department (including the
location/design of recreational facilities and the relocation of lot 16) to the satisfaction the
Agent and County Engineer, then up to seven additional lots shall be allowed (for a total of
up to 32).
B. Modify Section 31.2.4.4 to allow development improvements to commence within two years
of special use permit approval. This development project shall be completed within two
years from commencement of improvements from such date. The phases and sub-phases
are outlined in the following chronological timeline:
1. Phase 1:
a. Installation of necessary supporting infrastructure, which must include:
1. Installation of new water lines for domestic consumption;
2. Installation of the new water lines for fire safety (including three new fire
hydrants);
3. Installation of the new stormwater system; and,
4. Widening of the internal road.
a. Construction of the first 13 Lots (Lots 7, 9, 10, and 11 through 20) as depicted
on the application plan. No existing mobile homes are to be relocated during
Phase 1, except by request of any existing resident or for the purpose of
constructing the second entrance to Townwood Drive.
b. Install a recreation area of 10,000 square feet in size, in a location to be
determined with the review of the site plan.
c. Installation of Phase 1 landscaping, which includes compliance with the tree
preservation area located within the rear fifty-foot buffer and cemetery site.
Street trees a minimum of 50 feet apart as typically called for in the ordinance
shall be added along with screening along Rio Road. All trees should be a
minimum of 2" caliper. These additions are minimums and should not in any
way limit landscape treatment that the ARB might impose. If any subsequent
phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 1, the applicant can
bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be established during
other phases.
2. Phase 2:
a. Installation of a second entrance onto Townwood Drive at the northernmost
Intersection of Tower Court and Townwood Drive. The Planning Commission
may approve the Townwood entrance in the location shown on the
application plan if it is determined that this location will better address issues
of grading, and visibility of the site, including accommodation of
landscaping/fencing. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be granted for the 14th
unit until the second entrance is constructed. Townwood Drive must be accepted
1
into the state system with the construction of this second entrance.
b. Installation of a screening fence that must be entirely on the Townwood Mobile
Home Park property and must span the length of all developed lots adjacent to
Townwood Drive. The new screening fence shall be constructed prior to, or
simultaneously with the removal of the existing screening fence.
c. Insta:!ation of a screening fence that is entirely on the Townwood Mobile Home
Park property and must span the length of all developed lots along the Four
Seasons PUD property line.
d. Construction of Lots 6, 31, and 23 through 27, as it will not involve realignment of
any existing units.
e. Realignment of the existing units along Townwood Drive and within the center of
the Park's internal loop road to accommodate construction of Lots 1 through 6 and
Lot 8.
f. Construction of Lots 1 through 6 and Lot 8.
g. Installation of the second tot lot, fronting Rio Road West.
h. Installation of the final surfacing to the internal loop road.
i. Installation of Phase 2 landscaping. Landscaping shall include plantings at the
new second entrance and the new travelway, with major street trees every 50 feet
on both sides along this internal travelway, and street trees approaching Townwood
Drive. If any subsequent phases present a threat to landscaping shown in Phase 2,
the applicant can bond accordingly the landscaping that may need to be
established during other phases.
j. Each mobile home lot shall be improved with a storage shed which is no
smaller than 48 square feet. The shed shall be enclosed (four sides) and
lockable. Sheds shall be placed in a uniformed location on the lots and shall
not be established on required outdoor living space. Sheds shall be installed
prior to occupancy of the mobile home on a lot.
3. Phase 3:
a. Realignment of the remaining units that are located along the Four Seasons PUD
side of the subject parcel.
b. Construction of Lots 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, and 32.
c. Installation of all remaining landscaping.
C. No trees are to be removed within the rear fifty-foot buffer and cemetery site. Preserve
trees along Townwood Drive to the greatest extent possible.
D. The applicant shall install a street light at the new second entrance onto Townwood Drive.
Staff will review the overall lighting needs for the site during the site plan review process,
and the applicant will provide lighting as recommended by staff.
E. Planning Commission Modifications of:
1. Section 5.3.3.1 to allow for the reduction in the 4,5000 square-feet area and required 45-
foot width for the 71 existing and realigned units.
2. Section 5.3.4.1 as noted in Section 5.3.7.2.
3. Section 5.3.4.3 to allow for a reduction to 30 feet distant to two dumpsters for five units.
A screening fence must be installed around both dumpsters.
4. Section 5.3.4.4 to allow for the reduction of the 30-foot minimum distance between the
existing and realigned 71 units. Issuance of the Modification is subject to Fire Official
approval of the Final Site Plan.
2
5. Section 5.3.5. 1 to allow for a reduction of the 50-foot setback for 12 existing and
realigned homes along Townwood Drive, but not less than 3 feet between the homes
and the property line.
6. Section 5.3.5.2 to allow twenty-one existing and realigned homes, along the Four
Seasons PUD property line, a reduction of the 50 foot setback as follows:
Between Rio Road and new lot 28,
a. Seven homes to 3 feet;
b. Two homes to 13 feet; and,
c. One home to 30 feet.
Between new Lot 21 and the bioretention pond,
a. Eleven homes to 15 feet.
7. Section 5.3.5.3 to allow for 7 homes, of the existing and realigned 71 homes, a reduction
of the 15-foot setback to 5 feet from the internal private street.
8. Section 5.3.5.4 to waive the requirements for lot lines of the 71 existing and realigned
homes. Sheds and other storage structures may be constructed to a common wall.
9. Sections 5.3.6 and 5.3.6.1 to allow for a waiver of application plan requirements,
conditioned that the County approve both preliminary and final site plans before any
construction activity is permitted. Site plan approval will not be granted unless adequate
parking and outdoor living areas are provided on each existing, realigned, and/or
proposed lot.
10. Section 5.3.7.2 to waive the requirements for all markers for the new, existing, and
realigned lots, conditioned that each mobile home be numbered and posted accordingly
to the Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manual for E911 purposes.
11. Section 5.3.8.1 to waive the required six recreational vehicle parking spaces in the
common area.
F. The applicant shall provide screening of the dumpster site from the adjacent cemetery.
G. No waiver for provision of 100 square feet of outdoor living space.
3
~_AITACHMENT_R~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mcintire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (804) 972-4126
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
TID (804) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Benish, Chief of Planning
FROM, Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration ~
DATE: 06/13/00
RE: SP 99-74, Townwood Mobile Home Park
I have researched the idea of requiring "pads" for storage sheds rather than the sheds
themselves. As it turns out, having a pad on which to set a shed will not save money for
a tenant who chooses to install a shed, and will obviously cost the park owner money to
install. Therefore, a pad serves no purpose in trying to aid the tenants in maintaining
neater, more attractive lots. For those reasons, I would not recommend any further
consideration of pads.
However, that leaves us with the discussion of whether to require sheds or not. This
department would recommend against requiring sheds, due to the added enforcement
issues without any guarantee of the desired aesthetic effect. The following outlines our
thoughts on the pertinent issues.
FAVORABLE TO REQUIRING PARK OWNER TO PROVIDE SHEDS:
1. Zoning enforcement will be minimal-we can verify each initial installation and ask
each applicant to verify that a shed is in place prior to approving a building permit;
2. Owner has economic impetus to maintain sheds so building permits will be issued;
3. Potential for neat appearance of the mobile home park generally.
UNFAVORABLE TO REQUIRING PARK OWNER TO PROVIDE SHEDS:
1. Initial cost of sheds and installation may cause rent increase;
2. Maintenance of sheds may cause landlord/tenant disputes and costs to one or both;
3. Continuing cost to park owner of county tax for real property improvement on the
land;
4. Inconsistent regulation, never before applied-may be better to amend ordinance to
require for all MHP's in future.
RECEIVEC
JUN 1 ~ LUUU
IPLANNlN\!J~
COMMWW:r.v. DEVEt~
FAVORABLE TO REQUIRING TENANTS TO PROVIDE SHEDS:
1. Tenant has vested reason to care for and maintain shed;
2. Tenant may have more interest in using shed than if it is owned by park;
3. Potential for neat appearance of the mobile home park generally.
UNFAVORABLE TO REQUIRING TENANTS TO PROVIDE SHEDS:
1. Tenants are required to expend money for something they mayor may not want and
may not be able to afford; (therefore have to go elsewhere for housing?)
2. Zoning enforcement will be difficult and time consuming; (prevent tenants from
moving in until shed is in place?)
3. Additional cost to tenant to remove when they leave;
4. Inconsistent regulation, never before applied-may be better to amend ordinance to
require all MHP's in future.
Should the Board choose to require sheds, zoning would recommend the
following conditions to be added to those already stated:
. the park owner shall provide the sheds;
. sheds shall be a minimum of 48 square feet (6' x 8');
. sheds shall be enclosed (have four sides);
. sheds shall be uniform in size and location on the lots;
. sheds may NOT be established on the required outdoor living space (minimum of
100 square feet of hard surface); and,
. sheds shall be able to be secured with a lock. (Since the object is to give a neat
appearance, an open shed does not meet the goal.)
~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296.5823
June 6, 2000
Clifford Fox
4543 Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: SP-2000-01 Crozet Commons (Clifford Fox)
Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 31
Dear Mr. Fox:
r-,.
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its ~meeting on May 30, 2000, unanimously
recommended to the Board of Supervisors approval of the above-noted proposal to build a mixed
use development on 1.37 acres in Crozet on Three Notched Road near the Fire Station. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
t""'.
1. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the
concept plan entitled, "Crozet Commons Development Concept" dated 3/22/00.
2. In keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons (colored rendering)" dated
3/22/00, the following features of the development will be provided:
. a sidewalk and street trees shall be provided across the public road frontage
. a "downtown" type streetscape shall be provided that includes the scale and alignment of
building shown in the illustration.
3. A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development.
4. Residential uses may be mixed with other C-1 uses within buildings or may be in separate
buildings.
5. If residential uses are mixed with other C-1 uses within a building; there shall be no
commercial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupations.
6. The following uses shall not be allowed on the parcel because of incompatibilities between
residential and nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in effect on 5/23/00, attached):
a. funeral homes
b. movie theaters
c. automobile service stations
d. fire and rescue stations
e. automobile truck repair shop
f. medical center
7. A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m.
8. A convenience store may be allowed provided the hours of operation are between 7:00 a.m.
and 11 :00 p.m.
9. Interparcel vehicular and pedestrian access to the adjoining parcels shall be provided at
locations shown on the conceptual plan or otherwise approved by the Planning Director.
10. A condominium regime will be established for unified ownership and maintenance of the real'
property.
11. The concept plan referenced in these conditions is not considered a "site plan" meeting the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a subsequent site plan is required.
,~
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 21, 2000. 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.
Sincerely,
~~Uiut
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
-----
EKE/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
~,
2
1"""",
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
MAY 30, 2000
JUNE 21, 2000
Revised 5/31/00
SP 00-001 Crozet Commons
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Clason Land Trust, represented by Mr. Cliff Fox,
proposes to build a mixed use development on 1.37 acres in Crozet on Three Notched Road
near the Fire Station. The mixed-use development would have residential uses and
commercial uses on the same lot and possibly in the same building. The property is zoned C-
1 and residential uses are allowed by special use permit only in commercial districts. The
conceptual plan for this mixed-use development is shown in Attachments A and B.
/""",
In Attachment A, one can see several buildings are' proposed for the site. As shown in
Attachment B, Building A is proposed as a several story building with the potential for
residential units over top commercial activities. Building B is shown as a residential
structure with four individual dwelling units. Building C is shown as a small restaurant or
other commercial building. The applicant has submitted Attachment B to show the
streetscape that he wishes to achieve with the development. This plan, as well as the plan in
Attachment A, has been reviewed by the ARB for conformity with the Entrance Corridor
guidelines. The ARB voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Commission that the
proposal, as illustrated in the preliminary plan and perspective sketch, appears to be
appropriate for the EC, iftheARB's standard requirements are met through the site plan
reVIew process.
The applicant has submitted the conceptual plan and drawing to show how he believes the
property should be developed. He wishes to have flexibility in terms of how uses are mixed
within the development and it is for this reason that he has requested not to be limited to the
particular uses at the particular locations shown on the plan. How and where this flexibility
may be accommodated is discussed in the staff report below.
Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section
22.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow residential uses in a C-l commercial district. This
petition is requested for the parcel described as Tax Map 56A2, Block 1, Parcel 31, located in
the Whitehall Magisterial District. (See Attachments C & D.) The property is zoned C-l
Commercial and is recommended as Rural Areas on the Land Use Plan.
,..,..",
Applicant's Justification for the Reauest: In his application, the applicant says that this
development will provide appropriately scaled commercial uses and residential use between
a straight commercial zone and residential zoning to the east of the Firehouse. He has said
that the development will provide an appropriate scale to the adjacent commercial and
residential neighborhoods and will facilitate enhanced utility of both zones. Mr. Fox believes
that he can provide a development that is sensitive to its surroundings and provides an urban
residential setting near the Crozet Development Area.
1
Character of the Area: The surrounding area is residential, commercial and industrial. To .---
the east and west of the property are older houses, although C-l zoning exists on both sides'
of the parcel. The Bruce Barnes lumberyard property as well as the CSX railroad is across
the street from the parcel. To the rear of the property are a creek and a single-family
residential development.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use
permit with conditions.
Plannin2: and Zonin2: Historv: There is no zoning or subdivision history on the parcel.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas. It was
designated as a rural area to discourage development in the Beaver Creek water supply
reservoir watershed. (Beaver Creek Reservoir is the water supply of Crozet.) However, with
the comprehensive rezoning of the county in 1980 to implement the Land Use Plan and
watershed protection measures, the Board of Supervisors left certain areas zoned as they
were. One of the reasons the zoning was left in place was to keep uses conforming to their
zoning districts and keep some of the commercial zones in place. Such is the case in Crozet,
north of Route 240 where industrial, commercial and residential uses have existed for a
significant period of time and zoning was left in place.
The Crozet Community Study, which is also a part of the Comprehensive Plan, recommends ~.
that all new commercial activity be located in the downtown area of Crozet. The Crozet
Community Study included this area as part of Crozet's "Downtown". Within the
Community Study, relevant recommendations for the downtown area are to
. Strengthen the downtown as a shopping area and the focal point of the Crozet
Community by encouraging all new commercial uses to locate in the downtown
as opposed to Route 250
. Encourage residential uses to locate in and near downtown to increase pedestrian
, activity and make the area more vibrant
. Establish a human scaled environment which is compatible and visually
integrated with the existing downtown and surrounding residential areas
. Encourage new commercial development through redevelopment, reuse, and
infill. New commercial development should occur in a style and scale in keeping
with traditional buildings.
. Have parking provided at the side and rear of buildings
. Have mixed uses including commercial and residential uses in the same buildings
. Provide a pedestrian environment
Staff believes that the proposed development is in keeping with the Crozet Community Study
and does not violate the intent of the Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance which left intact
existing zoning in a setting that reflected current uses. Because the proposed development is
so close to the Development Areas and retains zoning that would allow it to be developed
,.---.....,
2
~
commercially without any legislative action, staff believes it appropriate for informational
purposes to analyze the request in relation to the Neighborhood Model.
The Nei2:hborhood Model
At a meeting held on May 3,2000, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors began the
process of assessing the report provided by the Development Areas Initiative Steering
Committee (DISC) to change the form of development in the Development Areas. This
report, known as The Neighborhood Model, has not been adopted. The Board, however,
asked that staff reports for legislative actions include an analysis of how a proposed
development is or is not in conformity with the recommendations of DISC. It is noted that
the following comments are provided for information only and the report is not binding
on the applicant or the County.
Twelve principles or characteristics of development are proposed with the Neighborhood
Model. Each principle is named below with statements of how this development proposal
addresses the principle.
Pedestrian Orientation - The proposed development provides for a pedestrian orientation
by providing for a sidewalk across the front of the parcel and sidewalks to and between all
buildings. Staff is recommending that pedestrian connections also extend to adjoining
parcels where driveway interconnections are shown.
~
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths - Street trees are provided along the frontage of
the lot to establish a neighborhood friendly streetscape.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - Private driveway connections are
shown to the adjoining parcels on the plan. VDOT endorses these connections and has
suggested that access to the adjoining parcels only be provided through the parking lot on
this site. Staff is not ready to endorse the restricted access to the adjoining parcels; however,
staff would support the opportunity to provide for interconnections that also help traffic flow
on Three Notch'd Road.
Parks and Open Space - Open space for the residential units is shown between Buildings A
and B on the parcel and at the rear ofthe lot. The open space between Buildings A & B is
also proposed as a biofilter and retention area. Making the retention area functional open
space will need to be worked out at the site plan stage. It is important that open space be
functional, even in a passive setting, in order for it to provide true value to a development.
The open space at the rear of the lot is preserved, in part, because of stream buffer
requirements. In the future, it is possible that a linear park could be established along this
stream that feeds into the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Providing a pedestrian access easement
along the stream would be beneficial to establishing a greenway at this location. Such a
greenway, however, is not shown on the County's Land Use Plan.
~
Neighborhood Centers - The proposed mixed-use development would operate as a
neighborhood center on the north side of Three Notch'd Road and to the east and west.
3
Sidewalks exist already on Three Notch'd Road at this location. Pedestrian access from the
residential development to the rear across the creek would have to be provided to truly make
it a Center. The residential development to the rear of the parcel, though, is not in the
Development Area.
~
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - The proposed development provides for buildings
and spaces of human scale, as illustrated iri the clrawingsin Attachments A & B. The ARB
has commented on the development and believes it to be appropriate in its setting with
changes identified in Attachment E.
Relegated Parking - Parking is provided at the side of the development rather than in front
of the proposed development. In this way parking does not have prominence on the site. If it
were possible to locate most of the parking to the rear rather than the side, it would be more
in keeping with the Neighborhood Model.
Mixture of Uses - The proposed development provides for a mixture of uses in keeping with
the Neighborhood Model.
Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - The housing types provided in the
development are "townhouse" type units in Building B and residential units on top of
commercial in Building A. These housing types in this setting are different than most places
in the County; however, they provide for a mixture of housing types within close proximity
to a single-family neighborhood. No information on affordability of these units was
requested or provided. ~,
Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment - The parcel is undeveloped; as a result,
redevelopment is not a criterion for assessment.
Site Planning that Respects Terrain - The parcel is gently rolling and major grading is not
needed.
Clear Edges - Technically, the parcel is located on the rural area side of the Development
Area boundary; therefore, it does not help to maintain a clear Development Area edge.
In terms of the principles embodied in the Neighborhood Model, this proposed development
has almost all of the characteristics suggested by DISC. Again, the Neighborhood Model is
just receiving public review and has not yet been adopted. Therefore, the previous
assessment has been provided for information only.
Site Plan Reauirements: A concept plan has been submitted with the application for the
special use permit (see Attachment A). A full site plan will be needed if the special use
permit is approved.
Emdneerine: Analvsis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for
general engineering issues. Engineering comments are below:
~,
4
1"",
. The traffic information supplied, which is based ITE figures and April 2000
VDOT counts at the Rt. 810 and Rt. 240 intersection, indicates that left and right
turn lanes are not warranted by traffic capacity. They may be considered at the
discretion of the Board of Supervisors for future growth, but are not
recommended by the Engineering. Department based on current traffic
information supplied by the applicant.
. The site layout appears to allow for room at the rear of the site for stormwater
management. It can be revised slightly with the site plan to enlarge this rear area
if necessary. The small area draining onto Rt. 240, and the lack of adequate
receiving channels, is a concern, which can be addressed with VDOT at the site
plan stage.
. The applicant has sketched a stream buffer limit beyond the limits of the proposed
development on the parcel.
The Engineering Department recommends approval with the condition that a preliminary and
final site plan be provided subsequent to the special use permit.
Fire and Rescue Comments: Although fire flow has been a problem in this area of Crozet,
the applicant intends to sprinkler the building. With this provision for fire safety, the Fire
and Rescue Division of the County believes that the flow issues can be resolved. Final
details can be worked out at the site plan stage.
~
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
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 adiacent property,
If approved, the use is not anticipated to be detrimental to adjacent property. No adverse
traffic or noise is expected with the use. The use is considered to be complimentary of and
supportive to the nearby and adjacent residential uses.
A petition of support was provided from the Crozet Community that indicates the nearby
community is in favor of the proposed use and does not view it as detrimental. (See
Attachment F.) Staff has not compared the names with those of nearby and adjoining
property owners; however, no concerns of nearby residents have been raised with staff.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The character of the commercial zoning district should enhanced with the proposed
residential uses.
~
5
and that such use will be in harmony with the purooseand intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the C-l zoning district is to permit selected retail sales, service and
public use establishments, which are primarily, oriented to central business concentrations. It
is intended that C-l districts be established' only within the urban area, communities and
villages in the Comprehensive Plan. This request is in keeping with the intent of the C-I
district as a "downtown" type development. It is not in keeping with the Zoning Ordinance
intent that C-l districts only be designated in Development Areas.
with the uses permitted bv right in the district,
Permitted uses include retail sales, services, and offices. When compatibility issues are
resolved, residential uses can be developed to be in harmony with permitted commercial
uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 ofthis ordinance,
There are no additional regulations provided in the Supplementary Regulations section of the
ordinance.
and with 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 proposed uses are appropriate in the location ~
requested. The special use permit also ensures that the development will be realized in a way
that meets County standards and preserVes compatibility of relationships with adjoining uses.
With this special use permit, staff was most concerned with compatibility of residential and
nonresidential uses in the same development. The applicant desires as much flexibility in
future nonresidential uses as possible; yet, the staff wishes to prevent problems that can occur
with issues of noise and traffic so close to residential units. Also of concern was overlap of
need by residents and businesses for the same parking spaces.
Staff developed a list of recommended conditions of approval with the applicant, which are
included in the recommendation below. Desired uses of the applicant that were not included
in the staff s recommendation were health spas and athletic facilities because of concerns
with hours of operation in relation to parking needs for residents and amplified music for
classes. Zoning receives so many complaints with these kinds of problems that they strongly
recommended that we not recommend approval of them. Parking needs for medical offices
also concerned Zoning because of the potential loss of parking for residents. For that reason
proposed hours of operation were added in the conditions. Staff believes that, with the
conditions recommended, the general welfare of the community can be protected.
Regarding health and safety, public water and sewer are available to serve this project and
fire flow appears adequate with the use of sprinklers. VDOT has requested full frontage
improvements for this development, which means that additional right-of-way dedication is .~.
6
needed. The applicant has agreed to provide this additional right-of way. The concept plan
r-"'. shows that the additional dedication will not adversely impact the design.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The design provides for the characteristics that are in keeping with the Crozet
Community Study.
2. Compatibility of uses can be ensured with the conditions recommended by staff and
agreed to by the applicant.
3. The ARB has reviewed this proposal and believes that, from a design standpoint, it is in
keeping with the Entrance Corridor standards.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The Comprehensive Plan shows this area to be rural and commercial uses in the rural
area are not viewed to be in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan. The property,
however, has been recognized for commercial development by virtue of its C-l zoning
which dates back to the 1980 Comprehensive rezoning of the County.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
.~\
Staff has reviewed the request and looked at all the factors relating to uses zoned for a
different use than the Land Use Plan recommends. Staff believes that, when the Board left
the zoning intact in 1980, it anticipated development ofthe area. As a result, there are uses
anticipated that would likely not be replaced with rural area uses. In general, stafflooks very
carefully at rezonings and generally discourages rezonings and special uses for substantial
new development in areas not shown for development on the Land Use'Plan. In this
instance, though, the development of a parcel zoned .C-l that is in such close proximity to the
Development Area is viewed to be expected and, as proposed, beneficial to the community of
Crozet.
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
"""
1. Residential uses shall be allowed in a mixed-use development as generally shown on the
concept plan entitled, "Crozet Commons Development Concept" dated 3/22/00.
2. In keeping with the illustration entitled "Crozet Commons (colored rendering)" dated
3/22/00, the following features of the development will be provided:
. a sidewalk and street trees shallbe provided across the public road frontage
. a "downtown" type streetscape shall be provided that includes the scale and
alignment of building shown in the illustration.
3. A maximum of 10 dwelling units shall be allowed in the mixed-use development.
4. Residential uses may be mixed with other C-l uses within buildings or may be in
separate buildings.
7
5. If residential uses are mixed with other C-l uses within a building; there shall be no
commercial uses on floors above residential uses other than home occupations. ---
6. The following uses shall not be allowed on the parcel because of incompatibilities
between residential and nonresidential uses (See Section 22 of Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance in effect on 5/23/00, attached):
a. funeral homes
b. health spas
c. indoor theaters with sound amplification
d. automobile service stations '
e. fire and rescue stations
f. automobile truck repair shop
g. indoor athletic facilities
h. medical center
7. A medical office may be allowed provided the office hours are between 8:30 a.m. and
5:00 p.m.
8. A convenience store may be allowed provided the hours of operation are between 7:00
a.m. and 11 :00 p.m.
9. Interparc61 vehicular and pedestrian access to the adjoining parcels shall be provided at
locations shown on the conceptual plan or otherwise approved by the Planning Director.
10. Ifresidential units are located in Building "B", Building C shall be restricted to the
following uses:
a. retail sales
b. professional offices
c. churches ~
d. financial institutions
e. libraries and museums
f. medical office restricted to the hours shown in #7. above
g. eating establishment with no more than 1000 square feet of floor area available for
dining
11. A condominium regime will be established for unified ownership and maintenance of the
real property.
12. The concept plan referenced in these conditions is not considered a "site plan" meeting
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a subsequent site plan is required.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - "Crozet Commons Development Concept" dated 3/22/00
B - "Crozet Commons" (colored rendering) dated 3/22/00
C -- Location Map
D - Tax Parcel Map
E - ARB Comments
F - "Crozet Commons Community Comment Sheet"
~
8
>
~
>
~
~
)>
STONEKINGNON STORCH
..A..R.C:FI:ITECTS
P.O. Sox 1332; Charlottesville, VA 22902
Tel. $04.29S.4204lFax. 804.29S.69S4
I
i ~",1..
I
i
I
I
i
I
CROZET COMMONS
.. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT
, CROZET, VIRGINIA
. ,.
-
1-..
-*-
"
11II
I
~~--.~
/' '.
/, Z.
I .,..."',,""'
. --::/5! I ..........
I I
I I
I
I
!
ROvn, 240 (~".".'-"'" "'" "" J
~~Plc.,."
:::::::::::--
c'
(~
!!!'j.,...~
~~.
,~
~~"
~~
~,
TM SM(2}01..n
BUZ.W'llI_
_Cl
~
"'.
~
-n-
~:b i
.r" j_'
", ; ,'" I
~ ; "I
--::'1-J I
I'
~---:.
~ ---.'
-hEu..~__ ~ r
---~-- ~
------------- . ;"
---_ ..-l
~
I ~
. '~?
k
\~/
I
",'
o
-~
OVlWlW)'IIZ.BJ'IICt<<IlMBS
l)' i I
;) 'I I
, I ' I ' I I
!' ,; I I " i ! r;'
I ) ! I I'
,7'-. - - - - - - - - ~ I ~ 1./ I
..r' ~ - - ....,., "'"
__ , "--t--/
~ ?4.. ........... ;--.0:.. 1
- - I
TM:5U,la,.et.,.
uwaA. WOlIO
.......<1
,~
~
~ --
~--
I
./ . . ! .
/ "",- )'--. i ),--/i !
. / )'----7 ' r--/ '-/'-_/\. I
>r'1p /:{~, i
. '),/ r . n---. I
I
,/
Mi~d-....:. ~.;,...",
'0 (..s,~-~ ._,*"
",7:<0 rp '9"- """"",,,, AJl. '"""-
--;;::;;-;;:pp...-J. ,
-- --!!f.~._
\_ B.'i \l~ ~
f,jG~i&"ja,"'>i,;t>. 1~.,'l'6w.>
, :6:l:i~f I\.dl't<- . ~3 '
K,,;I.1~ 'R: _
- H~" ..~;lll.llt.J.J~ P..-=-__,
f~,j/;~.J_<'- ~:II" .
-r at"I' "''1 ~ o~
TM~Z).aI.JO
UWIIA. WOlIO
"""""0
@)
;1
r.i
('.
m
~
~
~'"
~i
!j!li>
!!!~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
j i I
\ I
E
:i
a. ' I
.. II
~
;,; II
0
0 II
0
"-
N,.
N --
;;;
0
.;.
~
1
~
c
c
1i
,1l",
(iiO
---"
00
~g
---
x-
~~
~.~
..~
0'"
f~
)TB
ATTACW
)
)
,
.lJ .(:" ~
\ !,,,,'
"",o1-.E.J>-i";Fbi ~DDITION.AL SALES / LEASING INFORMATION CONTACT CUFF FOX
ENTERPI.USES;iNC PHONE: (t~P4) 823~ 7500; EMAIL: or WW~CROZETONLINE.COM
~ .----
'.
.~.-..:--"'- --
.t~~. , _:
-..." - . - . - - - 'I
U/'" ~' \'.
'. ~"-_..,,,.,,......-; I
l.' \. i
;lY, I
~r " ".~-' I
I
I
>,' ' '''j
..' J
. f .*' ..~
:~ ---.-.G;""
,c,,, ,
--"=:';,i
,,~, i
... .-
t~';"/~.i: i\.\.'\\";"~ "~:::/"
~ ~tr~~.:r;t:~)'/\~
'''-ljj'f
,
...
, "'~
! . .~".
~~. _ io'- \
" ~",ir"" )"..
4' ,:..:M ~ e.... '
. . ,~,'" ;'~.,j;;:-:iP ", ~"',?- :.' "'-
~. ,.,.-" . ,'~"".-~' . --.<''''- .....". '''<-,..
..-t'." /'''~~'' , 1(;J." "/, "1fJ '''_.1' ":'
~. /""./.J/ ' f" ,'. ,',
.~~... ;- ~ :.~
,_ . ,." "r.;
,J . .j,!f ' ,
/../ ,,'
~_.'-.
,..,,- ,...-<::..._','.~.::.
/' .','
~ .-.
y,
OZET COMMONS
." "
1. .
." ~ /
4 ",- . .'
r... -. ",..~. ~ _ . ~.:,l -~,.. #..,'
" .' .1 "t""'$:;(';j. L
,.~
~'!~
.~""" ..
~"-"'''''''''.
-. . \ ..:,....,..
"
,..;..-.~"
~---~~'f
~7If!'~ ~-
.'~
"
. '
~.
~-: ('"
\I,. "
:I.'iil.t~c<.'
"')'{1.!~ .
t
nD]
~.
't.... "-'1'-')' ,;-,
"'-=0" ,-1 . '
''''\'~ . i'
(___Ill 665
611 a{ \
~'
'r
AI.
*
~
Cj,;
) ,
.f
.
"
.{
',1'lt
.,
o
-t-
C'
o
IE!
(;..
-1-
"
0'
~
..
~f
".
"J..
:ii!J
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
A TT ACHMENT D
56A(t}
~ SMALL ACREAGE I THRU, 72
~ S,W, BARNES
o D,B, 275, Pg,310
'0 WAYLAND PARK - CROZET DEV, CO,
~ D,B 317 Pg. 215
~
,~
I""",
...
SGALE IN fEET
100 ... ..0
WHITE HAll DISTRICT
CROZET INSERT
SECTION 56A(2)
w
ATTACHMENT E
Albemarle County Development Departments
S P-2000-001
-----." .
SPIN Submission and Comments
Crozet Commons
Architectural Review Board
concept plan
revision 1
reviewer
Margaret Pickart
received
2/2/00
reviewed
4/17/00
decision
The ARB voted unanimously to recommend to the Planning Commission that the proposal, as illustrated
in the preliminary plan and perspective sketch, appears to be appropriate for the EC, if the ARB's
standard requirements are met through the site plan review process.
The following comments were offered for the benefit of the applicant's final submission:
1. Building C should be coordinated in appearance with the other buildings in the development.
2. Provide detailed elevations for preliminary review for each wall of each building that is visible from the
EC. Please note that additional comments will likely arise with the submittalof revised elevations.
3. Provide details on proposed materials. Block should be limited in use. Provide all material and color
samples. ,
4. Provide a landscape plan for preliminary review that meets the ARB requirements. .Consult the ARB
guidelines for requirements. Ensure that utilities do not interfere with required landscaping. Please note
that additional comments will likely arise with the submittal of a revised landscape plan.
5. Provide complete information on proposed lighting, including manufacturer's cut sheets and
photometrics. Pole lights should be coordinated in appearance and height with the overall development.
Light must be fully shielded and pointed down onto the site so that light is not emitted above the
horizontal plane. Coordinate pole lights with landscaping. Avoid over-illumination. Building lighting should
be the minimum necessary for safety and security.
6. Show that all mechanical equipment is not visible from the EC. Provide details on the dumpster
screen.
7. Provide complete information on proposed signage for the overall development. A signage proposal
must be included as part of the final submittal for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Signage should be
coordinated throughout the site, and should be compatible with the buildings and with each other.
~,
~.
5/24/00 11 :12 AM
Page 1 of 1
ai
1"""-\
r-,
~
ATTACHMENT F
Crozet Commons Community Comment Sheet
I, the undersigned, have reviewed and discussed the development, Crozet
Commons, with Cliff Fox and have signed below either in support or against
the development.
Lj-/4-cn --r:;, aJ4 ], &//c4
0rLf(co ~~110iMv~
1-1~..JI4() tAI.(~
--'--
Ot!./L!.()() p{)UJ~ ;9.~tU~
{)4-/<(-w ~ J +
/-'r-/}
~ ~_~V; ~i(~.~
Jj-~iJC .fI. [:~L~
Q ee' . \ J
Y Jflhb. \{', '~0vl~~~
4::1kOO~~ N r1M
i/400 .~ fJ-~J
~. ~&-< c;4ad~
~ //;fljJ;;'-ZQ/!~{i4-/
~.,~
J/},MJ- t!. ~~
u I .
1-1(~Zf u/J./ tj.MJt, ~~
C~tLi f'V 4 {t~
Date:
/ /
j:,.,.:
! i'- o-Z
I~
~ -(<1
~
<-I -ty
~I
v
~
~1/
Y
y
/
V _-
~/--
LI'
Name:
Check one: Support
/
t/
V-'
v
I../'
/
~
Do not Support
(jj
I
~
~
~
"
i
Crozet Commons Community Comment Sheet
,.~..,
I, the undersigned, have reviewed and discussed the development, Crozet
Commons, with Cliff Fox and have signed below either in support or against
the development.
Date:
Name:
Check one:
Support . Do not Support
~
K
tz~S~ ~-
( ('i~ &. -,<VNaL'/L
yl2~/6'O ~ .
,~
,~~
(I~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
June 8, 2000
Frank D. Cox
The Cox Company
220 East High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-OO-005 Trinity Presbyterian Church - Tax Map 76, Parcel17C
Dear Mr. Cox:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and
incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic tables, children'.splay equipment,
and walkways (approved with SP 99-063) and the modified area of disturbance with
recreational areas shown on the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed
Building Expansion dated 5/15/00.
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated
5/15/00. Applicant will present a clearing and grading plan to the Engineering
Department that minimizes clearing to the greatest extent possible.
3. Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be
allowed (approved with SP.99-063).
4. Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the plan entitled:
Master Plan Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 (approved with SP 99-063).
5. Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound
amplification shall occur in this area (approved with SP 99-063).
c
"'-----..--
Page 2
June 8, 2000
The Planning Commission also approved critical slopes waivers subject to the following
conditions:
1. Approval by Engineering of a modified grading and erosion and sediment control plan.
2. Replanting of 50 trees shall take place in the area shown with 3: 1 slopes near the
detention pond. Species shall be native species with no more than 40% of a single
species with species, a size of 1" d.b.h. and at locations approved by the Engineering
Department.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 21, 2000. 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.
Sincerely,
~tfdut1
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
EKE/jcf
Cc:
Ella Carey
Jack Kelsey
Bob Ball
Amelia McCulley
Steve Allshouse
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 6, 2000
JUNE 21, 2000
SP 00-005 Trinity Presbyterian Church and
SDP 00-023 Critical Slopes Waiver for Trinity Presbyterian Church Site Plan
Applicant's Proposal: In May of 1999, Trinity Presbyterian Church received approval from the Board of
Supervisors for an eX;Jansion to provide a gym, classroom, and parking addition at the rear of the existing
church building. While preparing final drawings for the grading of the site for this addition, the church
discovered it needed to deal with excess fill material that would expand the limits of clearing. The church
also decided it would like to have this area of fill act as an outdoor play field for its youth programs. In
order to expand the limits of clearing, the Zoning Administrator ruled that an amendment to the special use
permit would be required. This amendment is the Church's request for an expansion of those limits and
establishment of a playfield for the youth of the church. A critical slopes waiver has also been requested for
the project. Attachment A is the plan that accompanies this special use permit request.
It should be noted that, as part of the staffs final review of the project, it became clear that the applicant has
done approximately 80% of the work requested by the special use permit. The Zoning Department has
issued Trinity a zoning violation and the Engineering Department has issued a notice to comply. An
illustration showing the limits of clearing for the previous special use permit, the limits of clearing currently
requested, and the clearing done to date is shown in Attachment B.
Petition: The first petition is for amendment of a special use permit to increase limits of clearing in
association with a previously approved plan in accordance with Section 13.2.2.10 of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows churches by special use permit. The property, described as Tax Map 76, Parcels 17C &17C1
is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District at 3101 F ontaine Avenue where F ontaine Avenue (old
Route 29) dead-ends near the northwest interchange ofI-64 and the route 250 Bypass. (See Attachment C.)
The property is zone<1 R1 Residential zoning district and is recommended for Neighborhood Density
residential in Neighborhood 6 of the Land Use Plan. It is also located in an Entrance Corridor with EC
zomng.
The second petition is for approval of a critical slopes waiver, in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
Character of the Area: The area surrounding the church is hilly and wooded. There are a few residences
nearby and agricultural/wooded open space. A Virginia Department of Forestry office is across Fontaine
Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval ofthe special use permit and waiver of critical slopes with
conditions.
Plannin1: and Zonin1: History: The church building was constructed in the early 1980's. The original site
plan was approved in 1981 and minor changes to the site were approved in 1982 and 1985 with the first
1
building addition. In 1987 a parking lot addition and screening plan were approved. In 1989 a special use
permit was approved for a preschool use. In 1991, the special use permit was amended to allow for use of
modular classrooms. In 1992, a minor site plan amendment was approved for a waste area. In 1993, a
special use permit amendment was approved to grade an area behind the modular classrooms, create a
recreation area, create a permanent stormwater basin, and establish limits of clearing. That amendment was
modified in 1994 to add a parking lot expansion. Construction approved in the 1993 and 1994 special use
permits was never begun. A special use permit approved in 1999 and a subsequent major site plan
amendment allowed for a building and parking expansion. The current plan increases the area of
disturbance approved in 1999.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as neighborhood density residential in
Neighborhood 6.
En~ineerin~ Analysis of expandin~ limits of screenin~ and critical slopes waiver: The County
Engineering staffhas reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare.
Expanding the limits of screening occurs because of the desire to expand the limits of grading. Grading is
proposed for critical slopes. As with Zoning, the Engineering Department has told the applicant to stop
construction in the area outside the approved plan, and seed and mulch the disturbed area for stabilization
because they have exceeded the limits of grading.
Regarding grading and critical slopes, the applicant has submitted a letter of request which is included as
Attachment D. Engineering has reviewed the request and made the following comments:.
Rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock
Proper construction of slopes will prevent movement of soil and rock. The applicant has agreed to use 3: 1
slopes which will be more stable than a 2: 1 slope originally proposed.
Excessive stormwater run-off
The storm sewer system shown on the site plan will prevent excessive runoff from, or on, critical slopes.
Any sheet flow on critical slopes will occur on a 3: 1 slope. Replanting of trees will help to promote soil
stabilization.
Siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water
County inspection and bonding of erosion control measures will address excessive siltation during
construction. Proper vegetative stabilization will prevent long term siltation.
Loss of aesthetic resource
This area was part of a heavily wooded ravine at the back of an existing church. Significant tree removal
has taken place as part of the clearing for fill activity. The critical slopes have been removed along with the
tree cover and recommendations for replanting are made with the recommendations for approval.
A greater travel distance of septic effluent
This site is served by public sewer, so septic effluent is not an issue.
Based on Engineering's review above, with recommended additional plantings and minor changes to the site
plan amendment, staff can recommend approval ofthe critical slopes waiver as well as the proposed change
2
. .
In screemng.
Zonin(: Analysis - Zoning has reviewed the request and finds that much of the work that was requested
with this special use permit has already been completed. They issued a zoning violation letter to the
applicant on May 22, which is attached to this report. What is of particular is that the applicant asked for
permission to increase the area of clearing before receiving final site plan approval in February. Zoning
reviewed the request and indicated to the applicant that exceeding the limits of clearing required a special
use permit. They said that a new plan could be reviewed and approved if a special use permit was granted
by the Board.
With most of the work having been done, it appears that Zoning's decision was ignored. More importantly,
the wooded resource on the site has been removed and the grades altered to the point that the original
environmental features are not present. Staffhas considered this situation and has included it in the analysis
below.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
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 adiacent property.
The primary purpose for the additional clearing is to establish a fill area for excess material. A secondary
purpose is to create an outdoor recreational area for church youth. Under most circumstances, staff could not
support clearing of trees and filling of a ravine for the sole purpose of wasting fill material on a site,
regardless of whet he 1 the property were in a Development Area or not. Staff explained to the applicant that
this was of concern and the applicant pointed out that the church has a desire to expand its youth activities
with a playing field. The applicant said that the church offers programs for over 200 youth who attend the
church and that it sponsors Young Life program. Youth who spend time in recreational activities at the
church are offered an alternative to other activities in the community which may not be as safe or desirable.
Playing fields have not traditionally been a use associated with churches because, in most instances, the
mission of churches is to provide for spiritual nourishment of a community in indoor facilities. Trinity,
however, is establishing youth programs through "Young Life" and wants to provide places for young
people to play and worship outside of the normal church service setting. The Church is already building a
gymnasium for this purpose and now want to expand recreational opportunities outside of the buildings.
In the course of the church's discussions about its youth programs, staff asked if it were possible to have the
playing field available for more thanjust the church's use. After several discussions, the church has agreed
to make the field available for non-church related team practices provided there is a member of the team
who attends the church. The church will do its own scheduling.
Staffhas looked at the relationship of the expanded area of clearing and the nearby and adjoining properties.
The approved plan shows 165 feet of wooded area between the church activities and the adjoining property.
Now the area of clearing and recreational activity is proposed to be a distance of 55 feet. The closest
3
adjoining property is vacant wooded land owned by UREF and shown as Neighborhood Density on the
Land Use Plan. Provided there is no additional clearing within the 55 foot area shown on the plan,
screening continues to be adequate at this location.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
The R-l residential district recognizes the existence of previously established low-density residential
districts in the urban areas. It allows for low-density residential uses and provides incentives for clustering
and development of residential amenities. Churches are often located in residential areas. The expansion of
the limits of clearing is not expected to change the character of the district.
and that such use will be in harmony with the pUIJlose and intent of this ordinance.
The zoning ordinance along with the Comprehensive Plan anticipates development activity in the County's
Development Areas. It is unusual to receive a request for additional clearing primarily to waste fill material.
In this case, staff must look at the loss of an environmental resource in relation to the construction proposed.
With replanting alonr the steep slopes, staff believes that expanding the limits of clearing to support the
church use appears to be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Rl residential zoning district.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
By-right uses in the Rl district are single family detached dwellings, cluster developments, and tourist
lodging. Special uses include community centers, clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal organizations, recreational
facilities, and the like. With replanting along the steep slopes, the proposed expansion and church use is
viewed as being in harmony with these uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
There are no additional regulations relating to churches.
and with 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 permit are appropriate in the location requested.
Throughout most of the review of this project, staffhas had three areas of concern. The first concern had to
do with the loss of an environmental resource for the primary purpose of wasting fill material. The second
concern was for the additional outside recreational area, which was addressed above. The third concern had
to do with the reconstruction of slopes in the area for fill. Staff asked the applicant for additional
information on each of these items.
The loss of the environmental resource has become a problem now because the trees were actually cleared
before the decision by the Board could be made. As a result, staff believes that it is appropriate to replant
trees in places on the site that will help replace some of the wooded area on the slopes. The replanting
should be done on the slopes that extend down to the basin.
4
The County's Engineering Department has a forester on staffwho has reviewed the disturbance that has
taken place. He has estimated that about 1/3 of an acre of the disturbed area could easily be revegetated
without getting into the recreational field. He has suggested that 50 trees be planted in this 1/3 acre along
the slopes leading down to the detention pond. This staff member has commended that native species be
replanted that would not conflict with the land uses associated with the recreational use. The plantings
should be diverse for wildlife and to lessen the chance of loss of the forest cover because of disease, insect
or other destructive causes that may be species specific.
The previous stand in the area cleared was dominated by tulip poplar (Liriodendron trlipifera). To keep with
the natural characteristic of the site it would make sense to have poplar as the dominant species in any
plantings. However, this should not be carried to an extreme; not more than 40% of the trees in anyone
species should be planted to maintain diversity.
Other species that would be logical choices in the mix include:
flowering dogwood
hickory
shortleaf pine
red maple
black gum
American beech
black cherry
black locust
Cornus florida
~sp.
Pinus echinata
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
Fafus sylvatica
Prunus serotina
Robinia pseudo acacia
Please note that black locust may not be a first choice because the thorns could be problematic if there will
be a lot of children moving through the area (going after lots balls, etc.) Also, black cherry is not normally a
big "beautiful" tree at this elevation.
Saplings are recommended for plantings rather than seedlings. On the disturbed areas, particularly on the
slopes, it will be important to establish vegetative cover to limit erosion. The fastest way to get vegetation is
generally with grasses and other similar rapidly established species. Tree seedlings would not compete well
with a good stand of grass or other ground cover. In addition, people mowing the grass would probably
damage or destroy any seedlings.
Regarding the reconstruction of slopes, staff asked the applicant to redesign the area near the detention basin
to provide a maximum of3:1 slopes. Staffhas indicated that 3:1 slopes should be the steepest allowed for
reconstruction in order to maintain safety near a play area, help establish stability, and provide for a more
easily vegetated site at this location. The applicant has agreed and provided a modified plan for Engineering
reVIew.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The expanded recreational activities will help the Church continue a mission to the youth in the
community.
5
2. The additional field space, even ifit is just for members ofthe church, will be of benefit to overall
recreational programs in the County.
Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
1. The applicant has already expanded the area of clearing and removed a resource that cannot be replaced
quickly nor easily.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the Master Plan Exhibit, dated May
18, 1999 including a maximum of 105 new parking spaces and incidental improvements such as storage
sheds, picnic tables, children's.play equipment, and walkways (approved with SP 99-063) and the
modified area of disturbance with recreational areas shown on the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian
Church Proposed Building Expansion dated 5/15/00.
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on the plan
entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated 5/15/00.
3. Continuation of the preschool activity for up to 60 children five days a week shall be allowed (approved
with SP 99-063).
4. Screening of the parking and new building areas shall be as shown on the plan entitled: Master Plan
Exhibit, dated May 18, 1999 (approved with SP 99-063).
5. Amphitheater use shall be restricted to small outdoor gatherings. No mechanical sound amplification
shall occur in this area (approved with SP 99-063).
Staff recommends approval ofthe critical slopes waivers with the following conditions:
1. Approval by Engineering of a modified grading and erosion and sediment control plan.
2. Replanting of 50 trees shall take place in the area shown with 3:1 slopes near the detention pond.
Species shall be native species with no more than 40% of a single species with species, a size of 1"
d.b.h. and at locations approved by the Engineering Department.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Requested Plan for this Special Use Permit
B. Approved Plan for Special Use Permit
C. Tax Parcel Map
D. Zoning Violation Letter
6
--
~
~
q
;I>
~,
---- --
--- ..---- -
~---'
\
'\
"-
\
\
\
\
\
\
\.
\
\
\
\
\' .
\
\
"lID "I ;,'!' \JJ~~l' \~\ "l
r" ~ '"". is' ".' ~ .!
'-N if ~ c~ - '.1l ~ 8 i )...
__~__'~_ . _ lWL_
lEJr-: ~ .
~ i11
<:
The County of Albemarle
Virginia
~l
i \ TRINITY :;';;!~/~~;~i~ CHURCH
__, ._._.__:__..._.._-=-_====____________._.__n____________
~---_._---_._--_.._--- . -.--..--.-.---- ---.----.-..----------..
---
, "'-':--/' -
..---r ' ---'
:.--- r -
---
-J-- '
I
I
I I
i
~ \
, I
~" \j~ ~\\~'.~/(~' \ \ i
.m / \ \ \
~I .. IJC \ ~ '~\"- ',_ " '~...-" ':~'~ ' ,/ ~~ ,,) ., ;" . \ '
b ' ~ _ ~ :.,. '.. \", / tf. / ' \
~ <> I t'\r'T II --r1~ ; ,-:::r-:-H\\\V'A' /
.,,~ ~ /
~g ~
~~ ~
>b
~ ~
~
2
I
I
/
/
./"
\
\
\ '-
\
\
\ -,
Ii
\
,'\
\
,. ,\'
J
\
\ \
\ \ \ '.
\ '
I. \
\
\
\
\ \
\ \
, 1. \ \
\ \ \, I,.
\ ~~~\g: \.
\ \ \f~~ '
\ \ Hf I
; ~H
h~
I "Ill'
I I i [ ~.
I, I <t,
i i I h~
: ; I"' I ~~ '
j \ \ ~l
\ \ ,-\l~
, " \ (f)~ \
\ " 'h. ,
\ lei I
i I'~!
, ! I
".
,
i i
,
! I
\
\
\
"
\
\
,
\
i
,
I "
\ " \
\
I ,
I I
I
,/
\
-- \
\
,,-
/'
/
\
\
,
,/
//
,-
" ,
\ \ \
\' \\ ..'.\.
I I
\. \ \
\ \ \' \
\, '\ "-
\ \ \.\--
,
/
\ \
I .
.._/t
.;.~~~V
...-,,-
- '- ---
-----
\\ \ I
q
,
.<S)
.... ". "'. ",
""d{ ,_- .~
9 j r
/~j i
~"I
'-'/ . '.~~.f-
, ,'q.',lt.
q
c;J
J '
m
~
g
~
[;
~
/~(,' .
l7TI ,,/
, (.y '~
/'(J~
lUlU:" (
'i.'~~~ .
Ihi~iG\
, \!"!iU .,
\ !f~~n
" .ll!!i'~'
!~t
~ t.~
i tn.
~., ~h
. '. I I tl~
\'\ '.~ l.,lii
; , l '~8"
, \ .', J! ~~ '
i \'\1 "i ~~, .
i \,~ I. .".
i \~, ..1
: ~ ~
I \
:'
\\
'\
I,
!\'j
Ii
Ii
/
>/1
I I
I
~ ..1,
.1
ii
:.-
U =:II \. Nd '-' .... ....
......,
I
j
!'<
~
o
:I1
00
:I1
t'J
~
,.,
,....
o
000
~~
~~
u 00
~5
'tl
t'J
~
....
tJ:l
~
~"~ lr ~ll
,h L ~
~H l' ~
~H If ~
~~J l~R1N~~;~~~~~~;~H~:: _~~:~~i::-~::::rleJ l~I~
f/J
~
~
~
Rl
~
:5f/.)oo(
>
"'"3
"'"3
>
(j
==
~
~.
:2:
~
t:l:l
,;
, I
, 'i I
( I
1,,\
I
111\
, \, \
:\ !
'1 "
'\ / I!'.'
i . ,~~'1..1://
.'. ','.."\ /'/1/'
~.' ;; / . '1;./ 'I
,,"; i //
lj / / I 11/'
I ! \11
!'lll
f I'
I I I ,11,_
I 'I'f; /
! /'1 -!1 I
'11?'i"
I ;
, ,
;;~!i ./'r -.. --
',1,' I ':1""'))
I .. r .' ,,~, 'I -. :'
, l:,' "I
I "I" II .It,
I' I, ; ./
II ; I,.' r/',
'i'/" ,', '
" .' . \'/' J
,I '. i I!
I i It II
I Ii"
.- 'I / I~
'I '
J I \1/ I
.11 \, II
i I,:' 1:'/
: , '
r (', \
\ I I, I I J
I ~I,' I Y
J. \, It'
II I /
)' ~ I
I ?n - I
I :;0
'" \1 ot
:/1 ~, I
I I !If;, I"
,\ , "i" I'
\1; ,. r
'i I I ! I
: I; III! I I
ii:: i i ',"/
Hi:! .(1,. ,.' i
ii,/, ,., " I
I : I ~; j{ !.; I
"I" , ,i
If/: 'I I "I \
:!i;r:;1 ! ;,\ __
' 'I,' I , i ~
,.. I I ! 'I 'j
;1,\,,;:1, I ",- .."
',I,I','i. '\ , r.
/,':: f II!... .
i,:;I"i Ii; llf, ,CJ.
'''I'', / ',I,
Ffi "/ ,I;' \) !,il
':/'\ i ! 1........',/:
? 'j I i ;:;f~', 'i /
, '/~"
" "i" 'i
/ f /'!;, "
'" , J1!.
. /' /,('/,';
'i ! '0""
l ! /' :'<
' /,,1,.,
.. -,~ ,I' " ,
I i l ' ~. \,
i'l
rt"",\
\ ..;:- , ~
! "". " ,':
\'~'i,'_i
~ '-:'({ ", '
/ /
I~ . ' ) / ) ,/>'-
.I I / / /
I 1 I i I
i I I I
. , I I J /
IIIII'~
IIIII \ \
II i I \
i' \ ", \ \ \ l
1 (",,:, 1\ \ \' \ \ \ \
>,~,.,.j ,..{. \ \, \ " \ \ \ \
. '.' '\'(''''~ ,';, \ \ 'I \ \
,. .'_ "::"',' <-." ,I \ \ \ '
I i\ ,:,\ \.( ':< I I \ \
__ I I' " \ \, \1 I I, \,
/11'1,,,,,\\1 \
1,11\ '," 1\' \
\ \1, \ ) 11 \.. '. " .....:
I, ; \ II ~ '\ ... \
I I :' \ i I 1\ ','
; I' i i\' '"~I ,
; i i i \ i ' ....,~--
I) II \\
I /I I
,I II 1,1
f i Ii :1
~~" ..:, /1 : \ J II
\, , 0'// ) l
/":--{'.{.'f ~ \
I "I 1\ j "
I , \ Y
',\ ), ,; ,(,. r
,\, \__ ,,\ \ I 'r, l?:l
>'" _::" -- I ,/ Q
t.. . _ rn
1, '''''' --" ~-> ~
>< ___ ..... z
1\'" "j 0'
! i'l t:D
/1 (/ II ~ """,,~./
, j I 'I ..' ....fB
'iT ,'~'"
I ' . .' 7 I " ," .'
,,~ ' '
,j Z ' 0 -
//, <;> , " -~
,/,,{--', II I ' ,..
-'" ' ' . .
~:; ',:C',>, '''.- fl' "~
.; <" ',' "1! ' t:l
'" 0\ - ::'c'C':_ -' ; ,,'~, '. "
. \\.., ,,, : Ilu ~, ,..'
_. ' \\ ' " ,d' .. ' "
, __ \ ,-,C-o " i' </," \
~sT e 'j_;' ,I" .' /~<., 1" '>.:
'No' .0' ,m '
. ' ,p~lfI.NO":' \-\. ;y , ~
.. 1 --' ·
, ('l'yp. ,,,-,, ",,' ",' ~ ' '
, \, ' ' > / ,,' -- ----.. "
\' ' " --- -- --- .. . ..
, .. I -- -' o'.>:-- >..---'>-<'.. . ' '
/ . "_,, ~ /.:--- I ~ - --- / '.
/ ' \'~' y~';' - .r----:" '
.. ." C" --,:,r' ,+~o-..< r [', / (
',' __, ," ,__ J /__----?"-,c:" ___ .. ' --r! ..' ,~'
~<"<<>~/f~~~~(~\. \,~:~
\~"
\'"
.~
"0
~,"'':;'
~,
~.
.~
'-
'-
"..' ,
" \\ -'..
'-'" \''.~;\
"'" i\',,\ \
'~'\\ \
\ .. \ ~
\ \\\\
'II \\
, \\\ \',\\ ,
'\ \ . i \."
, \',
",I \ ',\.
\ \ '\ i~ ;\ . \
\ "\\:~'\"
"... \',
\ '" '\;1,',
\\
\\\ "
\
\\
._~~:.::~:=-:~:;~.~:.\~) -
/ \ /1
1\-.' '1/
\ /
I,
-"""''y'/'
(, i.
1 I
I'
\ i ! ( j--
Ii \ i;
! j I .- /
j I! I .
// / / ) .
I I! ' I
, : i / /
'-"
'-
,
~__l
( -~-
,',
l..J,r
I
, I
'J "
~~)
II
'I
~
'tf:" ~..,. .
~L-4~1,
VPq,:-,!,~
~~
~.
~
\
/i
" \,
\
\
/' \'
1
,.1
'-'-"'"
,
/
\
"
,,-r;:.""
H~
, l
I
/
..~~;?~,<;~'rt:;:.,cj<~0"
'. - ", "-
-.' ~---
/~ .....~.,
/
".
\
-~....."
c
Cj
;:.. :0
~
c.: '(,1 ::s: m
zc .P
-, .'P -< ()
:;-1 ~ eN
", r1
c. ::;: .~!l .
n. ,"~ ,- .,
<'.: Gi -
/"V <
m)::<- c:::>
52 c:::>
c:::> m
-00
3: C
~
" u'
~ '
~'I ~ ~ f
U~
.,~
.,
QO
~
),.
"
~
--_._._-~-~---_._-----'-------,--_._---_._----------_.-..--..---------------------.------.-,-.-----_._~_.____'___...l.________.___________________._________________
ALBEMARLE
ATTACHMENT C
COUN
(
..:-
,jl'::"
:1'1 '!
I, ,
If!
~
tSU IS_&JJ
s,
CHARLOTTESVI LLE:
77
~C. 7's..(!lau....21
;:4
9
SCAl.l:: iAl ;!:;
SAMUEL MILLER, SCOTTSVILLE
AND JACK JOUETT DISTRICTS
SECTION 76
A TT ACHMENT D
(C(grPt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mcintire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
FAX (804) 972-4126
TELEPHONE (804) 296-5832
11D (804) 972-4012
NOTICE OF OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF VIOLATION
Date Notice of Determination is given:
May 23, 2000
No: V -2000-081
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7099 3400 000075100841
Trinity Presbyterian Church
Thomas W. Gilliam Jr. etal
P.O. Box 5102
Charlottesville, Va 22905
Property: 76
Tax Map Number
17Cl
Parcel Number
Same as Above
Owner of Record
You are hereby notified that, after an investigation of the above-described property, the
Zoning Administrator has determined that the following constitutes multiple violations of section
36.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance:
The clearing and grading that has taken place on this site is not in compliance with
the June 22, 1999 approval letter for Special Use Permit SP-98-63. Condition number 2
states "Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements
shown on the Master Plan Exhibit dated May 18, 1999." The existing disturbed land area
has gone beyond the limits of that which has been approved.
The County of Albemarle does not have an approved site development plan that
allows for the clearing and grading which has taken place on this site. The existing
disturbed land area has gone beyond the limits of that which is shown on the approved
plan.
Section 4.3 Tree Cutting
a. In districts other than the RA, cutting of trees shall be limited .. .
2. A site development plan for such permitted use shall have been approved in
accordance with the provisions of section 32.0 of this ordinance
Section 36.1: "Any building erected contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or
contrary to any condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use
permit or approval of a site plan, and any use of any building or land which is conducted,
10
Page 2
V -2000-081
May 23, 2000
operated or maintained contrary to any of the provisions of this ordinance or any
condition imposed upon any conditional rezoning, issuance of a special use permit or approval of
a site plan, shall be a violation of this ordinance and the same is hereby declared to be
unlawful. The zoning administrator may initiate injunction, mandamus, abatement, criminal
warrant or any other appropriate action to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such erection or use
in violation of any provision of this ordinance."
.
You are hereby ordered to cease and desist from the above-described use or activity
immediately. Your failure to comply with this order may result in legal action being taken
against you.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30)
days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and
unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the
Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An
appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of$95. The date notice of this
determination was given is specified above.
If you have any questions, please contact Bart J. Svoboda or Amelia G. McCulley the
Zoning Administrator at 804-296-5832.
. 11/~ ~
Amelia G. McCulley
Zoning Administrator
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Cc: Elaine Echols, Planning Department
Reading File - Tax Map 76/ Parcel 17Cl
v2000 081 bjs.doc
11
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 6, 2000
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 6, 2000 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building - Charlottesville, Virginia. Members
attending were: Mr. William Finley, Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker, Vice-Chairman; Mr. Pete
Craddock; Ms. Tracey Hopper, Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Other officials
present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Greg Kamptner, County Attorney; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Mr. Steven Waller,
Planner; Mr. Mark Graham, County Engineering; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering.
Absent: Mr. William Rieley.
Approval of Minutes - May 23. 2000
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of May 23,2000 as
amended.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public
N one were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda:
Addition to Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District -- Proposal to add 8.85 acres in two (2)
parcels to the Kinloch Agricultural/Forestal District. The properties described as Tax Map 65,
Parcels 95 and 95A, are located on the southeast side of Rt. 231, approximately 1.3 miles
northeast of the Rt. 600/Rt. 231 intersection in Cismont.
Addition to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District -- Proposal to 38.499 acres in one (1)
parcel to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. The property described as Tax Map 85,
Parcel 3, is located approximately one quarter mile northwest ofRt. 635, 1.5 miles southwest
ofRt. 6351s intersection with Rt. 692.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as
presented.
Deferred Item:
SP-00-005 Trinity Presbyterian Church (Sie:n #40 & 41) - Request for special use permit
to request a change in conditions for clearing and screening for a church on 17 acres. The
property, described as TMP 76-17C &17C1 is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District at 3101 F ontaine Avenue. The property is zoned R 1 Residential. The Land Use Plan
shows this property as Neighborhood Residential (3-6 units per acre) in Neighborhood 5.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, which included a Power Point presentation of site
photos. She reported that in May 1999, Trinity received approval from the Board of
Supervisors for expansion for a gym, classroom, and parking addition at the rear of the
church building, as well as approval for a parking lot at the front of the church closest to
Fontaine Avenue extended. Ms. Echols said that while preparing the final drawings, the
applicants realized they had excess fill material that needed to be moved, and also decided to
create a playfield at the rear of the church, which would expand the limits of clearing that
were previously approved by the Commission. Zoning then told the applicant that before
they could approve an ENS plan and site plan, they would have to get a change to their
special use permit
Ms. Echols reported that a request was made for the SP to expand the limits of clearing, do
some grading, and work on critical slopes in the rear of the church, and when staff went out
to do some inspections, they found out that the applicant had already done 80% of the work
required for the special use permit. She mentioned that staff based their analysis on the
existing plan and its limits of expansion, rather than the work that had already been done.
Ms. Echols presented the existing plan that was approved, adding that it is towards the rear
that the expansion area is proposed. She noted the areas in critical slopes proposed to be
disturbed, with about 20% of the area in critical slopes. Ms. Echols added that Trinity now
wants to put the fill material out and grade a large, fairly flat area for a recreational field, and
has agreed to use 3 to 1 slopes going down to a detention pond. Ms. Echols reported that the
Engineering Department has reviewed the request for the critical slopes waiver and the limits
of clearing.
She emphasized that there has been a fairly large loss of environmental resource which
happened before staff had completed their analysis, adding that staff has gone back out to the
site for further review. Ms. Echols stated that staff feels the critical slopes issues can be
addressed with some additional re-grading to 3 to 1 slopes down to detention pond, as well as
some replanting of the original vegetative material. She said that Engineering staff can
recommend approval of the critical slopes waiver as well as the proposed change in screening
with the conditions that are proposed in the staff report.
Zoning was concerned that the limits of clearing had been exceeded, and sent a letter of
violation to the applicant. The applicant has stopped work, and is awaiting decision of the
Board before continuing. Ms. Echols said that staff is concerned about extending the lImits
of clearing and losing environmental resources for the primary reason of using fill material.
She said that staff is also concerned that a large outdoor play area is not an activity that has
typically been associated with churches. Trinity has indicated that they have a very active
youth program and would like to have a place inside the gym as well as an outdoor field. She
said that staff discussed other opportunities for use of that field, hoping that there might be a
public benefit to having the field since the applicant is going to fill it anyway. Ms. Echols
said that staff talked to the applicant about additional uses for the field, and agreed to make
the field available for their members' team uses.
Ms. Echols explained that the closest property is UREF to the north, which is currently
undeveloped, and staff feels that the 55-foot screen with its existing trees is appropriate. She
added that staff also feels that having the 2 to 1 slopes become 3 to 1 is appropriate. Ms.
Echols concluded that after significant analysis, staff has recommend approval with
conditions listed in the staff report. She noted that staff recommends approval of the current
SP with the amended plan, and also recommends approval of the critical slopes waivers with
two conditions: approval by engineering of a modified grading, erosion, and sediment
control plan; and a replanting of 50 trees in area of 3 to 1 slopes near the detention pond for
the purpose of stabilizing the slopes and replanting some of the lost vegetation. Ms. Echols
added that staff recommends replanting with native species, with no more than 40% of a
single species, and planting at a size of 1" dbh in the locations approved by Engineering. She
indicated that the engineering has ENS inspectors who will see if the planting is properly
done, which staff believes is an appropriate condition for the critical slopes waiver.
Ms. Hopper asked how much of the area was cleared without authorization.
Ms. Echols estimated the total cleared area at about 80%.
Ms. Hopper asked if most of it was wooded.
Ms. Echols indicated that it had been.
Mr. Finley asked why staff is recommending a 3 to 1 slope at the pond.
Ms. Echols responded that they have enough room at 3 to 1, and it would be more stable than
a 2 to 1. She added that it would not be more clearing to make a 3 to 1 slope.
Ms. Hopper asked if the civil penalties ordinance was in effect at the time this happened.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that that has not yet been passed by the Board.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the size of Trinity's youth program.
Ms. Echols responded that the congregation has between1200-1300, and includes a youth
program for about 200 high-schoolers.
Mr. Cilimberg corrected his previous comment, indicating that the civil penalties ordinance
went to the Board in May.
Ms. Hopper asked ifthere was a way to apply civil penalties now.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it would be up to the Zoning Department.
Ms. Hopper commented, "It really concerns me that such a blatant zoning violation was done
- there were critical slopes disturbed, there was this wooded area flattened without getting a
special use permit first." She added that she is looking for creative ways to make it more of a
penalty situation when there is such a blatant violation.
Mr. Cilimberg said, "I don't know that you can set a punitive set of conditions, but you
certainly can address all the affects that are associated with the Special Use Permit, which
involve the clearing that has taken place...I think Engineering and our staff have attempted to
do that."
Mr. Loewenstein commented that trees of 1" designed for replanting seem "very
substantially less than what was removed...it's not at all an even trade. It's going to take
some years at best for anything planted at that size to begin to equate what was lost." He
noted that he has both environmental and aesthetics considerations, and wondered if it might
be possible to change that condition to make it come closer to what was taken out.
Mr. Loewenstein said he would like the use of the playfield by members of the church for
non-church activities be a condition, although acknowledging that may be difficult to
enforce.
Ms. Echols replied that monitoring would be difficult, and staff would like to trust the church
to keep tabs on it. She added that staffhas no problem making that a condition of approval.
Ms. Hopper suggested that the condition could state that the church would include at least 10
games per year, and then provide written certification to the county that that had happened.
Mr. Finley asked, "Why put the burden on the church. If people want to use it, they'll come
and ask, 1 presume."
Mr. Thomas said, "Make it available for people to ask for."
Ms. Hopper said that her intent was to put the burden on the church for the reporting.
Mr. Finley stated it would be a burden on the church to try to fill a set number.
Mr. Thomas suggested making it available for non-church activities.
Mr. Loewenstein commented that there have been a number of applications over the years
that involve approval after the fact. "I don't think this is the right way to do this, in general.
For somebody to come back in here after a mistake of this magnitude has been made [seeking
a band-aid for their mistake] is wrong." He asked what the civil penalties ordinance means
for the future. "I just think sends the wrong message to the community at large."
Mr. Cilimberg said that by having civil penalties in place, the violation can then be penalized
fairly, noting that the penalties are assessed daily. He added that in each case, the applicant
still needs to get a special use permit. . ..it' s how you handle the violation once it occurs that's
most important."
Mr. Thomas asked, "What makes the applicant think that they have the right to go ahead and
disturb all of the critical slopes [and begin clearing]?"
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that staff never tells an applicant to begin work. "You'd have to
ask the people that do it."
Ms. Echols said that Trinity had a soil erosion control plan, and went out of their area slightly
for the plan that was approved. The engineering reviewed the ENS plan in accordance with
the special use permit limits of clearing, and approved something slightly larger, but it was
viewed as being expected with what was on the plan. She explained that staff was in the
process of completing final site plan for what had been seen previously, then a request came
by fax asking if the applicant could exceed limits of clearing and still keep within the SP.
The Zoning Administrator reviewed the request, and stated emphatically that they must not
exceed the approved limits of clearing. The site plan approved was one that did not overly
exceed limits of clearing, but not as it is proposed on this plan.
Ms. Echols stated, "There is some question about what they were given permission to do,
because. they knew from Zoning that they couldn't do one thing, and seemed to have
understood something [slightly different] from Engineering." She added that there may have
been a slight misunderstanding about what they could do, but not about the limits of clearing.
Ms. Hopper asked if Engineering could speak to what was approved for the plantings.
Mr. Graham addressed the Commission, stating that although he is not a forester, the
inspector from Engineering who looked at the site is. "I relied upon his recommendations for
the appropriate density of trees. . .1 feel like he used his best professional judgement in
coming up with the species and density of trees needed for that site."
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the Commission had approved trees oflarger calipers.
Ms. Echols responded that staff has recommended tree heights of 4 - 5 feet tall for
landscaping, but this is a different type of thing.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how much additional clearing was done relative to the amount
originally approved, and asked how much additional site development is needed for the
expanded playing fields over what was originally requested.
Ms. Echols referenced Attachments A & B in the staff report, which provides an estimate of
55 feet from the furthest area cleared to property line.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if you could situate the expanded playing field within that.
Ms. Echols responded that the first plan did not include the playing field, adding that 30 feet
beyond the marked clearing to the north remains to be done to accommodate the field.
Mr. Finley asked for clarification as to whether the applicant had exceeded the disturbed area
under the original plan.
Ms. Echols replied that the ENS plan was generally in keeping with the special use permit,
but the construction plan done was not in keeping with the approved ENS plan or the special
use permit.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the extended playing field would require additional parking beyond
the 105 originally approved.
Ms. Echols replied that it would not.
Public comment was invited.
,
Mr. Tom Muncaster addressed the Commission. He explained that the church originally
wanted to add another parking lot in the early 1990's. He said that he had done a plan for the
lot, and for filling in a ravine. Mr. Muncaster said that at that time, UREF offered their fill
material to the church, which accepted it. He said that the board approved the special use
permit to allow them to do what they are doing now, but an architect doing a master plan for
the church recommended that an addition go more toward the east side of the church.
Mr. Muncaster said that two years ago, a building committee was formed to plan the
addition, and it was discovered that there was a major water line close to the planned
addition, so it was decided to move it where it is presently located. He explained that Cox
Company did not know they wanted to get rid of the dirt pile, so when they amended the SP
last year, they did not reflect the fill material going back there.
Mr. Muncaster said that all the stormwater from the church goes by that pile, and the pipes
were not designed to handle the load, so the dirt really needs to be moved. He said that the
approved plan showed a silt trap, so the true erosion control plan extends beyond what is
shown. Mr. Muncaster suggested moving the silt trap down the ravine, and said that the
erosion control officer thought that was a good idea. He said that a lot of extra clearing took
place to plan for the silt trap. "It was an accident, really." Mr. Muncaster mentioned that he
noticed that the contractor had gone to far - 50 more feet than what the plan showed.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Muncaster to clarify who told him to move the silt trap.
Mr. Muncaster said that Max Green said it was OK to move it.
Mr. Thomas asked him ifhe assumed it was OK to do the clearing.
Mr. Muncaster said he did not ask for the clearing.
Mr. Loewenstein asked what plans were looked at by the contractor during the site clearing.
Mr. Muncaster responded that he was at the pre-construction meeting, at which time the
- applicant is given the approved erosion control plans.
Mr. Thomas asked if there has been any effect from the weight ofthe big dirt pile on the
church's drain system.
Mr. Muncaster said nothing adverse has happened yet, but there eventually will be an effect
on the drain system, as it is a single pipe that carries all the parking lot runoff. "We won't
know about it until it is too late... there will be a lake down there."
Mr. Loewenstein asked ifhe had any comment on the size of the replacement trees.
Mr. Muncaster said the design planner had originally put in cedar seedlings, and smaller trees
were recommended because of the slope. "Tree survival is going to be better with smaller
trees. We don't intend to cut the slope that goes down, just the field."
Mr. Finley asked if there were any additional trees would be removed by going to a 3 to 1
slope.
Mr. Muncaster said that there would need to be clearing for another 30 feet for the athletic
field.
Mr. Thomas asked if the athletic facility was needed.
Mr. Muncaster responded that the church has almost 200 kids between 7 and 12th grades,
adding that there is no place for the youth to play on their own facilities.
Ms. Hopper asked if the could current cleared area could be used for athletic facilities.
Mr. Muncaster replied that it worries him that the pile would still need to be taken care of.
Ms. Hopper asked how the church would feel about other groups using the fields. She also
asked if there were other options for using the dirt.
Mr. Muncaster said that contractors are not interested in the dirt because it is so rocky.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how the rock would be useful for the play area, but not for
contractors.
Mr. Muncaster said that if the soil would drop on a playground, that's one thing, but ifthere
is a building on top of it, there are safety concerns.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that there would probably be other uses for the fill.
Mr. Muncaster said that they were able to give away approximately 5,000 cubic yards offill
out of the original 25,000 yards.
Ms. Hopper commented that it causes her concern to clear more trees just to accommodate
this dirt.
Mr. Terry Burns, the Trinity administrator, addressed the Commission.
He said that current clearing is adequate, except for getting rid of the pile of dirt.
Mr. Loewenstein asked about the size of the pile.
Mr. Muncaster said that it's 20,000 cubic yards, with a large percentage of rock.
Mr. Finley asked if compaction could be achieved.
Mr. Muncaster replied that it probably could not be sufficiently compacted.
Ms. Hopper asked about the church offering its facility for other uses.
Mr. Burns said that the church leadership doesn't have a problem with associated use (by
members for non-church activities), but would be averse to allowing the county to have an
open scheduling of that field.
Mr. Craddock asked if the field would be irrigated.
Mr. Burns and Mr. Muncaster responded that they have no plans to do that at this time.
Mr. Loewenstein asked them ifthey would have aproblem with making the field use a
condition.
Mr. Bums agreed that that would be acceptable.
Ms. Hopper asked about the monitoring of the field's associated uses.
Mr. Bums said that they don't know how many times it will be used for associated use, but
he could foresee much activity just from church members.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if the playfield would be lighted.
Mr. Burns said the only illuminated area would be the parking lot.
Mr. Finley asked if the events would be scheduled far in advance.
Mr. Bums responded that they will not schedule more than 60 days in advance.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Echols mentioned that staff has told the applicant they could leave the dirt pile out in
front, if the drainage issue could be resolved, but they felt like they needed the additional
parking.
Mr. Thomas asked where the pile of dirt is.
Ms. Echols referenced Attachment B, pointing out the location of the dirt pile.
Mr. Rooker asked about the planting requirement, noting that the I-inch dbh seems small.
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that Mr. Graham had stated that a forester in the Engineering
department had recommended the I-inch, as this is considered more of a reforestation plan
than a landscaping plan.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the tree size also takes the slope into consideration.
Mr. Rooker asked about the condition opening up the use of the playfield for other groups or
just associated groups. "I just wondered about the propriety of our imposing conditions that
in effect requires the church internally to open their property up for use to only people within
their church. It seems to me to be no condition at all."
Mr. Thomas said that he would like to see the dirt go somewhere else, and have no more
trees cleared. He acknowledged that the church needs to accommodate their great youth
program and the parking. "Is there anything they could do with the storm drain problem, and
the dirt stay there."
Ms. Hopper agreed that she would like to see no more clearing done. "I guess the pile of dirt
is a problem that they have internally to work out."
Mr. Finley asked about her concern for clearing.
Ms. Hopper said that her concern has to do with the fact that the church has indicated they
don't really need additional clearing, and what's driving the need to clear more land is the
dirt problem.
Mr. Loewenstein wondered if an approach to resolve the drain problem might be as
inexpensive as doing additional clearing, suggesting that they might find a way to recreate
the drainage that's under the dirt pile, and reorganize that system so that it wasn't further
threatened by the weight ofthe pile. "It would certainly be a more environmentally sensitive
solution, and I don't think it would be a significant additional fiscal penalty for the church."
Mr. Graham re-addressed the Commission. He agreed with Mr. Muncaster that the pile
should be moved off of the storm system, so the condition of the drainage can be determined.
Mr. Thomas asked who maintains the drainage system.
Mr. Graham responded that he church maintains it.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if it would be feasible to modify the drainage system in some way
without moving the dirt pile.
Mr. Graham replied that a storm system could be routed around it, but he is not sure what he
fiscal impact would be. "If we're going to do something with it, let's do something and get it
stabilized. The pile is stable now. Unsightly, maybe."
Mr. Rooker asked if the approval of Condition #1 would cover the moving of the dirt, if they
move the dirt requiring that it be properly stabilized.
Mr. Graham responded, "That's definitely one of the things we're looking for."
Mr. Rooker commented that the creation of 105 new parking spaces is also driving the need
to move the dirt. "Is this vastly in excess of what we would normally see associated with a
church of this size?"
Ms. Echols replied that they have a sanctuary that seats 684, and have between 1200 - 1300
members in attendance in 3 services each Sunday, with 300+ existing parking spaces, and an
additional 105 in the SP the Commission and Board previously approved. Ms. Echols added
that the Zoning requirement for churches is 1 space for every four seats, but the county is
getting applications for 1 space for every two seats.
Ms. Echols clarified that the dirt mound is on an area that has already been approved for
parking.
Mr. Finley commented, "To get full parking...they've got to move that dirt."
Mr. Thomas mentioned that to accommodate the parking and the playing field, they will have
to clear some more trees unless the pile is moved.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible for a condition stating that the applicant would
work with staff to minimize the extent of the cleared area. He noted that the church has
stated they do not want additional clearing.
Mr. Loewenstein said there needs to be some benchmark for staffto work with.
Mr. Rooker suggested having the applicant bring back a grading plan to staff, who could then
judge if it was minimizing clearing.
Commissioners agreed that it should be part ofthe Special Use Permit.
Ms. Echols suggested consulting with Mr. Graham on the enforceability of such a condition.
Mr. Graham said he did not now how definitive this can be. "Even if we did a very precise
plan, when you get out there in the field, the realities will change....it' s very difficult to come
back in after you place fill and put additional fill. You're supposed to be laying your fill in
horizontal layers, rather than having to come back in after the fact."
Mr. Rooker asked if the suggested condition could be handled by Engineering.
Mr. Graham asked "What do we do during construction if we find out that it is actually going
to be more material than was originally anticipated."
Mr. Rooker said that it would have to come back to Engineering.
Mr. Graham said he was hoping for enough flexibility to work with the applicant. "I think
we understand the intent of the Planning Commission. I think we can honor that intent.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP 00-005 with
conditions modified as follows:
2. Clearing oftrees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated
5/15/00. Applicant will present a clearing and grading plan to the Engineering
Department that minimizes clearing to the greatest extent possible.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Craddock seconded approval of the critical slopes
waiver with two conditions as presented by staff.
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2000-13 Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing (Sign #31)- Request for special use permit to
allow fill in the floodplain to construct a driveway across Slate Quarry Creek in accordance
with Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for construction in the
floodplain. The property, described as Tax Map 103 Parcel 32A, contains 25.18acres, and is
located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rolling Road [Route 620] approximately 2.5
miles from the intersection of Route 795 and Route 620. The property is zoned RA Rural
Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Echols reported that Ms. Carter is the applicant, and is proposing to construct a driveway
over Slate Quarry Creek, off of Route 620 in the southern part of the county. Ms. Echols
explained that most of the applicant's 25 acres is on the opposite side of floodplain, and she
wants to put a house on other side of creek. In order to cross the creek, she has to get a
special use permit for the fill in the floodplain. Ms. Echols noted that the applicant has
already done some construction on the driveway. Ms. Echols noted that the 25.18-acre
parcel has two development rights on it.
Ms. Echols explained that staff reviewed the proposal in the context of the impacts of the
proposed driveway on the floodway, as well as public health, safety, and welfare. She
, presented slides of what has been constructed, noting that a building permit had been
proposed, and work began before a Special Use Permit was approved.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that there is not significant supporting construction material between
the two culverts.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
June 8, 2000
Lisa Kohr Carter
217 West High St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-00-013 Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing - Tax Map 103, Parcel32A
Dear Ms. Carter:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 2000, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The driveway shall be limited to serve a single residence on the opposite side of the
stream than Route 602.
2. The Special Use Permit shall not become valid unless the applicant demonstrates
that the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the
culvert to remain in place. The applicant shall have 180 days to provide evidence of
this approval to the County Engineer. This approval is commonly known as the "Joint
Permit" and any approval conditions imposed by the approving government agencies
in their permit shall become approval conditions of this Special Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall provide to Engineering a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan that brings
the stream buffer into compliance with the County's Water Protection Ordinance.
This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving the above
mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval
and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3
months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
4. The applicant shall provide end treatments for stabilization of the culvert and
adjoining stream banks. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control
Plan approved by Engineering and shall include additional measures determined
necessary by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This
plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving the above
mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval
and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3
months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
"
Page 2
June 8, 2000
5. The applicant shall be expressly prohibited from placing any additional fill in the
floodplain unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Engineering this can
be done without increasing the 100 year water surface elevations. The applicant
shall be allowed to perform routine maintenance on the driveway and culverts
provided there is no additional fill in the floodplain.
6. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the
purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been
placed and the stream crossing remains stable.
7. In the event the applicant is required to substitute a bridge for the culvert as a
condition of the Special Use Permit. Engineering recommends this bridge be
approved subject to the following conditions.
a. This bridge shall have the lowest elevation on its span set above the stream
banks.
b. The stream bank next to the bridge abutments shall be armored to protect the
abutments from erosion.
c. The bridge design shall be approved by Engineering prior to starting
construction of the bridge or its approaches and must include structural
design computations that demonstrate the structure can safely carry the
vehicles that use this bridge.
d. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream
banks. As part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert stream
crossing. The reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe such that
the pipe invert is at least six inches below the stream invert and shall include
sufficient separation between the culvert pipes that proper compaction of the
fill material can occur. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion
Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include additional measures
determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the
proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2
months of approval of this Special Use Permit. The plan shall be bonded by
the applicant upon approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be
implemented in the field within 3 months of receiving approval unless modified
by Engineering due to the time of year.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 21, 2000. 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.
\
-.
Page 3
June 8, 2000
It you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
LKW
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Planner
EKE/jet
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
Bob Ball
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 6, 2000
JUNE 21, 2000
SP 00-013 LISA CARTER FLOODPLAIN CROSSING
Revised June 6, 2000 with updated information from Engineering Dept.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant, Lisa Kohr Carter, proposes to construct a driveway over
Slate Quarry Creek on Route 620 in the Rural Areas of the County. Ms. Carter owns a 25.18
parcel of land with 2 development rights. She wishes to build a house on the large acreage of the
parcel on the opposite side of the creek from her public road access. She desires to develop a
fann for growing organically grown vegetables. She also plans to have horses in the pasture on
the front part of her lot. For these reasons, she desires to build a residence for a small working
fann on the parcel and place the house on the far side of the creek. A culvert has been installed
already for the crossing and Ms. Carter has been told that the building permit for her house
cannot be approved until a special use permit is obtained for the stream crossing.
Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Sections
30.3.5.2 and 30.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow construction of a stream crossing over the
floodway and to obtain a landfill permit for floodplain alteration, respectively. The property,
described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 32 A, is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. It is in
the Rural Area (RA) zoning district and is recommended as a Rural Area on the Land Use Plan.
(See Attachment's A & B.)
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The Applicant believes that access should be
provided over the stream in order to retain the area's natural rural appeal. According to the
applicant, "if the home was built on the front on the front of the property, it would only add to a
congested/subdivision look". Ms. Carter has said that the crossing would support a primary
residence and a small working fann and that it will have little if any bearing on the community.
She notes that two neighbors downstream have similar types of crossings.
Character of the Area: The proposed stream crossing is in southeastern part ofthe County and
contains pasturel<:u1d on one side of the stream and woods on the other side. There are houses in
the general area ofthe property along with agricultural uses.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordiilance and recommends approval with conditions.
Plannin!! and Zonine History: A large property of 84.5 acres was divided into 3 parcels of
28.18 acres each in August 1990. This subdivision established lots, which had public road
frontage, a small portion of land on the road frontage side of the creek and 87% of the land on the
opposite side of the creek. The property was further subdivided in October 1990 to remove a 3-
acre parcel from one of the parcels of28.18 acres. A 30-foot access easement was provided for
1
the larger parcel of 25.18 and the 3-acre parcel. Two development rights are present on the
25 .I8-acre parcel. (See Attachment C.)
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Rural Areas, intended for
rural uses. The front part of the lot contains pastureland. The stream crossing, as requested,
would provide the opportunity to maintain the front part as pastureland, provide access for a
residential use and provide the opportunity to use the larger portion ofthe lot agriculturally.
Enf:ineerin~ Analysis: Engineering Department staffhave inspected this site on two
occasions and reviewed the floodplain evaluation prepared by TCS Engineering
Company, which is dated March 31, 2000. In addition, staffhas taken the TCS
floodplain evaluation and created floodplain models to evaluate alternatives. Based on
this analysis, Engineering believes that the flood elevations will not be exceeded during a
two-year event with the proposed culvert, but they will be exceeded in a IO-year event.
Engineering has some concerns that the driveway on either side of the culvert will be
flooded in 2,10, and 100 year flood events by 2 - 3 feet of water. Engineering staff
desires that future property owners be on notice that the driveway will experience periods
of flooding that preclude safe access across the creek. (See Attachments D & E.) The
County Attorney's office has advised against such a notice on a deed.
Although the applicant has requested a culvert crossing, it is possible that a span bridge
will be required under the ''joint permit" of the Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality, Virginia Marine Resources Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
All construction :n the floodplain requires such a permit. Engineering believes that a
span bridge will not be detrimental to the floodplain nor raise flood levels significantly.
Engineering understands that land use policy as well as engineering policy guides
decisions on stream crossings in the floodplain. From an engineering perspective, the
Engineering Department can recommend approval of the special use permit to allow the
existing culvert to stay in place with these conditions:
1. Applicant shall place a note in the deed that prohibits the applicant, successors or
assignees from entering into any contract for the sale, lease or rental of the property
without first notifying the contract purchaser that this driveway will experience
periods of flooding that preclude safe access across the creek. This restriction shall be
approved by the County Attorney and recorded in the land records.
2. The Special Use Permit shall not become valid unless the applicant demonstrates that
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the
culvert to remain in place. The applicant shall have 180 days to provide evidence of
this approval to the County Engineer. This approval is commonly known as the
"Joint Permit" and any approval conditions imposed by the approving government
agencies in their permit shall become approval conditions of this Special Use Permit.
2
3. The applicant shall provide to Engineering a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan that
brings the stream buffer into compliance with the County's Water Protection
Ordinance. This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving
the above mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon
approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field
within 3 months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time
of year.
4. The applicant shall provide end treatments for stabilization of the culvert and
adjoining stream banks. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan
approved by Engineering and shall include additional measures determined necessary
by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must
be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving the above mentioned Joint
Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all
improvementf' shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3 months
of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
5. The applicant shall be expressly prohibited from placing any additional fill in the
floodplain unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Engineering this can
be done without increasing the 100 year water surface elevations. The applicant shall
be allowed to perform routine maintenance on the driveway and culverts provided
there is no additional fill in the floodplain.
6. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the
purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been
placed and the stream crossing remains stable.
7. In the event the applicant is required to substitute a bridge for the culvert as a
condition of the Special Use Permit. Engineering recommends this bridge be
approved subject to the following conditions.
a. This bridge shall have the lowest elevation on its span set above the stream
banks.
b. The streambank next to the bridge abutments shall be annored to protect the
abutments from erosion.
c. The bridge design shall be approved by Engineering prior to starting
construction of the bridge or its approaches and must include structural design
computations that demonstrate the structure can safely carry the vehicles that
use this bridge.
d. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream
banks. As part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert
3
stream crossing. The reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe
such that the pipe invert is at least six inches below the stream invert and
shall include sufficient separation between the culvert pipes that proper
compaction ofthefill material can occur. These improvements shall be part
of an Erosion Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include
additional measures determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose
of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by
Engineering within 2 months of approval of this Special Use Permit. The
plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all improvements
shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3 months of
receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itselfthe 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.
The proposed stream crossing should not be of detriment to the adjacent property since it will be
it will not cause downstream flooding.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
No change in the Jistrict should occur as a result of a stream crossing and land fill activity.
and that such use will be in harmony with the pm:pose and intent of this ordinance.
Section 30.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance establishes the purpose and intent of the Flood Hazard
Overlay District to provide safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, the
provisions of this section of the ordinance are to "restrict the unwise use, development and
occupancy of lands subject to inundation which may result in: danger to life and property; public
costs for flood control measures and/or rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and
siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation ofthe natural and man-made
environment" .
There does not appear to be any significant danger to property, except if someone were to drive
across the driveway and stream crossing in a 100 year storm. There does not appear to be any
public cost for flood control measures, soil erosion or sedimentation, pollution of water
resources, or general degradation to the environment, which Engineering considers significant.
Where Engineering staff focused concern, however, was with questions of danger to life and
rescue/relief costs. In the end, they considered the danger from this crossing versus the danger
associated with other driveways the County routinely allows to be constructed (e.g. 30% grades,
4
hairpin curves) and decided this driveway poses less risk than these other driveways. Similarly,
Engineering considered many driveways to residences in the rural area which the County
approves to be constructed that are impassible to fire/rescue for much longer periods of time than
will occur with this one (e.g. 30% driveways after snow/ice storms). Their remaining concern
focused on making sure no one purchased this property and was surprised to find the driveway is
impassible for extended periods of time which is why they recommend the first condition in their
recommended conditions of approval.
with the uses permitted by right in the district.
By-right uses in the Rural Areas include agricultural and forestry uses and low density residential
uses. The proposed stream crossing would support both a residential use and a small working
fann.
with additional re~ulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
There are no additional regulations for stream crossings in this section of the ordinance.
and with the public health. safety and general welfare.
The main issue with regard to this special use permit is the issue of public safety. The owner of
the property knows that the floodplain and associated flooding will affect the use of the driveway
during a 2, 10, and 100 year event and accepts that risk. Staffhas been wrestling with how to
deal with future owners who may not know about the impassability of the driveway during a
flood. The County Attorney's office has advised staff that the fact that the driveway crosses a
floodplain should put a future owner on notice that flooding could be a problem and that the
County should not be including notes in deeds for such possibilities.
SUMMARY:
Staffbelieves that the proposed use of the property for a small working fann, residence, and
place to raise horses is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan.
Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request:
1. The floodplain crossing allows for the front part of the lot to be in pastureland.
2. No substantive increase in flood levels should occur as a result of this construction.
3. The stream crossing will allow access to a major portion ofthe property for bona fide
agricultural uses.
Staff has identified the following factors, which are unfavorable to this request:
1. A building site is available that does not require a stream crossing.
2. Future owners may not know that the driveway proposed may be impassable in a small
flooding event.
5
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of this request with the following conditions:
1. The driveway shall be limited to serve a single residence on the opposite side of the
stream than Route 602.
2. The Special Use Permit shall not become valid unless the applicant demonstrates that
the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Marine Resources
Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have approved a permit for the
culvert to remain in place. The applicant shall have 180 days to provide evidence of
this approval to the County Engineer. This approval is commonly known as the
"Joint Permit" and any approval conditions imposed by the approving government
agencies in their permit shall become approval conditions of this Special Use Permit.
3. The applicant shall provide to Engineering a Stream Buffer Mitigation Plan that
brings the stream buffer into compliance with the County's Water Protection
Ordinance. This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving
the above mentioned Joint Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon
approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field
within 3 months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time
of year.
4. The applicant shall provide end treatments for stabilization of the culvert and
adjoining stream banks. These improvements shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan
approved by Engineering and shall include additional measures determined necessary
by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must
be approved by Engineering within 2 months of receiving the above mentioned Joint
Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all
improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3 months
of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year.
5. The applicant shall be expressly prohibited from placing any additional fill in the
floodplain unless it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of Engineering this can
be done without increasing the 100 year water surface elevations. The applicant shall
be allowed to perform routine maintenance on the driveway and culverts provided
there is no additional fill in the floodplain.
6. The applicant shall grant the County the right to periodically enter the property for the
purpose of inspecting this stream crossing in order to verify no additional fill has been
placed and the stream crossing remains stable.
7. In the event the applicant is required to substitute a bridge for the culvert as a
condition of the Special Use Permit. Engineering recommends this bridge be
6
approved subject to the following conditions.
a. This bridge shall have the lowest elevation on its span set above the stream
banks.
b. The streambank next to the bridge abutments shall be armored to protect the
abutments from erosion.
c. The bridge design shall be approved by Engineering prior to starting
construction of the bridge or its approaches and must include structural design
computations that demonstrate the structure can safely carry the vehicles that
use this bridge.
d. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream
banks. As part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert
stream crossing. The reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe
such that the pipe invert is at least six inches below the stream invert and
shall include sufficient separation between the culvert pipes that proper
compaction of the fill material can occur. These improvements shall be part
of an Erosion Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include
additional measures determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose
of stabilizing the proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by
Engineering within 2 months of approval of this Special Use Permit. The
plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon approval and all improvements
shown on the plan must be implemented in the field within 3 months of
receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of year .
ATT ACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Parcel Map
C - Property Survey showing parcel
D - Lisa Carter Culverts showing flood elevation
E - Lisa Carter Culverts showing main channel distance
7
,.
"
"
//
QIi
:~
-0 ?AL!vIVQ~
\
...
"
~
'>
':l
.oj' <
.~ ~.illJ "
.$'
o I
lm-. f'" ~ __
.-"f:A ~
, ~
t
715
::.,
,..
~
~
,.,
,..
8
.;..
'>
///J
~'''J'. '
.
,_
A TT ACHMENT B
. o.
ALaEMARLE COUNTY
'10
91
" kO'-"'''~'
'" /,,:;,/ ~
,;;>,~'f' '-......
;..J:" ,
..~
1
t
,8
/
_____ ' 19 '
" /. ,/
~~*8.Y
~ ___ 20
,I: '\, ~
9
114
SCALE IN FEET
...
---
....
,
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
SECTION 103
A TT ACHMENT C
~
~
, C
,r?.....iREDATE
! l \ ,,, I (1TS . '
.-.!j p::_.) , CREATEDl
THE LAND USE REGULA nONS LISTED BELOW ARE IMPOSED
PURSUANT TO THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
IN EFFECT THIS DA TE AND ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMA nON
PURPOSES ONL Y. THEY ARE NOT RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR APPEARANCE ON THIS
PLAT IS Nor INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH.
LAND USE
A. PARCEL BI MAY NOT BE FURTHER DIVIDED.
B. RESIDUE OF PARCEL B MAYBE FURTHER
DIVIDED INTO 2 LOTS WITH ONE LOT EQUAL
TO OR GREATER THAN 21 ACRES.
NOTES:
I. PARCEL BI &. RESIDUE PARCEL B EACH HAVE
A MINIMUM OF 30,000 S.F. OF AREA WITH
SLOPES LESS THAN 25%.
2. RESIDUE OF PARCEL B &. PARCEL Bt "",
ARE A PORTION OF T.M. 103':; 32.
~
~Cf(..\..
~~ ?~ ~C. ~"'\
~f(..S\\) rz.~~e '?J~9 t(\'
'?J'?J\ ,
\\\CO ;
Q:a
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
THE DIVISION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED HER~ON IS WITH
f-iE FREE CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE 01
f-iE UNDERSIGNED OWNER, PROPRIETORS AND TRUSTEES. ANY
EFERENCE TO FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE
:EMED AS THEORETICAL ONLY. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED
) THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY
'Of'aDGC.
COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISERS
~ ~~ccc..\.. ~
II:
-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, TO - WIT
OWLEDGED 0
-L- 19~,
AS OWNER.
n~
PUBLIC
rATE OF VIRGINIA
\
POINT A
S02-46'27"W 10.60
S05046'41"W 81.16
S09-30'43"W 72.08
S13030'47"W 91.65
SI6029'55"W 50.88
Slso41'53"W 75.30
S21006'19"W 70.23
S22-36'17"W 3.92
POINT B
PLAT SHOWING
SURVEY OF PARCEL BI , CONTAINING 3.00 ACRES
A PORTION OF THE LAWRENCE ISON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON ST. RT.i 620 , NEAR SLATE HILL
SCOTTSVILLE DISTRICT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY , VIRGINIA
SCALE : lit = 200' DA TE : 9-13-90
~ ~~c~\, c
frofD,eJ h" ~Sc.
J .",.t.;, (\ fl1(
L,;SA (N~t(
.
,
T .M. 103 - 34P
SLA TE HILL LAND TRUST
LOT 16
0.8. 1004 - 133
O.B. 897 - 403 PLAT
/
.,4J,
.~
o
.0;.
~
~.
I
I
/
i FOR
I
LA WRENCE IS ON
10
ROGER W. RAY &. ASSOC. , INC.
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
A TT ACHMENT D
"0 I~j m ml ~j"O ~
~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~. ~
...I ~~3:3:~al
0
0
''OJ-
oeD
oC!
0
N
-
.....
e
<.0
0
.....
0
c g
co
a:: 0 c
0
C"'l 0
...
en .ll!
1::: en
Q)
>
:;
()
...
Q)
1:::
co
()
co
.!a ''OJ-
....IC!
0
0
N
o
o
It')
eD
C!
o
o
....
It')
ex)
o
ex)
It')
I'-
o
I'-
(ij) UOnBA813
11
ATTACHMENT E
ffi .... .. (ij
ell C1l C1l
"C >- ~ Q) :::l "0
C >- c:: c::
Q) 0 0 ~ ::l
CD 0 ..... N e
Q) .....
...I C/J ~ C/J C/J C)
s: s: s:
0
0
co
o
o
l.C')
0
0
0
~
..... 0
Q 0
co '<t
0
.....
0
c: ""peAfrY.> g
(Q
it [ ~
c::
lJ) .l!l
C/l
1:: i5
Q) 0
> '~'pa^lh:) 0 Qi
"S M c::
c::
U C1l
... J::.
Q) U
t c::
Ctl 'ffi
() :2
(Q
lJ)
:.:J
0
0
N
0)
,..
co
,..
,..
,..
o
o
.....
o
co
,..
l.C')
,..
r:::.
'<t
,..
M
,..
N
,..
(ij) UO!leAa13
12
~".
Mr. Rooker asked if the suggested condition could be handled by Engineering.
Mr. Graham asked "What do we do during construction if we find out that it is actually going
to be more material than was originally anticipated."
Mr. Rooker said that it would have' to come back to Engineering.
Mr. Graham said he was hoping for enough flexibility to work with the applicant. "I think
we understand the intent of the Planning Commission. I think we can honor that intent.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP 00-005 with
conditions modified as follows:
2. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that necessary to install the improvements shown on
the plan entitled: Trinity Presbyterian Church Proposed Building Expansion dated
5/15/00. Applicant will present a clearing and grading plan to the Engineering
Department that minimizes clearing to the greatest extent possible.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Craddock seconded approval of the critical slopes
waiver with two conditions as presented by staff.
Public Hearing Items:
1""""\ SP-2000-13 Lisa Carter Floodplain Crossing (Sign #31)- Request for special use permit to
allow fill in the floodplain to construct a driveway across Slate Quarry Creek in accordance
with Section 30.3.05.2.1 (2) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for construction in the
floodplain. The property, described as Tax Map 103 Parcel 32A, contains 25.18acres, and is
located in the Scottsville Magisterial District on Rolling Road [Route 620] approximately 2.5
miles from the intersection of Route 795 and Route 620. The property is zoned RA Rural
Area. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
Ms. Echols reported that Ms. Carter is the applicant, and is proposing to construct a driveway
over Slate Quarry Creek, off of Route 620 in the southern part of the county. Ms. Echols
explained that most of the applicant's 25 acres is on the opposite side of floodplain, and she
wants to put a house on other side of creek. In order to cross the creek, she has to get a
special use permit for the fill in the floodplain. Ms. Echols noted that the applicant has
already done some construction on the driveway. Ms. Echols noted that the 25.18-acre
parcel has two development rights on it.
Ms. Echols explained that staff reviewed the proposal in the context of the impacts of the
proposed driveway on the floodway, as well as public health, safety, and welfare. She
. presented slides of what has been constructed, noting that a building permit had been
proposed, and work began before a Special Use Permit was approved.
Mr. Loewenstein noted that there is not significant supporting construction material between
the two culverts.
f"
r',
Ms. Echols stated that Engineering believes this floodplain crossing would not cause any
downstream damage. She noted that there are similar crossing over this stream, many of
which are 30 - 40 years old, adding that there is evidence that other driveways have been
repaired due to flooding. Ms. Echols said that this proposal would allow for water to pass
through a culvert, and suggested that Mr. Graham further explain how it would work.
Mr. Graham explained that the culvert is installed with a reverse slope, and is not properly
installed to flow in the direction of the stream. He said that in the annual storm model, the
water is not going over the culvert; the two-year storm is approaching the top ofthe fill over
the culvert; the ten-year storm would have )!z foot of water going over roadway. "Anything
above about an annual storm, the driveway is going to be impassable for some extended
period oftime due to flooding." He added that that seems to be the case with the other
driveways on nearby properties as well.
Noting that there is one more division right on the property, Mr. Rooker asked if there is an
access subject to this kind of flooding that would be approved.
Mr. Graham said that one of engineering's conditions limits the driveway to a single
property, and there is another possible house site on the side of the stream that does not
require a crossing. He added that Engineering feels that the applicant does understand the
problems with flooding, adding that there has been no potential environmental damage
detected.
Mr. Finley asked if Engineering and Planning had been involved with the,existing cl,Jlvert.
~ Mr. Graham said "No," adding that the culvert is going to have to be taken up and
reconstructed. He noted that when the pip~s were installed, they were installed so close
together, it was impossible to compact fill material between pipes. Mr. Graham said that the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission felt that one of the barrels of the culvert needs to be
set lower, which would be part of their permitting process. Mr. Graham added that any
VMRC conditions which are made part of their joint permit become part ofthe Special Use
Permit also.
~.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if a span bridge might have to be substituted.
Mr. Graham replied that the VMRC seems to indicate that sinking the culvert with the invert
would be acceptable.
Ms. Hopper asked if the bridge over the culvert was built after the SP was applied for.
Mr. Graham clarified that when the building inspector went to the site, he discovered the
floodplain crossing. Because you must have an SP to construct in the floodplain, the county
instructed Ms. Carter to stop work.
Ms. Echols said that there should have been a zoning violation issued, but they were not
aware of the discovery. "What has been applied for is to rectify the situation."
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant would have to provide an engineering plan to correct the
problems, in addition to a stream buffer mitigation plan.
r'\
Mr. Graham responded that they would require that, as the stabilization is of concern. He
added that there is no question that the pipes in their present configuration are not adequate
for waterflow.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Graham felt that Condition #7 concerning the possibility of a
bridge be eliminated.
Mr. Graham said he tried to write the condition as a fallback provision in case the joint
permit required that the culverts be replaced with a bridge.
Ms. Echols noted that there was a word-processing glitch in the lettered conditions, but
emphasized that they are the same as before. She added that there was concern as to whether
future property owners needed to be alerted, but Mr. Kamptner has stated that the floodplain
notice is sufficient to advise people in the future that they are buying a property with a
driveway that crosses the floodplain.
Mr. Rooker stated that they are limited to one residence.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Lisa Carter addressed the Commission with her husband, Preston Carter.
Mr. Rooker asked who had don.e the work on the stream crossing.
f'\ Mr. Carter said that he had done the work, after looking at what the neighbors had. He then
put in something 10 times bigger, and figured it would b.e sufficient. Mr. Carter emphasized
that he didn't deliberately put these in without permission; he didn't find out until they
applied for the building permit that they couldn't cross the floodplain without a special use
permit.
Ms. Carter said that it would have been nice to know about the floodplain located on the
property when they purchased the land, adding that the attorneys and bank officials did not
notice it.
Mr. Rooker said that a title search would have identified the floodplain if it was operating
from a survey. He noted that the survey should identify the floodplain, but doesn't specify
on the plat that there is an SP required in order to cross the stream.
Mr. Finley commented that if you are creating a parcel, you have to reveal if it is in the
floodplain, and delineate where it is.
Mr. Kamptner mentioned that the county attorney's office is advising against a condition
proposed by Engineering regarding a note in the deed, because Mr. Davis had encountered a
situation where similar conditions caused some problems, as regulations change.
Mr. Rooker noted that the SP runs with the property, and all conditions imposed would also
go with the property.
/""""', Ms. Hopper asked if a title search would pick it up.
Mr. Rooker said it would come up if the applicant were trying to subdivide and sell the
1""'\ property, then the SP :would kick in.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval ofSP 00-13 with conditions
amended as follows:
4. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream banks. As
part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert stream crossing. The
reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe such that the pipe invert is at least
six inches belowthe stream invert and shall include sufficient separation between the
culvert pipes that proper compaction of the fill material can occur. These improvements
shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include
additional measures determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing
the proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of
approval ofthis Special Use Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon
approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field
within 3 months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of
year.
7. Should be renumbered a., b., c. to replace e., f., g. (mis-numbered).
The motion passed unanimously.
..~
,
SP-2000-14 The Hawksbill Pottery (Sign #29) - Request for a special use permit to allow a
home occupation for a pottery making business in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupations. The property, described as Tax Map
62 Bl, Block C, Parcel 12 in the Key West Subdivision, contains 1.918 acres, and is located
in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Key West Road [Route 1445] . The property is zoned
RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the Board unanimously approved the SP last
year with a condition that it would come back to them in one year. There were several
concerns expressed at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings
regarding traffic, safety, and noise, which is why the Board wanted the re-review.
Mr. Wade noted that during the trial year, there have been no complaints. When the new SP
request went up, the county did receive some calls asking if last year was a typical year.
Staff determined in discussions with the applicant that it was a typical year. He added that
last year, they received one letter of opposition from a next-door neighbor.
Mr. Wade concluded that staff is recommending approval of the SP without the condition
that it come back in one year.
Mr. Rooker asked about the comment in the staff report about 14 retail shows.
f~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department ofPJanning & Community Development
40 I McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4012
June 8, 2000
Scott & Victoria Supraner
346 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SP-2000-14 The Hawksbill Pottery - Tax 62B1, Block C, Parcel 12
Dear Mr. Supraner:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 6, 2000 unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note
that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on site.
2. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exist (1,614
square feet).
4. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric kilns.
5. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property.
6. Use shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, and shall verify compliance with all applicable waste handling/disposal and
water control regulations, including regulations for septic disposal of the Virginia
Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality:
4.14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as
vehicles), must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified
below when measured at the points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after
7:00 p.m., the permissible sound levels at an agricultural or residential district boundary
where adjoining industrial districts shall be reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave
band and in the overall band for impact noises.
Page 2
June 8, 2000
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer,
calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line
from which the noise level radiates.
4.14.1.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises
are those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values
indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands
prescribed by the American Standards Association in S1.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies
for Acoustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an
amplifier and an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a
specified manner. It may be used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring
the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band,
cycles/second
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Overall for
impact noise
At residential
district boundaries
64
64
60
54
48
42
38
34
30
80
At other lot lines
within district
72
72
70
65
59
55
51
47
44
90
Page 3
June 8, 2000
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of
earth borne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when
measured at the points indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording
system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The
displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the
three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
Type of vibration
Continuous
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours
At residential At other lot lines
district boundaries within district
.00 .015
.006
.030
.015
.075
4.14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature
processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot
line, shall be permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted
by this ordinance or required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law.
However, in the case of any operation which would affect adversely the navigation or
control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. Such
rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from
stationary sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating
furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.
4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
Page 4
June 8, 2000
4.14.6 RADIOACTIVITY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and
safety of persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used.
Determination of existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the
discharge of such materials into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes shall be by reference to and in accordance with applicable
current regulations of the Department of Energy, and in the case of items which would
affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof, by applicable current regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the Virginia Air
Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely
affect the operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any
operation which would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current
regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on June 21, 2000. 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.
Sincerely,
Juandiego R. Wade
Transportation Planner
JRW/jcf
Cc: Ella Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
Bob Ball
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 2000-014 the Hawksbill Pottery
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST:
The Board of Supervisors approved this special use
permit last year with the condition that it is valid for one
(1) year from August 11, 1999.
AGENDA DATE:
June 6, 2000
ACTION: Yes
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on August 11, 1999, unanimously approved
the above-noted special use permit for a home occupation pottery business. The site is located in the
Key West Subdivision. It was approved with seven conditions (see Exhibit A, Approval Letter).
Condition #7 stated, "This special use permit shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from August 11,
1999." The staff report that was presented to the Board of Supervisors can be found on Exhibit B. The
applicant's current application, which has not changed from the original application submitted in 1999,
can be found on Exhibit C.
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
DISCUSSION:
The Board of Supervisors included the above noted condition to address the concerns expressed at
the public hearing about increased noise, traffic, and safety. The "trial" year would give the community
and the County an opportunity to assess the impacts anticipated in these concerns. Staff has frequently
contacted the applicant during the last year to get a status report on the home occupation. Staff has
not received any concerns from the public since the special use permit was initiated. Two residents of
Key West have contacted staff since March 2000 to inquire if the past year was a typical year for
Hawksbill Pottery. Staff was informed by the applicant that August 11, 1999 through March 20, 2000
was a typical business year, which included five deliveries, six pottery sales from the residence, and
fourteen retail shows.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of SP 2000-014 the Hawksbill Pottery with the following conditions,
deleting condition #7 from the original approval.
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on site.
2. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exist (1,614 square feet).
4. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric kilns.
5. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property.
6. Use shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, and
shall verify compliance with all applicable waste handling/disposal and water control regulations,
including regulations for septic disposal of the Virginia Department of Health, Environmental
Protection Agency, and Virginia Department of Environmental Quality:
4.14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as vehicles), must
1
"
not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified below when measured at the
points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m., the permissible sound levels at an
agricultural or residential district boundary where adjoining industrial districts shall be reduced by five
(5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall band for impact noises.
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer, calibrated in
decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line from which the noise level
radiates,
4.14.1.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its pitch.
Imoact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are those whose
peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values indicated on the sound level
meter set at fast response.
Octave band mec~s a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound according to its
pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands prescribed by the
American Standards Association in S1.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies for Acoustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an amplifier and an
output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a specified manner. It may be used
with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band.
cycles/second
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Overall for
impact noise
At residential
district boundaries
64
64
60
54
48
42
38
34
30
80
At other lot lines
within district
72
72
70
65
59
55
51
47
44
90
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of earth borne vibrations
from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when measured at the points indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording system, capable of
measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The displacement shall be the maximum
2
instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
Type of vibration
Continuous
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours
At residential At other lot lines
district boundaries within district
.00 .015
.006
.015
.030
.075
4.14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature processes such as
combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot line, shall be permitted except for
signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted by this ordinance or required by any other.
applicable regulation, ordinance or law. However, in the case of any operation which would affect
adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County. Such rules and
regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions from stationary sources;
particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators;
and gaseous pollutants.
4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
4.14.6 RADIOACTIVITY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and safety of persons
on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used. Determination of existence of such
danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the discharge of such materials into the atmosphere
and streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes shall be by reference to and in
accordance with applicable current regulations of the Department of Energy, and in the case of items
which would affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof, by applicable current regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the Virginia Air Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely affect the
operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any operation which
would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall apply.
3
EXHIBIT A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296.5823
August 19, 1999
Scott & Victoria Supraner
The Hawksbill Pottery
340 Kev West Drive
"
Charlottesville, V A 22911
RE: SP-99-32 Hawksbill Pottery - Tax iV[ap 62Bl, Block C, Parcel 12
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Supraner:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on August 11, 1999, unanimously
approved the above-noted request to allow a home occupation for a pottery making business in
accord with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupations.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on site.
2. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. Monday through
Friday.
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exists (1,614
square feet).
4. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric kilns.
5. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property.
6. Use shall comply with the provisions of Section 4.14 of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance, and shall verify compliance with all applicable waste handling/disposal and
water control regulations, including regulations for septic disposal of the Virginia
Department of Health. Environmental Protection Agency, and Virginia Department of
Environmental Quality:
~.14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as vehicles),
must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified below when
measured at the points indicated. [n addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m.. the
permissible sound levels at an agricultural or residential district boundary where adjoining
industrial districts shall be reduced by tive (5) decibels in each octave band and in the overall
band for impact noises.
4
Page 2
August 19, 1999
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer,
calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line
from which the noise level radiates.
4.14.1.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are
those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values
indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Preferred frequencv octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands prescribed
by the American Standards Association in 51.6-1960 Preferred Frequencies for
Acoustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an
amplifier and an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a
specified manner. It may be used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring
the sound pressure level in discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Soun~ Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band.
cvc les/second
3 L5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Overall for
impact noise
At residential
district boundaries
64
64
60
54
48
42
38
34
30
At other lot lines
within district
72
72
70
65
59
55
51
47
44
80
90
5
Page 3
August 19, 1999
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of
earthborne vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when
measured at the points indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthborne vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording
system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The
displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the
three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Area of Measurement
Type of vibration
Continuous
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours
At residential
district boundaries
.00
At other lot lines
within district
.015
.006
.030
.015
.075
4.14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature
processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot
line, shall be permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted
by this ordinance or required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law.
However, in the case of any operation which would atfect adversely the navigation or
control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Conttol Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions
from stationary sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect
heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.
4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
6
Page 4
August 19, 1999
4.14.6 RADIOACTIVITY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and safety of
persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used. Determination of
existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the discharge of such
materials into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the disposal of radioactive wastes
shall be by reference to and tn accordance with applicable current regulations of the Department
of Energy, and in the case of items which would affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof,
by applicable current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws
enacted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the
Virginia Air Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 ELECTRlCAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely affect the
operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any operation which
would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal
Aviation Administration shall apply.
7. This special use permit shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from August 11, 1999.
In the event that the use, structure or activity for which this special use permit is issued shall not
be commenced within eighteen (18) months after the issuance of such permit, the same shall be
deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon terminate. For purposes
of this section, the term "commenced" shall be construed to include the commencement of
construction of any structure necessary to the use of such permit within two (2) years from the
date of the issuance thereof which is thereafter completed within one (1) year.
Before beginning this use, you must obtain a zoning clearance from the Zoning Department.
Before the Zoning Department will issue a clearance, you must comply with the conditions in
this letter. For further information, please call Jan Sprinkle at 296-5875.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
y ~~~rg
Director of Planning &
/'
ity Development
VWC/jcf
Cc:
Amelia McCulley
Tex Weaver
Jack Kelsey
Steve Allshouse
7
EXHIBIT B
STAFF PERSON:
PLA1~NING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUANDIEGO WADE
JUL Y 13, 1999
AUGUST 11, 1999
PLEASE NOTE: THIS REPORT HAS BEEN REVISED SINCE THE PLANNING
COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING TO REFLECT UPDATED AND CORRECTED
INFORMATION. THE CHANGES ARE INDICATED IN BOLD AND ITALICIZED.
SP 99-032 The Hawksbill Pottery
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to establish a pottery making business with two employees in
the basement of his home in the Key 'YVest subdivision.
Petition:
Request for special use permit to allow a home occupation for a pottery making business
with two employees in accordance with Section [10.2.2.31] of the Zoning Ordinance
which allows for home occupations (Attachment A). The property described as Tax Map
62 B1, Block C, Parcel 12 in the Key West Subdivision, contains 1.918 acres and is
located in the Rivanna Magisterial District at 346 Key West Drive (State Route 1445).
The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas (Attachments B & C).
The applicant is currently operating as a Home Occupation Class A without employees at
this location. The purpose of this special use permit is to add two employees and conduct
open houses.
Character of the Area:
The character of the area is rural residential in nature.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions.
Plannin~ and Zonin~ Historv:
There is no zoning history associated with this parcel.
Comprehensive Plan:
This area is located in the Rural Areas of 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 nermitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this
8
ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property.
Staffhas visited the site. Staffhas received several phone calls and letters :from Key West
residents opposing this special use permit due to the traffic increase and the precedent a
Class B permit would create in the neighborhood (letters of opposition can be found on
Attachment E). Letters of support can found on Attachment F.
The applicant is proposing to have two employees as apprentices that will travel to the
house each weekday. The apprentices will work Monday through Friday between the
hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. learning the art of pottery making. This will create an
additional 20 trips per week (4 per weekday, none on weekends). Deliveries to the house
will take place in a regular size van three to four times a year. The applicant had also
originally requested that an open house be held three times a year, lasting up to three days
each to sell items and display the crafts. After hearing of the traffic concerns :from Key
West residents, the applicant agreed to reduce the number of days each open house would
last from up to three to a single day, up to three times a year. It is staffs opinion that
each open house would be equivalent in impact to a yard sale and should not be of
substantial detriment to adjacent property or the neighborhood. Crafts will be taken off
site for sale at craft and art shows by the applicant or sold at the three open houses per
year.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
The character of the district should not be changed in any way. The driveway descends to
the basement area of the house and it is unlikely that cars passing by on Key West Drive
will be able to see cars associated with the business parked in the driveway.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this
ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6. Staff finds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. The applicant will
use an electric kiln that will be in the dwelling and therefore will have no effect on the
environment.
with the uses permitted bv right in the district.
This use will not restrict permitted uses on any adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance.
Section 5.2.2 of the ordinance provides regulations for home occupations. The
regulations do not permit the total floor area of the dwelling devoted to such occupation
to exceed 25% of the floor area of the dwelling or a maximum of 1,500 square feet,
whichever is less, unless waived, varied or modified by the commission in accord with
9
Section 5.1. The applicant is proposing to use his entire basement, which is an increase
equal to 50% of the dwelling. This is a nominal increooe. While this is an area equal to
the dwelling's living areas, except at times of open houses, staff does not consider the
additional traffic that will be generated to be greater than would normally be expected in
a residential neighborhood.
and with the public health. safety and general welfare.
Staffhas not identified any component of this proposal that is inconsistent with the public
health, safety and general welfare. VDOT comments can be found on Attachment D.
VDOT recommends that the entrance should meet commercial entrance standards. Staff
does not support this recommendation. It is staff's position that based on the type of
traffic anticipated, a commercial entrance is not necessary. A commercial entrance is an
entrance wide enough for two vehicles to enter/exit at the same time.
In terms of noise, the electric kiln is similar to typical home appliances. No fumes or
chemicals are associated with its use.
SUMMARY:
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. This request is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the
Ordinance.
2. There will no unusual noise or smell associated with this use.
3. If approved, the general use will not generate traffic significantly greater than
would normally be anticipated in a residential neighborhood.
4. The open house will only take place up to three times a year for one day with
impact similar to that of a yard sale.
Staffhas identified the following factor which is unfavorable to this request:
1. Traffic associated with open houses three times a year would be greater than
normally anticipated in a residential neighborhood. However, it would not be
dissimilar to traffic typically associated with a yard sale.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the following conditions; which
includes modification area to allow 50% of the total floor area of the dwelling to be
used by the home occupation:
10
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members who reside on site;
2. The number of open houses shall be limited to three times a year with the duration
of one day each from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. These may occur on weekends or
holidays;
3. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday;
4. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently exists;
5. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to an indoor, electric kilns;
6. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property. Temporary signs are allowed
to advertise the three open houses;
7. Use shall comply with the following provisions of section 4.14 of the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance.
4.14.1 NOISE
All sources of noise (except those not under direct control of occupant of use, such as
vehicles), must not create sound or impact noise levels in excess of the values specified
below when measured at the points indicated. In addition, before 7:00 a.m. and after 7:00
p.m., the permissible sound levels at an agricultural or residential district boundary where
adjoining industrial districts shall be reduced by five (5) decibels in each octave band and
in the overall band for impact noises. '
4.14.1.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Noise shall be measured by means of a sound level meter and octave band analyzer,
calibrated in decibels (re 0.0002 microbar) and shall be measured at the nearest lot line
from which the noise level radiates.
4.14.1.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Decibel means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Impact noises shall be measured by means of an impact noise analyzer. Impact noises are
those whose peak values fluctuate more than six (6) decibels from the steady values
indicated on the sound level meter set at fast response.
Octave band means a prescribed interval of sound frequencies which classifies sound
according to its pitch.
Preferred frequency octave bands means a standardized series of octave bands prescribed
by the American Standards Association in S1.6-l960 Preferred Frequencies for
Acoustical Measurements.
Sound level meter means an electronic instrument which includes a microphone, an
amplifier and an output meter which measures a noise and sound pressure levels in a
specified manner. It may be
11
used with the octave band analyzer that permits measuring the sound pressure level in
discrete octave bands.
Maximum Permitted Sound Levels (decibels)
Preferred Frequency Octave Bands
Location of Measurement
Octave band.
cycles/second
31.5
63
125
250
500
1000
2000
4000
8000
Overall for
impact noise
At residential
district boundaries
64
64
60
54
48
42
38
34
30
80
At other lot lines
within district
72
72
70
65
59
55
51
47
44
90
4.14.2 VIBRATION
The produce of displacement in inches times the frequency in cycles per second of
earthbome vibrations from any activity shall not exceed the values specified below when
measured at the points indicated.
4.14.2.1 METHOD OF MEASUREMENT
Earthbome vibrations shall be measured by means of a three component recording
system, capable of measuring vibration in three mutually perpendicular directions. The
displacement shall be the maximum instantaneous vector sum of the amplitude in the
three directions.
4.14.2.2 MEANING OF TERMS
Vibrations means the periodic displacement of oscillation of the earth.
Tvpe of vibration
Continuous
Impulsive (100 per
minute or less)
Less than 8 pulses
per 24 hours
Area of Measurement
At residential
district boundaries
.00
.006
.015
At other lot lines
within district
.015
.030
.075
12
4.14.3 GLARE
No direct or sky reflected glare, whether from flood lights or from high temperature
processes such as combustion, welding or otherwise, so as to be visible beyond the lot
line, shall be permitted except for signs, parking lot lighting and other lighting permitted
by this ordinance or required by any other applicable regulation, ordinance or law.
However, in the case of any operation which would affect adversely the navigation or
control of aircraft, the current regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall
apply.
4.14.4 AIR POLLUTION
Rules of the State Air Pollution Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
Such rules and regulations include coverage of: emission of smoke and other emissions
from stationary sources; particulate matter; odor; particulate emission from indirect
heating furnaces; open burning; incinerators; and gaseous pollutants.
4.14.5 WATER POLLUTION
Rules of the State Water Control Board shall apply within Albemarle County.
4.14.6 RADIOACTIVITY
There shall be no radioactivity emission which would be dangerous to the health and
safety of persons on or beyond the premises where such radioactive material is used.
Determination of existence of such danger and the handling of radioactive materials, the
discharge of such materials into the atmosphere and streams and other water, and the
disposal of radioactive wastes shall be by reference to and in accordance with applicable
current regulations of the Department of Energy, and in the case of items which would
affect aircraft navigation or the control thereof, by applicable current regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration, and any applicable laws enacted by the General
Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the requirements of the Virginia Air
Pollution Act, whichever is greater.
4.14.7 ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE
There shall be no electrical disturbance emanating from any lot which would adversely
affect the operation of any equipment on any other lot or premises and in the case of any
operation which would affect adversely the navigation or control of aircraft, the current
regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration shall apply.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Application
B - Tax Map
C - Location Map
D - VDOT comments
E - Letters of Opposition
F - Letters of Support
13
v
......vuJ........r VI. rtlUClUo
,
...
uepartment ot lluHdir- Code ant
ATTACHMENT A
TMP .Jl ~ Ii.. b -L - ~ fL - J2. ~ _ (]...L (L 0
.K{,) Staff q
-~
'..) 1
~
OF!!'ICE USE ON~
S P# "I OJ ..... :>:;1...
clf
Application for Special Use Permit
THG
*ExistingUse .;-h?I'1G' oec.-v,? 4-
Sign#
Mag. Disc
Project Name (huw shoul~ we ",fer tu this "PPIiC"lion1)
*Zoning Dbtrict
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a porlloo'll",u'l b. ~.lill.al<"'OIl plae)
R4
HA-Wkr Blf- L- ?01TtE/Ctf
Proposed Use -!-h:;frlE 0 CC Up B
10 ,J2, I :J. . :") I
*Zoning Ordinance Section number rel!uested
J , 0/Y;
Is this an amendment to an existing Speciai Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site {I^",_, III .nt plan with this application?
o Ye~No
):!tYesO No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/writc conccrning this project?): $C-tJ7j" S U ,oICA N Eli?
Address 2'1-6 I<EY f'VE~r DR, City t!-t,4I2UJ7TF5VJLt.~ate V.4 Zip;l:;J..7/J
Daytime Phone (~) ~9::{' - ~ 6 :? S- Fax # E-mail
Owner of land (As Iis[cd in the Coullty's rccords): S CClT -t- VI CTOIC../,.q c:S t/ P R ,if IV E ~
Address -2'1-6 KEY YvES; iJ~.. City e.. I VI t-t-E State Vrt zip~9 I)
Daytime Phone ( ~C1f ;).9:::- 8-63 5 Fax # E-mail
Applicant (Who is the contact persoll represellling? Who isrcquesling [he specialllse?):
Address
31ft
1c.~Y WESI DR.~
I _
City C V/t.l-c-
TilE Hri-Wks 13/ ,-L ? 07T!:.e 1../
/
State V 4- Zip;21.. 9 /J
Daytime Phone ( &- tJ Y) ;;...1 ~ . J-- b 35' Fax #
E-mail
Loca tion of p 1'0 perty (landmarks, intersections, or othcr)
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list
those tax map and parcel numbers N ()
OFFICE LISE ONL Y
F\:\: amount .$ 350
History: 0 Special Us\: Permits:
Date Paid ~ChcCk It Receipt 1/ /J..i6/ By:L)--Y-;~l/1
o ZMAs and Proffers: ~
. A-~~
. ~\f'l'Alv'~
o Variances:
Ii) - c;? - ~7
o Letter of Authorization
401 McIntire Road .:. Charlottesville, VA 22902 .:. Voice: 296-5832 .:. Fax: 972-4126 14
_ ~_' ~_.-......:.-. <"__ ........:r~........... ..' .~.__ a:..~~" .\._ ...... ........:;,.... ..,..::-. .0: -. -- ...
Sect:on 31.2.4.1 Qf the A.l.v...;marle County Zonin~ Ordinance statt._ chat, "The board of sUtpe'rviS0:S
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. . C"'n
. ;J:' AM A r> R.or IE 5 SI 0 N +1.- ?-r:;r"'fllC '"
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? I/Vff,; WtJ,<2}:. ~ 4 T Ht; frl5 .::r W tJ v.t-j)
t-Jke: TO SF ABlE TO HII2-F /fPPfLCtvTICFS 1?J 4S~!.sr I/V $71/6)10 w.!JIe.J::....
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? AD J;t/- C c:::-NT PI< () PC RT/ES IN / L t..
Nor SG" AFF~CIFO 731.f APP/2.E/V71CF~ IN /"!7-E STOj)IO. P,qIV.J:::-IN~
If: o.PF IH-E ~T~€FI hT THE f2.CA-R of /hI-E f3V/L.LJIN~.
THE $7"I..I{)IO "OPeN t-ftJf/.r!?.5/~ jI-1l1-Y cR-E'"/tTF So/1?E ;'1-PL)/TION4L
TA..4-FFIC (' BI./T P!?tJBIfRt. y No M()Re TfI'A-tJ AN A-vERA-.E Y,tf/2.0 s,.q-u
.,4ND VVDVt,..D oNt..y &Xr~T FoR- T/-fl2..ii""€ SffOiC-T peR/CJDS' ~ t(eAi2.. .
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? /l'1 ANY I-!z; /l1 F
/bCCC;PlfrIO/V-S A-f- ReTrto Y e xlc:Sr IN ;C-l? y _We-S-r;' MAl'll( IN IrH
VA-RIA-NCff + CLA-SS' B I..--lct3'NSes_ rife:- NGIGf/8tJ,t;HtJ()t) cSEG"ftls
7e; SUPPoR'T ,7"H-e~c /rCTI VITle~. AND T#c FeN R.G"'~f.)esJs ::L 4/-1
(V1A/<./;./~ .QCJ NoT ~e:-eM !3"xcFPTION/1-L 1/1/ THE/R. -SCoPe-
f..f II "
Howis the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? -r & R..A ZoNING- PR~ /II!>/:
FOR.. THt: eX' /STG"/VcE t)F A -ffOJl1G' occ (.),0"1-7701\1 A /VD tHer Sfl'Le OF=-
/-IlrNfJ M A-f) ~ ITg J.1S _ q A- t..UJ W r /'I G- ~-,o JO 112 eNTICES Tel N() R k. tv / T#
jVl/? wtJE:S IVt)T DISR.,t/PT rife OH.IG-/fV~L- INTtFNTlo/V t:7r THe-
f:)I<.O/#A-/VCE TO F/fCI?ITt4TE' 5ft1t4/-L OtJMcST7C c/IJTE;<f=>R./SE5.
Tff'e sTUtJfO CaNT/NOe-S 10 f-I./IIICT/Ojl/ qN A- peI€.StJN'A-e- -ScAt.-e-.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? -r-w€ POrT f3 R If c5T"V J) I 0
FI"t~ TH-G" De:-~c..!<IPTloN OF ..4 t-+tJ/l1t: oCGvp-,ljnoN r'E/~-FGZ...Tt..Cf
f>/~J}fJ (ICING- ONLY ,t-/-ANOMA-tJF ITeM~ 4MD Pf../NCTION/IVG- .
A-s A -rAM/t..-tj OtA/NEt) Bf.).5ING'S~ rr IS EX-ACTL'f TH-c k/NO
(0 F COTTA-G=-E IN Ot,lcST!Q./j (HAT IS ~ E~ j/1/TI-ctJ PI.-( 12/&.-11-7- IN
rIl-e"O/~mrc/- /1N/J TIfE specl;=/c ",teA h Zc1)II//Nc;. lAh't-s' frJF.4/VT Tt?
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use? C IV c.~ v;€ A Go. E ~
,f
Ct.-A-Y IS G-eN~aAtLf;I A W-A-STE'-FI<~E" /0/1TE'/2../A--t-. CLA-'1 ~Crf:A~
ft,€€ Rc-P(2.~c.e5SED t4-ND U$6D -ItG-/fIN. THe !<IL.;VS" .:r U~c
Ae..t= EL-ec-Tt€Ic. A;tfO PRoOVcE Nt:? gMO!::.E OR Ft/Mt?S (t7 DI$'rv~
;VEIGI'IBo~S O,e. PCJL-t.-r/TtE THE ENvlR.oNMENT. Nt; rrl-JER- .Do ThLt?"
(] oww illthisusepromotcthepublichealth.safety,andgeneralwelfareofthecommunity? I< l'-tV ~ -flA-ve. rrN'
opelJ Ft.-A/I1€ Fol2 S;'fr&:'/Y Pf/RP~~€'.s. ;\JoN c ~p THe S"f+op
~1./d(rf'~C.({7e;vr PI20f)C/cE"S N?J/S"E=" lJJ€.. OtHeR. NvrS'A/VcE F?4-c..roRS'...
EMp(...(j)"(M€NT IN r8€ F /Nc ,.&f/e 13 -r c,eA- Frs' 1-;;;: t-I M 1 T/:?'"O _ J3 L(
fVJA/(IN(;- A-PPI2-FNTIC~~HIPS fivAI'-A8t!? I oFPei< TR.A/N/N.~ r E'YP?RIC-N',-
WH Ie H / S v I'/A-,- 1"0 Co N,//,1/tl/ /1/';" THe- Tteri DITI ~/'I',.5 O,c:.. HA/V 0 IN Clt<1c.
Vv'H/C-1I !-IA-Vt:- e X/STI.?"D FIl~ c..e,vrv R. I G' ~ _ 7H E Pt:2.,;::-S ENCc 01=
rPF WH/c:: /-J IT /S A- PA/2_T,
15
,
~
"{-
..
~
~
........
~
~
Iv)
J
~
~
\.1
t
'I
...
~
......
::::.
,. 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: W6R. K f17?(/~S ~ R..
,ltPP{?.GNT/CFS WILt.. B~ OV,e/NG- -rfH;" pc1210L) F=;<(j(l1 qlr/l1- SPM
!11C;!V{)/}-I( -FI€/~/t'ij Wlrl/ tPCC/fSS/o/V4-L- WGGK:F;VLJ fk:;VR..s'I)f.lIC//vG-
IJf/.5"L( P€RltJtJS. 1;\/ ;tfDOl'r/o~ .:z: A-/VJ RFtPI/F~T/N? (JPGR,q//N~
/+r:?v/Z.S ON TflRG'F TIM€'~ 4 \1F',4!e.. FoR. IfO-f>e:N HoVrFS"" 4/ T-I-iE
S Tl/O (() -Fo/f!. S,A-f.-e-5 PJ,)I?Rt)S~-S: ON E IN rYE SPRING- .$' U /11M C=R..
I
AND [)(/RIN~ THE ~t-!{)A Y cfEA-S'oN.. rHFJ"c Wtf)Vc,.L> BE: FC?tf2.
pe=R-IOOS of up TO .3 PA-VS ~4CI-// vvf!G,q, C,A/~T!'Jj1/}eRS" 1/v&JI/t-O
RE /NvlTE"O T'ZJ TdJOR.. 7f.fE :;T7/0f/? +- pUA.C#/9-a€ Wt;RK 5~tAE5"
DU((/N'(;. -rHe (<:EsT of -rH~ YEAa:: WO(/(,.f) Qe GO'Vc'letJ/:D j;J If TJf-E
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: ~ X /:>TI /Vr;.- t.-1}1 rrA-J7o/'(~
(/\/ 77+E Ho.HF occ..(JP B GI/(OEZ-lNCS, REt:(t/t?5T A \/A(2f~NC€ oN
tHt: AM(}(/Nr IlP SPh~ Per<(I1/'TTI!?[) PO(Z. rJ"Hl? SiVIJIt? 7'0
o 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoninO'. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of e property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
o
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 copyuf 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 ofatnist, 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.
2.
//
If the appli,canf is a contract purchaser, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted containing the owner's written consent to the application.
d;//" If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. '.
OPTIONAL A IT ACH1v1ENTS:
~
o
3.
4.
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
kn01J;r{;~ 5'. / S-. 99
SIgnature ' Date
~CCTT /1-. S'I/PRA-N&R-
8-0,/' 8- '1.5' .8635'
~. ,--
16
KEY
d ~6 /C'ry tv G"S T O~;/ (! /V/t-L,
fQJ
FOUNDATION / FIREPLACE
~ I I I I I I I I I I I, I
iPj
/K
I I I I I I
K =
T =
PW =
S=
E =
PM =
WID =
H =
P =
I
GARAGE DOOR
KILN
TABLE
POTTER'S WHEEL
SHELVES
EXTRUDEf1
PUG MILL
WASHERiORYER
HOT WATER HEATER
ELECTRIC PANEL
I ONE INCH = 8 FEET
K
K
T
~K
I. ]
SJ
r
!
, I I I I I I I I I I I I I -: pJ1S
[.'1 !
r--J
r--- ---8---'---1
STAIRS .
Is
I~--i
,_____ .__J
111111111.1
[ ----~~--!-~~~_:~_-~-i
I_Jpw
LJ
[~~~~,-;~~~- ~
'---S--I
---Ln
lw D J '~.j""'
__J ___ (
\
'---,
S
K
r-- -
IS
l L-'-----
--- _ PM_--.J
[-
L
-'1
(--PW
r --~---' _
BATHROOM
i
I
___._ ..--.J
GLEcr;:uc S',Pt?CIF/cAnoIVS ON T)/G( KIt.NS 4J2.E,A,S -rOt.-UJW5:;
~ W :; '/0 VtJ/rs A c.
/ ?hu5"c 18 AM?S
/ / S2c:; V&/+s
TI-J~ STI/Olt) loS' CN Tt'lE S.45E/lAEtVT t.-EI/EL- ?iF.4 f"I2IV4Te
D lNcLL/f'/6-'. VvAt-K- Of/T A ccESS- F~o/VJ -2 DOoJ2S / 5' W/N.o<!)UJ~
AND .3 tJI/E,((HE.4,lJ GA;2A GE .DoOR~ PROI/IIJE Mt?I2E THAN
,ADEQvAT~ VENTfLItTlo/,/ /lNf) +ACftITI1rc- EI1.ITER.IN~ +-
!?Y/TIIVC
-r- t-J =- 0 " ','u !1 I "/ /_
17
..." n......"u m'" rnc. ! j, Il.~ L..!Nc::' IV \I.L5 01' THE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN HEREON I
'ECU~H!ON.1S "I,l.OE TO ORlG!NAL P1JRCH~__R OF' THE SUfWEY. .1T IS NOT TRANSFERA6Lt..
J ....C~~ii...j........!... ...~,~;-.jul.."";N:::;;t ;;\.,:~~.;;~i..,.~;-lj' ....:,;1.."c:,;;.,;. I
fPPA~*~AiE LIMITS OF A H.U,D, DEFINED IOC ~CAA' ~.
'LOO I H€ "8- Ii LCCATEO ON THIS Pf.\OPERTV ,,5
~ t: C~ Tv ~ANEL No. 510006 02~OB.
10 Tt LE A€POAT F~ISH€D.
~RVt~E UTILITIES Af\€ UtfOf.RGROUND, ARTH(JR F. EOH~I'<<:JS
furtt..
" OJ!' ~~tI
.t-. 'k.
.. v;.1I
.! ~
.. ~-
: ....;
: AmUt,. .~.l
~ 140-4 ~
~.. <-f $...~""
-"tI~ SUR"f~\,"''''
.......-.,
- -
. _RIVA~ RIVER
'.'--
---l
~..-
tOI ~J H.&..1i IU~iU4J"" H(UtU
10 eu,tt.. (j/ If..,f..
'-.---------------...
----~ ..............._._-----~ ~
------ ~
---
SOI.35'41"W
215.02'
1_
.1
4A~C
I'T
-
*-
-"_1
~~p~Xl~rf.. ~l!"Ut 01' '00 'l'A
. . ' fV"'-
'..~l~ '
LOT 12
346 KEY IfE,T onlYC
. . '. .1
x
.
. 0
r--o
o.
. "
~!'I
l\II"-
ce
(J)
LOT 13
l. OT 11
w
.
O.
l'1tf1
. ....
(\j .
1"1'<(
. U1
10M
IX)
Z
]U l' +-
'"
-------- II
.1:
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, "") l~
,IIQIIrJ..csI.......
}l,O'
~
~ \
,
\ /...----
\ ~ /"
"-
"
N
!::---
la' ....1..
---
----
1&)",.. 10'
00' 11(I1
PHYSICAL SURVEY SHOWIN~
LOT 12
BLOCK C
KEY 'NEST
sac 1
SCALe: ~" . 50.
~L6EMAALE COUNTy, VIRGINIA
DECEMBER 9, 1998
if'.....
, 8. AUBREY HUFFMAN & AssddA TES. LTD.
CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND S~v€YING - L;:NQ- J~AM'lING
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINI.4 .
... c
18
AL8EMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENTB
Rf~"
/'
.....'""(./
/
- " ..../
I
/
!
1'3
Q
'"
'"
Q
SP-99-32 Th ~
e Hawksbon P
" . _".1 otterv
I.
--
IX
'"
.~<
~
RIVANNA DISTRICTS
.::JC.i.liIV/',
0.:::;.
19
A TT ACHlVIENT C
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ffi) KEY WEST SECTION I - DB. 353. P9s.193,I95,197.
'='
~ KEY WES T SEe TION 2 0.8.37/ Pq. 47 4-R.VISEO PLAT 0 8.388 Po. 514
=-'
SEE
6282-06-6
,~_ :> ___100
QIV~NN~ nISTRIr.T
SFrTION
h? 8( I)
20
." 'I.'
ATTACHMENTD
Mr. Ron Keeler
June Public Hearing Submittals
Minimum 25' ROW from centerline along Route 743 is required along property frontage;
additional ROW at the main entrance intersection may also be required to accommodate entrance
improvements.
*
The proposed emergency access must be constructed perpendicular to Route 743. The project
will be responsible for maintaining and chaining the emergency access at all times. It appears
that VDOT discontinued maintenance of the. old roadway ROW in 1955 at this proposed
emergency access location. The applicant is responsible for confirming availability of adequate
ROW for emergency access purposes.
SP-99-32 The Hawksbill Potterv. Route 1445 -:; J;1)a~
The entrance should meet commercial entrance standards.
Adequate off street parking should be provided to accommodate open house customer traffic.
SP-99-33 N.G.I.C Access Road. Route 29N [. l' >1 .cL ,_t....:u--tl-L
The structural design of the existing box culvert must be approved by the VDOT Resident
Engineer prior to issuance of this Special Use Permit to extend the box culvert.
Preservation of adequate right of way for potential future interchange at this entrance along US
29 is recommended. Applicant should refer to comments below for ZMA-99-02, Value America.
It is recommended that intersection design include the future traffic signal of this entrance. It
would be beneficial to install certain traffic signal items now, especially conduit under the NGIC
approach, to simplify future signal installation.
ZMA-99-02 Value America. Route 29N //\ 1._':;' )",.1.-
A comprehensive Master Plan and traffic impact study is required before we will make fInal
comments regarding this rezoning request or other proposed developments in the vicinity. These
studies must evaluate potential full development in this area as well as across US 29 in the
vicinity of Briarwood. We would like to discuss the possible scope for this traffic study to insure
that it will satisfy our concerns.
We have been requesting a Master Plan and Traffic Impact Study since 1996 for all of the
proposed development in this vicinity. Recently we received a very preliminary Master Plan with
traffic projections around 48,000 vehicle trips per day. This level of traffic generation suggests
the need for grade separated interchange(s) and additional through travel lanes along US 29 to
accommodate traffic at an acceptable level of service.
This preliminary plan shows two entrances along US 29N as well as access along Route 600. No
infonnation has been presented regarding the second US 29N entrance or access to Route 600.
The current design of Route 600, including intersections with other roadways, is not adequate for
additional traffic levels from this potential development.
21
_-;.:=~.7 ..~\ C::i\.~=..';'-: :::
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
carter@ngic.osis.gov
Wednesday, June 23, 1999 11 :49 AM
jwade@albemarle.org
carter@ngic.osis.gov; stc4d@virginia.edu
Class B variance in Key West
Juandiego Wade
Transportation Planner
County of Albemarle
Re: Variance for Class B License for
Scott and Vicki Supraner
346 Key West Drive
Key West Subdivision
Dear Mr. Wade,
6/23/99
This note is express my firm opposition (and that of my wife, also) to the granting of a variance for
a Home Occupation Class B license for the Supraner's business in the Key West Subdivision.
My wife and I have lived in Key West since 1982 and have very much enjoyed the character and
people of this neighborhood. For a variety of reasons, I do not feel that a Class B license should
be allowed. Even if the Supraner's claim that their business activities under a Class B license
would have minimal negative impact on the neighborhood, which is arguable in itself, the
precedent set by allowing the variance would leave Key West vulnerable to the next business .
venture that requests a similar variance. Once started, this trend could not be easily reversed.
I hope you will take these thoughts into consideration in making your recommendations to the
Board of Supervisors about this proposed variance. Please note also that a formal petition in
opposition to the variance is currently circulating within the community and will be sent to you
once completed. My wife and I have both signed this petition.
With best regards.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Carter
6 Vincennes CT
Charlottesville, VA 22911
971-1638
22
. ......,-... ..-..,.._.....,'\,,.-""":"'T.,.., ~
Al ....:-..I...-.Ll~rA~.,.. ~
Monica Lobo, M.D.
348 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
June 21, 1999
Mr. Juandiego Wade
Department of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Suite 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: The Hawksbill Pottery
346 Key West Drive
I understand that Mr. And Mrs. Supraner, who recently moved into our neighborhood, are
applying for a Class B Home Occupation license.
As their immediate neighbor I strongly oppose the rezoning from a Class A to a Class B.
I have made this decision for the following reasons:
1) The rezoning would allow others to do similar activities and we would
soon be a neighborhood of "cottage industries."
2) Increase of strangers in our neighborhood
3) Increase in traffic
As a long time resident of Key West I am not sympathetic with the Supraner's plan as
there are many other areas in Charlottesville and Albemarle County where they could
have moved without affecting the zoning. I believe this shows lack of concern on their
part as they are moving into a new neighborhood and it seems that they expect the entire
neighborhood to change to suit their needs.
This rezoning possibility has caused me a great deal of stress and several sleepless nights.
I do hope you will take these concerns into consideration and I hope that the decision will
be in favor of our long established neighborhood.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. Please don't hesitate to contact
me if you so desire.
Sincerely,
Ytlntu(' 4Jv'
REceiVED
Monica Lobo, M.D.
JUt,i ') ,) "QOY
., '-'~) I' ....
"'1'''~:'-'' ^!\.ID
Pl.-' ..~" .1'"'."'; ~. 'J.
. l.~:,,':.~.::' '~:"'o\~l=~.rr
23
Juandiego Wade
Transportation Planner
County Office
Charlottesville, Va.
~~'
. ;\)~.>../ A'I'IACl:hv;Z::T 1':
\ ,~/'
\0/ June 23, 1999
Dear Sir,
Re: The Hawksbill Pottery, 346 Key West Dr.
I understand that Scott and Vicki Supraner are applying for a Class B Home
Occupation license which would allow them to hire up to two paid apprentices, allow them to
use the entire basement for studio work and allow them to sell their pottery at their house.
As their immediate neighbor, I strongly oppose the rezoning from a Class A to a Class
B. I have made this decision based on the following reasons. First, this change in rezoning
would set a precedent for others to follow suit and in a few years, the Key West subdivision
would become a neighborhood of "cottage industries." I don't believe that the majority of
Key West residents would appreciate this change in the neighborhood character. Secondly,
most of the Key West residents are in the neighborhood because it is quiet, safe and has
minimum traffic, especially for children who move around the neighborhood freely. This
peaceful and happy situation will change. Even though the Supraner's have every intention of
not generating much retail activity, the Class B rezoning would permit them to do limited
retail business from their home, even during weekdays. They plan to put a sign in front of the
house presumably for this "limited" retail activity. The county has no practical way of
monitoring the level of retail activity and hence even if complaints are lodged it becomes very
difficulty to restrain such an activity.
(a) This will result in more traffic and parking in front of my house.
(b) The neighborhood will be exposed to more "strangers", especially at a time when
the residents are not at home, thus stressing the neighborhood watch.
(c) Children wandering around the neighborhood will be exposed to more strangers.
(d) Non-residents will not pay attention to the speed limits and thus more accidents
will occur as with my boy when a car hit him in front of my house.
One could argue that the above four situations are operative when residents have yard sales.
There is one big difference. These sales occur occasionally and on weekends when residents
24
';- '....... ,r~'-";.':'"
Ij ;)
r' .-.. v -
are at home and will pay particular attention to their children, especially when they realize
there is a yard sale next door.
Of greater concern are the two apprentices. I am familiar with apprentices who work
in art studios. There is a constant turn over, usually after four to six months. As a next door
resident, I get apprehensive with strangers of unknown character who have the opportunity to
study their surroundings. This issue is all the more relevant when apprentices will be working
at the house when the Supraners are traveling around the country selling the pottery. One can
live with a strange neighbor, as there is an opportunity for one neighbor to study the other.
This is not the same when there is a constant turn over of apprentices next door. Additionally,
I worry about the impact of "strangers" on the carefree, unsuspicious children in the
community.
The Supraners clearly state the following in their letter dated may 21, 1999, "One of
the factors which encourage us to buy here in Key West was that the property was zoned
'Rural' and this classification permits us to work at home under a Class A license." Clearly,
the Supraners realized what they were getting into before they moved into Key West. and it is
a deliberate attempt on their part to make a change in the zoning to fit their livelihood. As a
long time resident of Key West, I can't sympathize with their plan as there are many other
areas in Charlottesville and Albemarle County where they could have moved without
affecting the zoning.
I will describe a "neighborly act" that may provide an insight into their concern for
their neighbors. The Supraners have four outdoor cats who are constantly in my yard, getting
into the birds' nests and decreasing the bird population. It took me several years with bird
feeders to attract birds into my yard. I brought this to the attention of the Supraners. Nothing
is being ~one and now the cats take liberty of walking into my kitchen when the front door is
left open.
I sincerely hope that the county board takes all these factors into consideration before
making a rezoning decision.
R~pe1JI.~
Peter I. Lobo~ MD
348 Key West Dr.
25
. , {) ~. L-.
.,L ~} ~ ('J"
PAGE 2
ATTACHMENT E
337 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 229<11
~Q&'t till. wad~ CVbAtt zz; Iqq~
9 ,&h. wi 1tL ..Li~ ~ ~J[Yl; "11 ~ ~ ~
~ rIm ~) '-Iv \&J;J..- B LJ LefLX-' g + lc~
6:., ~ ~l1iYljt. (CL "cart Db WOZv1'1Ll---" i J a.... }.f, c.e.. /lei)1'J~
NiL ~ bLYW& I
'.
q hau k~. \JL~I M-LLck d.yY
ceJP . U U L
R==Ct:j' feD.
~ . ,~ \1 1
. ......;.a.- ~~
til- LQ'[ Ilio e:r
,Ji r)C 0'Lt~k
/" J
n . (
rb.ec eft. p. ffv1UL
JUtl ) ~ 'i'~QO
1'1. : ... ,J
PL./,,' !:. ~;.:J ,/If'ID
CCM~;UNIT( .~,C'/'::~:JPMENT
26
ATTACHlVIENT E
Juandiego Wade
From: HMa2963960@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 30,19998:26 AM
To: jwade@albemarle.org
Subject: Supraners' Request for a Class B License, Key West Subdivision
Mr. Wade:
I have been a resident of Key West since 1968 and am writing in opposition to
the Supraners' request for an upgrade from a Class A License to a Class B
License at their home at 346 Key West Drive.
My concerns are the increased traffic caused by the Open Houses to be held
each year and the effect on property values in Keywest if a Class B License is
granted.
Ruth W. Martin
102 Juniper Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
27
ATTACHlVIENT E
Juandiego Wade
From: UVAAL@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 29,19994:41 PM
To: jwade@albemarle.org
Subject: SUPRANER APPLICATION FOR CLASS B KEY WEST SUBDIVISION
JUANDIEGO WADE
DEAR MR WADE
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE CLASS B APPLICATION BEING REQUESTED
BY MR. AND MRS SCOTT SUPRANER OF KEY WEST SUB. DIVISION
SHOULD BE APPROVED.
CC- WAYNE CILlMBERG ALBERT S. YANCEY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
BARBARA S.
YANCEY
DAVID BENISH
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
28
ATTACHMENT E
v.w, ~:wrrt,j.;~
f.ewt '&-7' T~~rJ.Ji ~ ~
/fP' ,fie 9J;" ',re 1Ut( f l'h,/I e -2/?
~'u/1f1'th Vlt ~2,qPk
~ -<-~ 1114
RECEIVED
JUN :, 0 1999
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~,: {riJ.1wj 1,t~~d 441,l ~'f ,vWAh I3~A/;.,eM L.~,L
;r:.r vU-r, .f~ f'~ Jtt{ ~ t./k-Srcf-r; ?{/d'fJh Vir );zq II
;Ju/ ~ W4#1e,
~ j-J.&, ,2 ~r~.,r,. P~ ml'C ftc,;"rnt /t'41~-{ tf
~ t./I/;/- ~A ~~,l #h 3 y;,~ if /YVf?/) ft.~
~'1/. fa.:t Vt1f(~,f I~ i;t:dl/J"/M ~ ~~'.,J~ IZ /1
~cJ, ;f~r ,MV ~;./~',pwj ~~4l~ A7~
1l~/1~ n ~ ~ /hc ~;rr:,.,;Y~
~ r:-~f 9//!~ ~ fAt 4~ j:./rnI/f/w-/A-{
&-rt ~1~~ff.4r ~~.pf-a- dvM8k-t~ t.~/(
I/~ ~ h- ~ fiJ wuT ft.r ~ 4U/f'M44.J.
~'1'7 /1 ~ /If"
91'" lit' h/Mf;nre 6f,,'tI ~ a, "f~ k~1 A;--t..ue ck~
,tVr< JlJ-te J:.J-- Hfllk- ,f~ f~ VV1~~ r1~ ~~I
,wOJ.,f,.,I/M/ ~ 1f1~J'f fn~ /,/#r( ~h1J6>-rS 4AMlC ~~
NDJA..)dV 64d'-7;rr-,fk,'/ .J.wkt4, t./M-d ~~;e,~h
4,.J( ~h h~M/1 ,14 #11 ~ /f0 ~ fA) ~
"f:i"'d'~' ~~,oW~ tZ1/, tile ~ ~~:II.&
'i~'c j~ ~ ,J)',U fr1}VNf (?faA'"'S/~ rfT,J/rr."..,v./""
29
PAGE 1
51/>'> ik',<, Zv-f-(/I~V{401: ~~~ ~/~4AI/1-v4-e
~~ ~~. ~M -rf4~-f /Ai,;.r v4r~ --t'~ (Jvrt' ~r
pi,;.{/'41f<tM7~. f/W4t1 L.r'k - I(~~~ ~r~
ft~r(I4J~ I(~rrh~~ a /7/1~ rr/ftl..AX~ a ~;M/I ~
r-~ p,.cu{ /41~ ~~ U~ ~ur.~~~M
97~A/~(#Vhf ~~;r~ ~ ~~~~.
A~~;!~ I'M #~UAr ~ M/ZH' A~ /t~;rM~ ~he
~~~ 1/JtJ~~4~~~/~A~~-1
~./I~~~ ~/Ae~,(?; ~~4ft1.-d.l/M,8
M4 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ M~ a.- v':'J-- ~~ A..f7/tl,
Z~~~~~~MN7~~~7
~A~~lztl/T/k /Yv0cf>~N-/f1XJd{ /v-kML ht4 :?~
7~ fwrrvt/~ ~ /M:tk~ ~~ /f~ a /j7JtJ41NW'~ ~
1~~~ 4/1~~ h- t.l :t~~ h4~/J1 ~ ~ h- ~
TAke ?7d "c4-5~;J ~1/nM,{J,~M/n it74/Mf"t?~ fl-(f
";~ rJir, tJ~ vt?n. J~m.?r Y,J-- ~ ~/1~ /J%-nPfr
~-0 ?7~ /V/W147k~/', ~ /k.'-r ~w dv/V? /f /.~.
) 1T )} ~/ r r~rh/SL ~ /~k ~ 1I/lJ7~ # rJ/hJ1l71
UfM~ ~..ed-#"..A ~4J."{ ~ ~~'.;" /W7lr~.-t,;k
?~ Y1/~/k~7fa ;;;kA~f3
/-wy,~ ~~~ ,,:.n /k ~~/v7;y #r, 4f Air /./fY1/
Jfi~
, /~
~ VtlYn~ C,'CI mb~rf
2~/cJ-r4fl,t,;~~T~ .f~~
....... .-..... I,' '
/~ VI 'on.. /j t (11 ~ h
~tf-fl(-~.:I;rjJ~
A. Ty AC
1Il\1F;NT E
/r!k rJ"'~ ~ ~ dlf, jhw-ndur tw~
f~~T-7fJ~~Yt~ f7~~
8ncMrd ~4--t p:wd ~ ~J:ft~
~'1~ ~M ~wJ;~42/tt ?W66 13 , ,
1JA161/VIM/ ct, Ch0~ 4~ /h #7 ~/ j'~rV7-YJ-.-, ,
/At pd4~~ ~#4~ ItJp~ /11f';tt. vL
f#-41~ "1- l;ZtJ 44 'yw:~. 9/#~ A~
M~dit,~ P-r7 rA.~ d;7~ 3~ 1f'f'1.
f4~
9~ /~/1-
:3 0~ c:::r-
~ 11J7~ /,1- ~~1//
(g(Jq)- 977- 7cf67
€.c€.\\J€.O
f\ () \<jtj~
j~~ ~
. _ ~l\\ \0 ...,"'l"
'l'."'.~j':" ~(:\~\
~\..N,\i'~\"':'I~\..O?N\...\
. --' ~,t. \j ...
\"t'-~' · 1 ...,
COM~A\)' \'
PAGE 1
31
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish t~ register
Our objection to the granting of a special use pennit, a Class B bUsiness license tJ" > I..-
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character ofa 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent fur further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME . Street address
V~~y~_" --; ~.z7 ~W~ ~"
a~~ 333 k"yu-c-sra.
;1I.cut~t <d!d s ~wa!J 3 3 3 k~ 0~~ ~:
~ \ I ^ '" ~ <- k -4..;::;<; W ~
/"\ J ~ ~ r\.. -.)
~ ~ 1j'-\ K~ f)Je,& Qk,
y{ ~ ~~ 33 ~ b l()Iz,.T lJy, re .
Vpl{:f L-o h-cJ ? Lt '6 (J ~ wed- bn.ve-
~U-~~ 3JS- fc W~:;+ "~(<~
~ ~-J ) ~rr~
Q0QCCCL P fiifl&t Wpgt 1>1Z1~
~,(J~ 330 tJ.R&t~
'M ~;/j~ ~ v~dv,
q df..c I . 'j
~'i-0laA2/L//'/
I v v
~().f~ '~S3 ~ ~bv,
~J -- 1\ 1- (:.ol11l(jbvOckd).,
I~?-t~~ ~Q f4 ~15v'"
1mc~ ~ 34~ Ke:r iJeJ ~,
PAGE 2
32
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish W f~gister
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license to'f J -z...
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
413 ~7 tJd-- Do,
lftJs ~ l)JJA.;( Dr
4 0 ( ~u- 0JJj)-
q;f; ~ eVeA' t
.. fh .q7i,?9'6)
:b . ~ Jf-J?> ~ ~?(tJ-y~ 71 11il (
~ . fZJ1 "'r a JJ:<.
~~ ~ '-ILL( ~ (fllaoC >>n .
NAME
v~
~~ \L~
~~~\)
Cf:-M~
9rtY~~ ~
~-t t'l<UJLv
~.. Q~
, ~A- t=~~ "
Street address
c;...2! ~ 0J~ OL-
/, /1
..2 9Co-;::< s(;,/
, ,
1'/
~~.5 t~ '\\~
~
2..9\5.4- <.. '\ ~
",'\
...'
\.~
....,
\ 1
yt9 - Sc;6~
q 7 q -cJ.- L( 5"3
~9Co ~ /31
~1~3(3Y
'i/ q r-.~ 36
PAGE 3 33
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish t9 ~rster
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business licensl10 1-z-
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
Street address
ff~x. //~ tI~;d ~:a ~~Y/I
<<.j ~ ~ //~UCM-C0/IAU:J (2.L OJ.'~UCJ ;7.7,'1'1/
e jJ. ~ //~ j)~~ 4e !?cP. r:t~ ~Z911
/" .~.4v- }O-G~<-L ~~/H cL(c.-tC~,,)J~/
I l/t e-e. L/D' 6 . / l'
CI /J 1 '1}6 ~ ~~ eV~;27S'-3bd'1
~jG . /~_ wJ. t!,vA. 17.)--S-~.D
~f} - /01 -1 f c) ~ ?1f/5Z0iJ
~vrtr;~ /()1 I{tJj {/J~ cfAt&- 1'f(~{S('f
~M kMr lo6~ ~
}fJ. - /05"6eo~~ Pcfrs RJ CLJ,}1e ,;l9-f)--050S
0vr7 fl}) e v//-t e' ,).271/
" / /&F C,~(? ~c~ [}VV'j . /' .)J5~3V)
'<J. r::-/ h- /03~rl<~?d.- ("i'~~ 227"11 .
tv Vl.!/uV C\ 0/ / CJ7<7) - 7 ::r:5 r
)IC\ _ 1/, ~ (0'-\ ~ ~~. o....'~ :7-2-"\\\
~ d- c=, S" - 0 '-\ ::l-.:)
(,f6~j~ sa"! f~~~' - LI
f~~- 2~c ~
~=------ ~Z6 J::"'"~0~0--.
~ ("\P,- \~ (w\ c\4-tJ )\ l~ ~
NAME
z~~ -C)z3;Jj
1/(
34
PAGE 4
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West I Cedar Hills subdivision wish t~ f~ster
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license to ........
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME
Street address
ll"Z-~~M)
)0/ /1~~~a...,
10 ro 17e-t.#t~-<J-f /2~
/1) '] /.0'1'711 ~~~:f Lt:t./J'-f
1 () So .A) c:.:>t j.. \r. '-<....--'<. S ~ Lc... V\.A...
(0"3 Lfl. cU. ~
reG NUJ Lf).
1./10 K< bJe4- (1.
}L>Ll 13
/otj~
(l'L l:>(ue\u~'i:l ~\
1 ,
(t
/1:3 (J l ~.e.. 'f" /<1tJ.
I I
/ /,,;. $/.-~j,U? R,;
I{~ j6~f~r
\ \ v fb J-. U~ f'Jf/-t( L< 'J .
35
PAGE 5
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish 1;.>> Wrister
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license to 1.-
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
3 {I;'t/l(f ~f1 L ~
~ d;;c~-1/-</r.J.
t/~
NAME
Street address
I;/~~ i~
5R-~CL:~~
9~ .
~~
~/~K
f!JL q,~~~
~/~
2 .}. QW\-~
#ft. /'
~ ~~
~(Jv~
(/JJ- vJ~
~~/ j.~GQ.-9
~JH
C-~ tkl~
cfU~ ~~
) ci
l i
7
b
Cp
It
II
[1
Ie
w\(c9fl~ ~
L( ~
5
er-
e!
\
rv!.
\ f f1,-/- ..
V ~^ ~ \...A.;
0~ (!::t::
Vj(\00'Wle::5 c-t.
rI~ er
o ~ ttc? -7 /J .::j e- f,
\ I
//
'\
//
/ V /JY\ ~ Q.,C __
) j/~~
/06 t4~ I<-iAA-
/2I /34~~ A
36
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish to rif#ster
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business licensJfo 3'-
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME
Street address
~~
~.~~~
Q ;~Jf~~
',... .,."- -
I I '-t
I ( L{
~~
/17 {~t~UcU t!t~
/20 ~ ReI.
/8..0 VkU~ ~,
"-
II::? ~~M.
//u V0t~r.V ;fl.
1"t~~
L(v~~ ~
L) We-~~ f2cJ
37
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West I Cedar Hills subdivision wish t~ ~ster
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license to~1 )'1.--
"Mr. Scott Supraner of 346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME Street address
Cwo / & S CDff- I OS Luz1d~ ]}V.
:J~.Qit R. tl-1 ( I i Vi n~ f2d.,
1YIM'Jpr~M~ /0/ v~~!fJJ
. .c/t;t/J/ y~Uy
/) /) wJ) fJIJWt...
W. ~ 6~O I ^~, ~Vv
~w (~/hIJ, 3>sA. '~ /#~~/~
f'~uJ~ /04 w.~.J5)-1.,
W LJ~ 10'1 tJ~l)k.,
38
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West I Cedar Hills subdivision wish t~r~gister
OUf objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license td I Jv
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME
Street address
~(svoo6l
tal( \J\~~;zs Rd..
(~~ V, NCCN\l::....s ~,
\ 0) U'l '^ c:.e 1..11.1 ~ ((d 1
( ,
y~ v~R12_
Q4 !/~~
&-t;ll'~ hF~Jc A.
J/~
//cf
Il ~
(2-6
J2L
M~
JQ;-.
39
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish to r~er
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business licensd1g
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change. r _ _ __
NAME
Street address
~- (\ ..
~c;... \='". ~'X2..
llANay $u/<~
h~~~
\OLo W\ \<9 ~l~ 'th., ~~\kA..ud\,-"-J V ~ d.d.C\ U
/// uJ//d!1OUJ!?LlJ/l; c!M~J:;hvl/dz /01 z2.9//
fib UJild PI OW~r Dv. Cha ricH -€5Vj)j~~A- Z. 2-q J )
/ )
40
J 4(..'~ .'_
We, the undersigned residents of the Key West / Cedar Hills subdivision wish W r~~ster
Our objection to the granting of a special use permit, a Class B business license tb"r "Y"
Mr. Scott Supraner of346 Key West Drive in this subdivision. We feel that such a permit
Changes the character of a 220 unit totally residential area.. Traffic congestion, lowered realty
Values and a precedent for further changes are not acceptable to us. We hope that you will
Consider our position in this proposed change.
NAME
~ .;f fA {)
'\ ft-rv' W (~~
(o>tJD-~ ~k..s
If ('fJ~
~t.~
;6~ 0~
Street address
r~ Zl t{Xf.i~j' pJ
, (
s-r 0 d.-~~ 2~J
SSS ~U"
s-rs- y~ t,/
41
, -'''" ::j~ jJ
A TT A CEMENT E
Juandiego Wade
From: bob lindsay [rlind@rlc.net]
Sent: Thursday, July01, 19991:39 PM
To: jwade@albemarle.org
Subject: Request for Class B business license in Key West
Dear Mr. Wade,
I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed special use permit for a class
B license applied for by Mr. Supraner of 346 Key West Drive in the key west
subdivision.
Key West is a purely residential subdivision and I cannot see why the
establishment of a business with employees is necessary. There are, literally,
hundreds of other locations for such a business. In Key West
the granting of such a permit inevitably changes the character of the community.
Not only does it set a precedent for future changes, it demonstrably lowers real
estate values near the location of such a license. The proposed location is on a
sharp, busy corner and selling from the house must increase traffic density in that
area. In short, I
cannot see any compelling reason to provide a class B license in this subdivision.
Sincerely, Robert Lindsay 107 Wildflower Drive Key West
42
~'.. )NJ
V{
ATTACHlVIENT F
June 27,1999
Dear Planning Commissioner,
I would like to inform you of my support for the Supraner request to gain a"zone
B" permit and to utilize the entire basement of their home for their pottery business. I
have visited the home and see no problem with honoring any of their requests. Both
Scott and Vicki were very welcoming and informative. As a Key West resident of 30
years, I can say with all honesty that they will be an asset to this neighborhood and
community .
The complaints and petitions that have been circulating are unfounded. Anyone
taking the time to visit with the Supraner's and see the minimal requests being made
could not possibly find fault with their cause. . /I. ' .9 j d
Thank You. fWt1 // MJI jUP
Joseph W. Reed, Jr.
R ::- ~ ~ '1 'l.V :?-D'
. :-........ a ... ~r-.'1 '~ !:~' :
~ "'-'_ '" a;;.
Jtll ,.. "''''nQ
. ji_ \; !~~..;.h'~,J
P~,:..:', :,. ..'~ .~.~,~"'..{ D
Cr~"'~I'!~ ~;--.'!~~::-.I.' . :,.... ......p.._
v'hri.:;p '!"'J;' "{ . :!....' ,...j i' .../.;....1\1T
. ,,., l .~_~....~:-.I. t"1!:-I'4
43
A TT ACHMENT F
Elizabeth A. Schupp
350 Key West Dr.
Charlottesville, VA 22911
(804) 979-3874
June 25, 1999
To: Charlottesville Planning Commissioner
Re: Item #91- Supraner zoning permit request
Dear Sir:
I would like to formally enter my full support for the Supraner request to obtain a "zone
B" permit, and to extend the working space of their studio to the fu1l1613 square feet. I know
Scott and Vicki both professionally (as the Ass~1ant Director of Peabody School- where their
son attends) and personally (as friends and neighbors).
Scott and Vicki are such an asset to the Key \Vest neighborhood. They are very involved
in the conununity; attending functions and joining the club and swim team. I was thrilled for
them when they found their home here, as it is indeed an ideal set-up for them to continue their
successful business. Scott and Vicki are currently operating out of the basement of their home
and I drive by there several times during the day. I have still yet to see any hint of unusual
activity. The way the home is situated on the lot offers maximum privacy for their business.
The driveway curves to the back of the home and is concealed from any neighbor's view by a
privacy fence and mature pine trees. Having additional apprentices would not, in any way, be an
inconvenience or hardship on the neighborhood and in t:lct, it would be virtl.kllly impossible for
anyone to notice as they drive by.
Again, I offer my full support and would be willing to talk to you at any time to discuss
this matter further if necessary.
Thank you,
~Jt~.
Elizabeth Schupp
RECEjVED
J'!lf '.~ 10qO
~ ..J ~_ \}' ! ,~ ...; '_}
PLf~~j\~i\i~~,t'J j~r,ia
("O~A',1l '1\1';-,( ~ ,-, ..-. ~p
v JYlJvH)PH i ~jt: ,":.:!...t). ~~1E~.JT
44
ATTACHMENT F
Jllne 30.. 1999
Nfr. Juandiego R. Wade
Senior Transportation Planner
County Of Albemarle
COlmty of Planning & Community Development
Dear I\tIr. Wade,
I write this letter in regards to SP-99-32 The Hawksbill Pottery (Sign #91). !vIy tamily
.has lived in the Key West Subdivision since Nov. 1, 1983. This neighborhood has always been a
strong family oriented neighborhood. After meetin.g with the appEc(lllt, Scott. and Vicki Suprnner,
"[ found them to be the quality of individuals who we have always enjoyed in this neighborhood.
After reviewing what they are requesting in regards to their special use permit, my only question is
how would the approval of this permit affe.ct our neighborhood in the future?
Tnere is much talk that. if the County approves their request, it will open a flood gate for other
similar requests. It is my understanding that each request is carefully scrutinized by County
officials-; that each application has to stand on its own merit. If this is indeed the case, tllen I can
find NO reason to oppose the request for a zoning change. OUf property is dire.ctly adjacent to the
property in question. \Ve look directly into the area where their profession would be conducted. I
have to have faith in my neighbor t.hat their activity, and specifically their apprentices, will be
conducted in a very professional and cou..-rteous manner. I also have to have faith and confidence
in our local government that each applicant in t..~e future will not. be affect.ed hy the Board's
decision as it pertains to this special use permit.
I ask the Planning Commission to vote tavorably for SP-99-32 Tne Hawksbill Pottery, as long
as a positive vote does not set a precedent for future such request.
~en
344 Key West Dr.
Charlottesville, Va 22911
804-979-0657
45
f'~7'/ ~
("')
W/IL CJ- jlJU-., ~ ~~. ~/ ~J
~ /U2-0,( ~ ~ /~ cJ~ T; J-o
tM>t~ h ~'.{C~ 1--u ~
~) ~~ C'- PJ1~
~(~uJ~~I~,
-
.....
~
~
:z
~
~
~~ >>z ~~-e~
!f~C- /P~
46
ATTACHMENT.F
8uly 1, 1999
CiJetlr 9'tIr. CZUtlde,
9 htloe lioed in CXeg CZUe.st tJil mg life. CZUhen 9 wtlS tl goung womt1fl we used to ride our horse.s
tJi/ through fhe woods, down into Chtlrloffe.sod/e. t11ld out to fhe 'Blue CJtidge. 9llbemtJrleCounly WtlS a free
t11ldopen place rDllh deep fore.sts t11ld wide grtJ.SSy fields. %dtlY, 9 would not dtlre to tde a horse out on
the road 9llthough 9 stllllioe on the st1fT1e fann 9 knew tlS a girl. 9 know that !he world htlS cht11lged
tJround me.
<:yesterday. a goung mtln called !o tell me thtlt he 11Jtlnted to htloe tl pofferg studio in his home tlnd
fhat he was applyingfor a specitll penn/l !o tJilow him to do that. 9/e said his ntlme WtlS ocott oupraner
t11ld that he lioed not ft1/' from me, jUr/her up on CXey L7JJe.st CiJr/oe. 9/e said fhtlt he wt11lted !o be able !o
hire two apprentices to help him in the shop t11ld fhtlt he WtlS tlSkingfor three special da!Js tl !Jetlr in which
cus!omers could come ois/l him in tbe studio t11ld bug some of his pottery.
CWhen 9 WtlS growing up, most eoeryone worked tlt home.CJjour work t11ld your life were one back
!ben, whether !Jou lioed on tl fann, or prtlcficed a /rtlde. or were /rained in tl profe.ssion. crhe business of life
t1Ild its pleasures were all rolled info one. 00 9 got fo thinking. maybe tbe world btlSn 'f cbt1llged tJil fbat
mucb. 9'tIaybe some people still work at home where they Ctln be near tbeir ft1fT1ilie.s tlnd walcb ooer !heir
children. 9'tIaybe some people still know fhe stltisjtJcfion of ([)()rking with fheir htlnds t1I1d bringing betluly into
tbe world.
9 asked myself. why sbouldn't !his young mtln be permilfed to do what generatlons. of people haoe
done before him. t1I1d what ht1m1 would if ctJI/Se t1Ilybody if he did? CJjou know, 9 couldn 'f fhink of one
good reason. 00 9 decided that t1I1!Jone who is opposed !o !his is rtlising alof of .fUss and bother ooer
no!hing. 91 mt1ll is entitled to lioe in his house as he pletlSe.s, so long as he re.spects his neighbor t1Ild pa!Js his
faxes. 9f is for fhe memory of what was CXey CZIJe.st. the freedom of riding barebtlck and the quiet cool of
dappled shade, thtlt 9 endors~ this rtlther old fashioned idetl thtl! a mt11l mtlY lioe tlnd looe t1I1d work tJil in
one place without ctJI/Sing tlnyone t1I1y /rouble.
CJbtlnk !fou for !Jour lime.
Oincerely. , _ I 11
~c .YJf~ ~~
9'flurlel C. 9'flc9'tlurdo
99 CXey L7JJe.st CiJr/oe
Charloffe.soille, CZ8l 22911
47
ATTACHMENTF
332 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
June 30, 1999
Albemarle County
Department of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Wade,
I am writing to you concerning the special use permit request that has been
advertised at 346 Key West Drive. 1 feel that the small home business that the
Supraners intend to have will not conflict with the needs of the Key West
Community. There are many home businesses currently operating in KeyWest. It is
clear from the description in their application that the Supraners intend to maintain
the same discretion and respect for others that home occupations in the
neighborhood display.
They do not plan to open a retail store or generate a lot of traffic in the
neighborhood. Their request for two apprentices to work with them during regular
business hours seems reasonable. Many residents employ people to assist them with
a variety of household tasks. 1 do not see why these apprentices should be viewed in
any other light. As far as the request for three "open houses" at their pottery
studio annually, 1 believe that they would create no more disturbance than an
average yard sale or family reunion. Certainly, any Key West resident would be
entitled to have such a gathering at their home without asking for special permission.
I endorse the Supraners' right to run their pottery studio as they have
indicated in their permit application. I believe that their plans have demonstrated a
concern for the welfare of the community, and I feel that their welfare should also
be considered by allowing them to continue earning a living in the privacy of their
own home.
Sincerely,
C-~/~~
Edith Arbaugh. "r-. >tll~ D.
RECcJ'v t:.
JUL 0 1 1999
PLi\f\L\J!~~Ci A~\~D
.. "-. ..... ...... .' "":'~" .....:-:.~..~ '-:' :~
48
Elizabeth A. Schupp
350 Key West Dr.
Charlottef)'Ville, VA 22911
(804) 979-3874
To: Planning Commissioner
Re: Item #91- Supraner
ATTACHMENT F
RECEIVED
JUL 02 1999
PLANNING AND
COMMUNllY DEVELOPMENT
June 27, 1999
Dear Sir,
On Sunday, hVo women approached my door with a petition to stop the Supraner's from
obtaining their zoning request (which I sent my support of earlier this week). These women
were carrying a petition which originated from IvIr. Lobo. I politely listened to their pitch and I
was shocked and offended by the malicious propaganda they recited. Evidently, they are under
the false impression that the Supraner's request ""ill lead to tm., neighborhood becoming a ~'trip
mall. They told me that the Supraner's were opening up a store and that all kinds of traffic
would be coming through daily, making this area unsafe for the children. I saw many signatures
on the petition.
I am stunned that so many people blindly sign a document. The Supraner's sent out
flyers on several occa<;ions, inviting the community to an open hou<;e in their home on June 19tb
so that they could give a tour of their facility and answer any questions. Only four people
showed up. I am quite sure that none of these four signed the petition, for signing that document
is a ludicrous act. It would be just as simple to start a counter-petition in the Supraner's favor,
but more simple still to disregard the present petition as it is so falsely presented to the resident.,
of Key \Vest. I am asking that you do not put unnecessary \veight on the validity of the petition,
or that you at least consider the false premises in which it was presented.
Again, I offer my support to the Supraner Family.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Schupp
49
A TT ACHlVIENT F
323 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
July 1, 1999
Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner
County of Albemarle, Dept. of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville~ VA 22902
Dear Mr. Wade:
A week ago~ I was approached by a "concerned neighbor" asking me to sign a petition to "save
the community." I was appalled at the misinformed and misleading language in the heading which
made it sound as though our safety and security as a quiet residential neighborhood was being
jeopardized by the Supraner's request to change from Class A to Class B business license. I have
known the Supraner family since Vicki and I trained to teach Special Education six years ago, and
was thrilled to discover that they had bought a house in the neighborhood, as I was in the process
of buying just down the street. They are caring, responsible people and have a knack for creating
beauty wherever they settle. The property they selected seems perfect for a home-based business,
nestled on the side of a hill, with parking and work areas are completely shielded from passersby
and neighbors alike.
It seems in these days of uncontrolled development and suburban sprawl, homeowners will
struggle mightily to protect their interests when they perceive a threat. However, I simply cannot
conceive how the quality of the neighborhood would be diminished by permitting the Supraners to
use the remaining 114 square feet oftheir 1614-square-foot basement for work. Furthermore,
given the physical layout and seclusion of their home and property, I cannot see how the presence
of two apprentices during regular work hours could possibly impact even the Supraner~s next-
door neighbors. From what I've seen attending other "Open Studios" in the area, there appears
. to be no greater negative impact (in terms of noise~ trash and parking/traffic) than what one might
expect from a typical family or social gathering, and the opportunity to see such exquisitely
handcrafted items at their source would be enriching and inspiring to all who attend.
While I can certainly understand why citizens within a community would want to scrutinize
requests to conduct home-based businesses in order to prevent increased traffic, pollution and
blight, these concerns seem hardly relevant to the case at hand. It is my hope that this request be
considered --and accepted-- based on the merits of this individual situation. Surely if we respond
on a case-by-case basis to specific and reasonable requests, with reason, our neighborhood will
remain not only protected~ but strengthened by the supportive bonds that are the essence of
community.
Elizabeth K. Andersen
50
ATTACHMENT F
~ VJ / ~ - 7/ / :rUNe... 30} t97'Cf
70~,.40<'/'-f./fr/e cry Z""/~Cti} ;fe:_ItfAt :if'lL
(c,r mer- ,/1(/1710n0 - ,
s:; ;.:; j
/J~ C /Jt"'o J-ly /J<"!5-MQ"JQ.. /;' Rey We-f.7;
?KtlS'e nv-fe. .Ny S''-?F'?-.f -kt fit! ~ "/Y.>1t?Pr..s I
/li,/'-f<' fJol/e,...y ..b UPv1r~ / d..{' ;-e/ ueslec/ .-,
7fi;~ Mv/cI j,e c1M pIJJCI~1 vSt" 6-1 ~Y?C"-e
Ohcf /44 e"f1t7l7 S'r;~ t3#1t!'/oymeJd s/yle
C/S1A-1/ri-re/ ~ /l 110 "Ie CO'(F'ST/J / s;~ ~7>?fr7l/fe
.10 a r~fe s f-ud;'o '
/J/SOj .f);m;'/'j HB#('k:.~ k~i /9-/ AtJy;,e c/v;-/~
-flte dri-7. ~Nt/e <:1 JI;4t?/~y.- e-j,'f':'cl- 0J1 #(I}- (5WH
tnncl ~-#er- /1C"jJ;J,orkood ci/Jr-t?t-t _ PJpji.6(<)r/.iJ/
secl/Yil-r J44y /f/rD ..I-e Glwh/?J?ced
$ee/JI/.s.~ nty A/'!-r/e r/'.f'l./r'c/ 7Jt;s 50.4/
/1, a s///IyJtI-J6rw-trn/ ~/ :!vi (-e /e~S' H.4'H/1e~
r ~e/t'et/e 7Je S1?//1-N~r--S? .6fAf,)';;c-tY i-viJ/.be
. a .b~e.j}./?f Ol/r c~Mt.l;;ifl / a/1/ ~"/tJ(/1/
oe c?f'j?r~ t/-e4. /.- .
~4J1~f .s'~t'!;-e1 /
[;. -lit /-IwC/I/lk ~+.' /JRI-- R t?<.rJ/-J.>9NrlJ4k:..
,*j ~~~ST Or--
.. 1...1 I /'
C./;;;j//T~ / ;..-E/j/1 jj,~ (/' )"./ ;;2~ ? /1. 5]
Richard L. Bradley
35' Key West Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
12 July 1999
YJA FACSIMlt&; 804-972-4012
Albemarle Co. Pl~g Commission
6~; Mr. Juan Diego Wade
County Office Building
CharlottesviDe. VA
Re: Application of Scott and Vida Supraner for a Class B license
Hearing date: 13 July 1999
Dear Mr. Wade:
I wish to be on m:ord as being totally opposed to 1hi: referenced application. My
opposition is not a matter of personal bias against the Supraners; I have never met either
of them.. and do not 1mQw what they look like. And'I am not concerned with what they
say they will do, or not do. if they obtain 'the requested license.
No, what concerns me is what the Supraners will b~ lawfully ~ to do, on~ they
obtain the coveted license. What's more, if their application is grmte~ it will set a
precedent which will ensure that virtually anybody living in Key West will be able to
obtain the same liceDse, in due course.
The character of this channing neighborhood will sUiTer irreversible harm if such ccmes :
to pISS. We'll all find ourselves residing in 8 tacky commercial zone, instead of the :
sylvan retreat we now so thoroughly enjoy.
Please, convey my heartfelt opposition to this application to our Commissioners.
~chard L. :radley
ktA;/Alu Fl.
V A.~ Ii. Bradley
52
ATTACHMENT F
RECEIVED
JUL 02 1999
PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
ol~o {OA
102 Wend over Lane
Charlottesville, VA 22911
June 30, 1999
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning
And Community Development
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Mr. Wade,
We are writing to express our support of the special use permit which has been
requested by Scott and Vicki Supraner of 346 Key West Dr., Charlottesville, VA. The
Supraners have applied for a Class B Home Occupation License which would allow
them to work in their home pottery studio according to the following restrictions:
1. They may employ up to, but not exceeding, two apprentices to work during
normal business hours (Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm).
2. They may utilize their entire basement area of 1614 sq.' for work and storage
space.
3. They may hold up to three "Open Studio" shows per year. Each showing will
be limited to a single day and will occur between the hours of 9am and 5pm.
We believe that these requests are both fair and reasonable and will not
adversely effect our community. People should be allowed to live and work in their
homes provided their activities are not disruptive to their neighbors. We appreciate the
Supraners' honest approach to their situation and approve of their request.
--.'" :....:.;;'/= -'~/-SET) b!./~' f',~'::''5~
Sincerely, ~
Greg and Jane Shaw
cr~
4'1...... I n o-J...)";o.-' , v
...1/ .__ ! ~
-;~. 0-:0.A1-Ji) v: ::'1<.: '../<-= r; ,cc.. ': ~.~
~~~; ~ -. - -- ; ~
. . .,-''':---
/0 1-: ~ ".::-,::' ! _ .' . - - - --
_ /-'-
.... -:-. I
~. ~
-:.. l":::- ",; ..
- -~'. _._~...
- /"-
- . .. I
. '-, - ~: ':. '-:,":' --. '",- ,? ! ~ >1 ; i'.. ~ - r:-17.:: /,'/'.
, h " .
T~.i;
--1- ,-..
- .../ ,... .....
..
, ",,-
...
. ,
.... !".-:;(;' _.1 --:.' '~"JC1';' ~S
:Si"'~ f,l'-;-p.;,..) -=-f' j.... 7 ('J 2.~ -:-
, .
\\ ;2,1:' ~ 5~;.; Ave
'\ . ..., ~ " I
, 1(' 1\1 Dl c!.' _
;, )~~~~ ~~ '~.: -- ' l ' f-- t---r-.~N r.:'1- ' -~
-I' "'. \ 11'(- --,.. <'ri'::r"I'j\..-;-r... ~_--~:1' '-'- ''':'','':f''': ,l~:.- .;:-r....C1'..~:~r"'C.{~.~
, - (.:. f ' ; I '-! -::=- 5 ,-;.::- : ::. -" ..I ,....-=_H .; 'C' I ~ :: I . .. - -
--: J,.".:- \?~~. /-:~ ._
:..: t- ...,' ,..0:.......
~~h :~~ T~) ~. I~ -: --..-.,.::..,,;....<. '-/C"_; -/".:
- '
./:"'J)"
'-i:.; ~ t
.---
,...
,,-::"'-' _" .' _:~ '.:... ..i
..:::~:":=-
.-.. ". ,- .
..,./'.- /".. ~- --.--..--'5- - --
- ..-. --'.
'-"~- - -
'-.....-;
.'# ..-'.
53
,<-~";~~
EXHIBIT C
In August of 1999, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors issued a provisional
license to Scott and Vicki Supraner for a home occupation/pottery studio in the
basement of their home at 346 Key West Drive, Charlottesville. The license was
granted for the period of one year and was subject to the following conditions:
1. Not more than two (2) employees who are not family members who reside on
site.
2. The normal hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday.
3. The home occupation shall be limited to the basement area as it currently
exists (1,614 square feet).
4. Equipment associated with this use is restricted to four (4) indoor electric
kilns.
5. No permanent signs shall be posted on the property.
6. Use shall comply with the provisions of section 4.14 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance, and shall verify compliance with all applicable waste
handling/disposal and water control regulations for septic disposal of the
Virginia Department of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, and
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.
The license was issued on a provisional basis to better assess the impact of this
use on adjacent properties and the surrounding community. To date, no complaints or
negative reports have been received by the County Planning Department regarding
our home occupation. Clearance letters have been issued by all the agencies
indicated in the sixth condition of the provisional license and are attached herewith.
Based on the performance of this home occupation as evidenced by its
approval by local, state, and federal regulatory agencies and its unobtrusive presence
in the community, we are requesting that our studio, The Hawksbill Pottery, be issued
a permanent license, subject to the aforementioned conditions.
54
Department of Building Code and Zoning Service,
TMP~,6 ~lL1--j2 _L2__
. 1 if Staff
Application for Special Use Permit
THe HA-WKS~/'-t. Pe;i-rERY
,
,,/
:tt I
\J
~
.~
~
.;~
, ~\b('~\~
rJ./
County of Albemarle .:.
~:ICEU~~L~lf)()_ 0,
Sign#~ Mag. Dist.
Project Name (how should we n:fcr 10 Ibis applic:a1ion?)
*Existing Use
Proposed Use
leA
*Zoning Ordinance Section number requested / () . :( . :l . :3 I
I,q/g
*Zoning District
(*staff will assist you with these items)
Number of acres to be covered ~y Special Us.e Permit (If. portion II must be delineated on plat)
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a site development plan with this application?
)[YesD No
o YesD No
Contact Person (Whom should we call/write concerning this project?): S CoT-r 5;{} P 12.A IV E Q
Address 3tl6 Kl?'1 W€$r DR, City CffA;€to71E'.5 V/U8tate~ Zip 22'11
Daytime Phone (8o~) ;;)... t>;~. ~635 Fax # E-mail
Owner of land (As listed in the County's records): ~-r -+
VICTtJl2lr1 .:5t1r'RrJNt:~
City CJI/It.t,E State VA- ZipZ'2'7I,
Address 316 /Q;'( WF$T D~.
Daytime Phone ( 8-tJ t/) d. 9 s' 8'63 5' Fax #
E-mail
Applicant (Who is the contact person representing? Who is requesting the special use?): -rHE ffA-i1/,i::SB / t,l_ -? t17T E'I< if
Address "3 '16 J:::E'1/N c$-T PI? '
Daytime Phone (~ ~q 5", ~6 '3 ~ Fax #
C'lty ~ lVI' J ~ S 1 fA Z' 2Zt::1 J
v vc..c::- tate vrr Ip / /J
E- mail
Tax map and parcel 628/- ~O- 0(;. - ~/2..00 Physical Address Cifassigned)
"3tf6 ILG'L( W€"~T 1>12 c..HA~t.07it:Sl/iLLE/ VA- 2ZC)J/
Location of property (Iandmarks,intersections,orOlher) {,.. -I Z. J 15 -C, S; -I )eEl( WF.>T
, ,
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 NO
OFFICE USE ONLY
Fee amount $
o Special Use Permits:
,{-
Date Paid ,J /Ol 0 I bf; Check #
qq - 3a I 0 ZMAs and Proffers:
-<11- o..(11~JeO ~ 12
Receipt # By: ~
History:
o Variances:
I. q I <ir a. eYeS
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan?
o Letter of Authorization
c;;rYes 0 No
401 McIntire Road .:+ Charlottesville, VA 22902 .:+ Voice: 296'-5832 .:. Fax: 972-4126 55
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 Comprehensive Plan designation for this property?
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property?
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property?
How is the use in hannony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance?
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
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?
56
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:
ATTACHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each:
o
o
1.
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.
2.
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 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 document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
o
o
3.
4.
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
knO~'
3 .~ .t>O
. ~-{". -
Signature - .. Date
C;:~7r 4. aptV)(l/EJe... ~tJf';)..r.s-.8-6 sS;
Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
57
KEY
V'-- L.- l/ (-'. G t...-if.ss ;j // / 1-1 c- // /1wk S.,8 / L. L /-::>(:;) rr ~ /c/
31/6 Ie' FY t1; G5 T O/~:/ c!. /v/t-
- . . . '" -- I f V l't:::'
GARAGE DOOR
r-t I I I I I. I I I I I I 1- I I I I I I I 1 I I I
:pi
/K
T
.1
I
~
FOUNDATION I FIREPLACE
111111
K =
T =
PW =
S=
E =
PM =
WID =
H =
P =
I
KILN
TABLE
POTTER'S WHEEL
SHELVES
EXTRUDER
PUG MILL
WASHERtDRYER
HOT WATER HEATER
ELECTRIC PANEL
lONE INCH = 8 FEET
K
I T
~K S
ST AIRS ..
I
,S
.. I
81 T
1
I.;PW
[.J
ISR
I SL,48,RCLL ;Z
~ S
- wi! b i
I I ! 'H
is
! I I I I I I I I I I I I I ip;S
r-
is
i
is
K
BATHROOM
T
~
(:~:PW
i
{;-[ECT/2/c ":;;rEC-IFlcATIONS ON TJ-/t;: KILNS A-12E A-s fOL-t-OW~:
.;2.. W ;J tj-O Vol+ sAc
/ ? hI;( 5' c t.f 8 A f'l1?S
/ ! S:1v V&/-fs
TI-J&" .5 TUOltJ I.s- ON TfI E B.A.s EM EIVT L- El/EL t?F A- T'12 /1/4TE
()l.;Vt:LL/I'IG-. WAt-K- OVT AccESS" F~oM -2 DOCJKS / ~ W/NDOt<J~
A N [) ;3 0 liE I< HE .4 ;:J GA 12,L} GE DOOR ~ P R (/1/ / 0 E M t? /2 E T I-J AN
t4DEQvATF VE/VTILAT/ON /7ND +AC-UITI1;E ENTERING- +-
CYITING- THe- l31/fLIJING-.
~~
.
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of sUflervisors
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 additiona.l information which will assist the County in its icview of your request.
If you need assistance filling out these items, staff is available. . _
;:;: AM A :P Ro-f ~ s :5 IoN 4 t- P o-r::rE I;(
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation forth is property? l/V-I-f-tJ we R):::. {; 4 T Ho (VI E . I Wo V/,-J)
{,...lkE 10 (31:: ABLE /0 H/I2-F I'1PPrLC/VT/CES 1?J A5~/~T (IV .5rvO/o W~1€.../::....
HowwilltheproposedspeciaI use affect adjacent property? AD J/7 C c=-NT Pf< o;oF RTIE S w / L L
NOT SG'AFFG"CTFO 73lf APPf2-FIVTlCF-.S IN 7f-IESrUj)/O. PA;qf=:-IN~
I (; OFF 7t-f-E ::;;TaEFT /tT THE /2-cAR of TME !3L//LLJIN~.
THE :$TvO /0 II OPEN ;-fOi/S"1?51/ ;'V111 Y cRF/tTF S oftlE ;'l/JOIT10N4L
TA.4FFIr:. L B(/r P!RORARt. y No /VltJRE Tf-I,41\! AN AV~R,4$-E YI1-/2.0 S4L..J.
AND VVOUl-D oNe. Y EX/S'T FoR- TI-fI2.i?G' S#Of2-T peplODS' t9- CfEAe .
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the property? /Vll'r IV Y /-Iz; /l1 E'"
DC-C()P/l-T/O/V-S A-L-Rc:~DY c:;=x/c5'r IN ;c.E.=y _We:-S-r;~ MA/Vlf WITH
lJA-R/A-NCFS -f- CL.A-S ~ B L.-/ct?NS ES. Tlfe- J\; EIGfl8t)~HOOO SEe:-ftJS
7b .s U PPORT rH-esE /+,CTI VIT/e~ AND TlfE FEN R..Fttf veST~ ::r 41"7
fl1AIc.fJV'{;- Do /VO; S-EeM [3"XCE"PTIOI'f/1-L /N TfiE/R 8CoPE~
" II
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.:? -r I-J E R... A 20 N IN&- PI<. 0 tt If)
FOR THI!; E""x /STE/VCG' OF A -HOfrJr: OCC UP-'1Do!V A IVD THF .5-rtL€ OF
!-I,4-NJJMA-OC;:- IT!:?)v1S~ ~ A-Ct<JWK/'IG- ,q"oPIt?ENT/CES Tv' 11/0Rk WITh'
fVlE DOcS NOT DISt<:!..tlPT rife:- OIQ/G-I,rv,4-L INTENT/eN tPF THe-
(9;:<' all./,41'1 CE TO F/fC /?IT.4TE ,5;11,4!- t. ,DOMes nc 13 IVrEi<rR.IS"E s.
Tl-fe sTUtJ10 CoNTINues /0 t-v(IJCTION qN A peR..5oNAc.- -SC./1L-E.
How is the use.: in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district? (1-16" P07T c R 'f STV /JI 0
r:IT-:; THE .DE~C-;;?/PT(ON OF A -(-I-C!11c:= ocC.UP"19T7oN FEP-FEL-Tt..-lj
(>ItOf)(/C/NG- ONc..y HANO/L1AIJF /TeM~ 4MD ';=UMCTIONIN6- .
4s A -rA/V1It-Cf OWNE J) B U,SI/v' ES~ Ii IS E YA CTLi THE k.IND
DF COTTA-G-E INDVcST;Q1j tHAT 15 'pE~/l1/rFcO SLf RIG-1fT IN
rI+-Eo/S-T12fC/- /!NJ) TIfE SPEcl.;c/c I',RA I. Zc)N/NC;- W7"t-s MF.4NT TO
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinancc apply to this usc? c I\f C b) t/ R /I G- E _
,r
CC--A-Y 15 G-f3Nc!<,A,{"I..f( A WA~TE-FR.EE'/ /v7/fTcl2-/A-,-, CL4'1 ~CRAf=
A-..ec: Rc-P(2.~c.eSSED /ttVD USeD A-6-/tIN. TliE K/L/VS" ;r U5C
he!!? EL..ELTRIC A/VO PRoOvcE No SMOkE OR FVjV)Es To DI$'TV~
/'IE /GIfBo~..J 012. POL.e... v TE THE EN 'vIR(/NMEN T Nt; 1-rI-lEI2.. .D 0 TI-J.e
(5 ow will this use promote the public health. safety, and general WClfar.c of the community? /<. I c- tV S' -fl4v E /r N'
oPcIJ Ft..-A/vJE Fol2. $'rl.rcry PI/RPO~r:=.s. /vONE t)t=: THe S'-!+op
E3l./~t.{,C0!!Nr pR..OovccS /VCJIS'E OR... OiH?'R. NVfS-A.~-:::'E F,4c.roR.~_
EM P L.(::) 'f MEN r IN r HE I- IN E /t R 1..5 -t- C,€.,4 F T S . I ~ L- I M IT 1:::-- 0 _ 131(
MAli/Me- /'rPPIUfNTlcc<;;HIPS I1-v,.qIt...ABL.E I OFFe-R TRrl/NIN~ +- EypcRIEN.
WH ICH IS v 1-rA-t.. /0 CONTIN(.I/ N.?- TH e TRA bl TIO;VS 0;::" H AN 0 /No/?" Ie
Vv'HIC-1f HAVF c X/STEP ~tJ;Q c...c NiuR. 11:::- ~ _ THE P,QF'5ENcE 0;:=
C.jQEA T / vE ENDE /t v rf)vR. /.All L--L- e NH/1 NeE A NY c.OM /VI (..IN lilt 59
..A, IA/~J,~/I I-r- I~
/1 "...., '" ~_
,
~
'{-
,
~
~
-...
~
~
\f\
~
~
~
~
~
'\
....
~
.....
~
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: WbR.;: tr-otl/C.S FtJ R...
;4PPf?IiNT/CF.5 WILt.. BE!" DVtf':/NG- Tff-F PEI2It:Jt:) f=R()fr1 qrtf!1-.5 PM
fVJO/llIJA-tj- Fte/Orrt( WITf/ OCCA55/D/'/4-L- WGGkF/VP &/,lies OUIC./NG-
/Jf./.$V PEI<It:?/JS. I/V 4DD//"lo/1// I A-M RF(f(/F~T/fVt:- tJPt3RI'1T//V~
!+rJu/2..r ON TIlf2Fi: TIMFS; 4 \1F,4iC- FoR. I(OPEI\! HOtJSFS// A-r T-I-JE
STVDf(J -F()'€ SftL-FS PvI?RO~t:'S: ONE IN THE SPRI/IIG-/ SUfrTMER..
A-;VD Dv;Q/NG- Tl-JE rtoL--/OA Y SE4~oN. THESE !/Vtf).ut.-L) BE F{}/2.
pE/2./00S of up TO .3 ..DAVS ~4cH/ VVfl~,q11 C..A/~TtJj11f3;QS VvtJ[/t-D
hE /Nv/TE{) To T(JJVR THE <;;//010 + pUA.Cr//7-SE W8RK 51}[,.E<;
DI.Jf2IN(;. {HE" t<-EST of TH'E YE>4ce !;VoUL-() 9E GOVERtJ!3'D ~ If TlfE
A TT A CHMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: E X / <::"T/ IV rr L-- / M ITA- n oN ~
I N TI+E Ho/'1 F O';C--U P B G /I / DEit-( N c s, R 6 qt/rcs T 11 \; A (2{ ~ NC-€ 0 N
THti' A/I/JOl/NI OF SPA~~ t:JE3(2(l1/'TrI!?D Fot2 'THE Sivo/V' 70
o 1. Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezonina. If there is
no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of e property and
the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number.
o
//
Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only fo(.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.
2.
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.
d-
If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a document acceptable to the County must be
submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency.
OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS:
E
o
3.
4.
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
knO~((;~ fJ.. / S. 99
Signature Date
~C-OTT ,4. 0I/PRA-IVER- 8;00. 8.15' 'c9635
Printed Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
60
~~;';~:," .
.~ .?~<...' ...
~ ~.~::
J: ,;.." ;
~ "W.:...-'~;;: 0''';
~"("'~.J""-'.' "I.",
...'}".,.......:. ~9" ;.>.:!A.:'
.,~,,~ ':;;,i!'~~
'. .:r>t.; '- ~""".
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the
State Department of Health
Office of Environmental Health
Phone (804) 972-6259
FAX (804) 972-4310
Thomas Jefferson Health District
1138 Rose Hill Drive
P. O. Box 7546
Charlottesville, Virginia 22906
ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
FLUVANNA COUNTY IPALII.4YRA)
GREENE COUNTY !STANAROSVILLE)
LOUISA COUNTY (LOUIS/,)
NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
MEMORANDUM
To: Dave Hirshman, Water Resource Manager
Scott Supraner, owner
From: Dwayne Roadcap, Technical consulta~
Subject: The Hawksbill Pottery. Determination of Safe, Adequate & Proper Sewage
Disposal System. Tax Map 62BI-12, Key West Subdivision Lot 12.
Date: September 21, 1999
I made a site visit to the above-specified property on September 14. The purpose of the
visit was determine if the existing sewage disposal system could be found "safe, adequate
and proper" as required by Title 32.1-165 of the Code of Virginia. I examined the ground
surface where the sewage disposal system appeared to be located and found no evidence
of surface exposure of effluent. The septic tank was uncovered and found to be located
approximately four feet below the ground surface with a riser attached for access. The
septic tank appeared to be 1,000 gallons in size. Effluent characteristics in the septic tank
appeared to be normal.
Based on the Material Safety Data Sheets provided to the local health department and
correspondence from Mr. Supraner regarding the operation of the home occupation
business, no violations \vith the Commonwealth of Virginia Sewage Handling and
Disposal Regulations appear evident. Use of the household and home occupation should
generate wastewater flows expected of a three-bedroom dwelling. I anticipate the
existing sewage disposal system is designed for a maximum capacity of 450 gallons per
day. The anticipated average daily flow should not exceed 290 gallons per day. The
owners should monitor monthly water use readings to assure compliance with these
figures.
A more precise design capacity for the system could be determined if the distribution box
were uncovered and examined.
61
~\~t:.O S7',,~
V ~oS'
i ~ t,
$~Ta~
~ '('
~'" ",#
~( PRQ"t~C.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
:'1 '0 ..... _ .r.... -~
,..
Mr. Scott Supraner, Owner
The Hawksbill Pottery
346 Key West Drive
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
Dear Mr. Supraner:
This letter is in response to a compliance inspection
conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) at your
business on August 17, 1999. The inspection resulted from
concerns expressed" to EPA regarding the nature of wastewater
generated by your business and the method of wastewater
management.
Based upon the results of the site visit, the extensive
material relating to your business provided to our inspector and
our telephone conversations with you, EPA has no environmental
concern with your waste handling practices in general and the use
of your septic system specifically. Single family, solely
sanitary waste septic systems are regulated locally.
We appreciate your cooperation in these matters and the
opportunity to address these issues with you. If you have any
questions please contact me at (215) 814-5461.
Sincerely,
~~\\}ili ~ . ~~~
Mark A. Nelson, Hydrologist
Water Protection Division
cc: David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
62
I THb IS TO CERTIFY THAT ON OECEMUER 9. 1998 I SURVEYED THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON
I THIS PLAT ANO THAT THE T]TlE LINES AND WALLS OF THE BUILDINGS ARE SHOWN HEREON.
\ DECLM~ATION IS MADE TO ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SURVEY. IT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE
TO A09ITIONAl INSTITUTIONS OR SUSSEOUENT OWNERS.
4.PPR~,J. ~AfE LIMITS OF A H,U.O. DEFINED 100 YEAR
FLoa i OH€ "8" 5 lOCATED ON THIS P1=lOPERTY AS
~ ~ COMMVN TY PANEL No. 510006 02~OB.
hIO T~tLE AEPQAT FURNISHED.
5lAVIl!E UTILI 11 ES ARE UUOf.I=lG~OUNO.
~
---
l.OT 11
~
~ \
\
\
\
,
,
1_
..J
- RIVANNA RIVER
-- "'--
t01 ifl til'i IIIPU4I..... UlloM'S
to Cl"IE~ 01 Rive.
"""...--------.....~ ~-
---- ----.:::::::::::-
"'XLI
I. T
SO I '35'''' I .. W
215.02.
----
",.~p~XJ,:",If. I.J~rr1 OF roo .,~
. . .'
'.lC!Op ~'?"f .
LOT 12
346 K[Y WEST onjV(
UJ
.
Q'
M\t"l
cv .
M"'l'
. 1Jl
10M
IX)
Z
70 "+-
_ _ - - - - - - 11
.1;
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
f
I
--
----
~
/~
00. iVVl
Cl
PHYSICAL SURVEY SHOWI~G
LOT 12
BLOCK e
KEY WEST
SCALe: ,.. - 50.
AleE~ARLE COUNTY. VII=lGINIA
. .. . .1
.1
1
,
I
,
ART~VR F. ED~~~S
I
f 'UrMt't!1
,~ .f.k
! .~
.. '1-.
: t"':
i 0 AmUl ,. EOIWa~ t
":. lGO-t1 ~
~, <0( <:fl'. ,~..
-',:0 SUR"'~"""
,'.....-'-,
- -
I"""
1[1
-
*-
x
.
. 0
,...,0
Q.
. .....
~~
cv.....
IX)
en
LOT 13
ia'I,'_l
VlI, !I) h 10
~ J~ ,.,..." L'"
~
r
~
.,.
;t;
i
SEe 1
OECE~8ER 9, 1998
8. AUBAEY HUFFMAN & ASSocYA TES. LTD.
CIVIL cNGIN€EfUNG - LAND SURvEYING - LA~ RlANNING
CHARlOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA. .
...,......
ill .... C
63
Mr. Rooker said it would come up if the applicant were trying to subdivide and sell the
.-.~', property, then the SP :would kick in.
_ There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Hopper seconded approval of SP 00-13 with conditions
amended as follows:
4. The applicant shall provide stabilization of the culvert and adjoining stream banks. As
part of this work, the applicant shall reconstruct the culvert stream crossing. The
reconstruction shall include lowering one culvert pipe such that the pipe invert is at least
six inches below the stream invert and shall include sufficient separation between the
culvert pipes that proper compaction of the fill material can occur. These improvements
shall be part of an Erosion Control Plan approved by Engineering and shall include
additional measures determined necessary by Engineering for the purpose of stabilizing
the proposed driveway. This plan must be approved by Engineering within 2 months of
approval of this Special Use Permit. The plan shall be bonded by the applicant upon
approval and all improvements shown on the plan must be implemented in the field
within 3 months of receiving approval unless modified by Engineering due to the time of
year.
7. Should be renumbered a., b., c. to replace e., f., g. (mis-numbered).
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-2000-14 The Hawksbill Pottery (Sign #29) - Request for a special use permit to allow a
home occupation for a pottery making business in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the
Zoning Ordinance which allows for home occupations. The property, described as Tax Map
62 Bl, Block C, Parcel 12 in the Key West Subdivision, contains 1.918 acres, and is located
in the Rivanna Magisterial District on Key West Road [Route 1445] . The property is zoned
RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural
Area 2.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report, noting that the Board unanimously approved the SP last
year with a condition that it would come back to them in one year. There were several
concerns expressed at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings
regarding traffic, safety, and noise, which is why the Board wanted the fe-review.
Mr. Wade noted that during the trial year, there have been no complaints. When the new SP
request went up, the county did receive some calls asking if last year was a typical year.
Staff determined in discussions with the applicant that it was a typical year. He added that
last year, they received one letter of opposition from a next-door neighbor.
Mr. Wade concluded that staff is recommending approval of the SP without the condition
that it come back in one year.
Mr. Rooker asked about the comment in the staff report about 14 retail shows.
Mr. Wade answered that the retail shows were held in other locations around the state, and in
other states.
Mr. Rooker asked if this was an approval for retail sales.
Mr. Wade responded that the applicant is not planning to have retail sales from the home.
Mr. Rooker asked, "Is there anything that prevents this from being used as a general retail
site for the sale of pottery."
Mr. Kamptner said that the regulations applied to home occupations state: "There shall be no
sales on the premises, other than items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with the
home occupation." He stated that the regulations allow for retail sales on the site. Mr.
Kamptner emphasized that another part of the ordinance states that the home occupation
cannot generate mOre traffic "in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a
residential neighborhood."
Mr. Rooker asked if the neighbors found out that they were operating a retail business, the
existing ordinance would kick in.
Mr. Kamptner acknowledged that he has only had to deal with it once before, and zoning
struggles with making that determination.
Mr. Cilimberg said that traffic normally associated with a house is 10 trips per day, which
includes trips for work purposes, etc.
Mr. Wade pointed out that the applicant working from home would have four trips cut out.
Mr. Rooker commented that if there began to be a lot of traffic, the Zoning Administrator
could begin to take action.
Mr. Loewenstein said that last time, there were Commission-imposed conditions limiting the
applicant to no more than 3 open house events per year. He noted that staff found an
unfavorable factor in that "traffic associated with open houses three times a year would be
greater than normally anticipated in a residential neighborhood, however it would not be
dissimilar to traffic normally associated with a yard sale."
Mr. Loewenstein asked, "Where do we draw the line, in terms of traffic volume. How does
zoning look at this when there is an enforcement issue. . . .is there some sort of frequency that
allows this to be somewhat limited?"
Mr. Cilimberg said, "If it was every weekend, you'd be getting into more than anticipated."
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the issue was discussed at length by the Commission and the
Board last time, and the Board removed that condition.
Mr. Loewenstein wondered if zoning were going to look at violation, what type of
measurement they would they use,
Mr. Kamptner said he was not sure how zoning would apply that, whether it would be
assessed daily or weekly.
Mr. Rooker said he preferred the condition last time that the Commission had passed, noting
that the applicant agreed with it.
Mr. Wade emphasized that the applicant's intent is to train apprentices in pottery, and sales
would continue to occur at roadshows.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there have been 6 sales at the home during the period of August 11,
1999 to March 20,2000.
Mr. Wade said that that was mentioned in the staff report so that there is some means to
define what a "typical year" is.
Mr. Rooker said his concern is not what this applicant is doing, but the fact that the SP runs
with the land. He added that he is also concerned that comparable applications, with
comparable lack of restrictions might turn a residential area into a service area for businesses.
Mr. Rooker suggested that there be a condition that prevents the use from becoming too
intense.
Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the original limiting condition was dropped by the Board at the
applicant's request.
Mr. Finley asked about defining a typical year.
Mr . Wade said that the past year gives some idea what is typical.
Mr. Rooker noted that without conditions, there would be no restrictions from preventing one
year to have a lot more sales, and one year to have less.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Scott Supraner, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He emphasized that retail
sales are not even an issue addressed in this SP, so it doesn't set precedents in any way. Mr.
Supraner explained that retail sales are covered under a Class A Home Occupation in which
there is a limitation of 5:7 customer visits per week. He said it doesn't state anything about
traffic flow, but speaks specifically to the number of times customers come visit.
Mr. Supraner said that the reason the open houses have been dropped is they seemed to be
the primary focus of the neighbors' concerns. He said that the Board wanted to satisfy
community interests by eliminating that clause, and he is fine with that. Mr. Supraner noted
that the six pottery sales he had in the past year fall under the Class A Home Occupation
permit. He emphasized that he does not make sales from his home; it is done as a service to
local customers who need something when he is not doing a local show. Mr. Supraner added
that he does four shows in the Charlottesville area - two in Lee Park, and two in Crozet. He
said that he also shows at the Downtown Mall during Christmas, and at the Farmers Market
that meets every Saturday. "The need for people to come visit me at my home is minimal."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Loewenstein said that the applicant has effectively responded to,Commissioners'
concerns, noting that a Class A Home Occupation does permit some activity in connection
with it. He added that the applicant has also worked to address concerns from the neighbors
also.
MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein recommended approval ofSP-0014 with six conditions
recommended by staff.
Mr. Rooker asked about the applicant's reference of 5-7 customer visit per week limitation,
noting that it is not in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner said that sales from things that are created from the home are allowed.
Mr. Rooker noted that his concern is that the only limitation on retail sales activity is a
"somewhat nebulous traffic standard."
Mr. Kamptner said, "That's how you will measure whether you're complying with the
regulations if you're selling."
Mr. Rooker said, "Unless you impose some other limit on retail sales, as we had done
previously."
Mr. Loewenstein wondered how that would be enforced, agreeing with Mr. Rooker's concern
about what might happen under different ownership.
Ms. Hopper seconded Mr. Loewenstein's motion.
Ms. Hopper noted that the Board seemed to get rid of the limitation the Commission
suggested because they might have thought it would open the door to more retail sales.
Mr. Rooker said that taking the condition out means there is no limitation other than the
general traffic limitation.
Ms. Hopper suggested putting it back in.
Mr. Loewenstein commented, "It didn't fly the last time with the Board."
Ms. Hopper noted that was because of public outcry.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "If that's the case, then putting it back in should have be more
satisfactory to the public than taking it out because it provides further limitation than is
possible otherwise."
Mr. Rooker commented that when the Commission held their public hearing, the complaints
were regarding having a retail business at all. "There were some pretty vociferous objections
to this special use permit.. . and we imposed that condition as a way to try to assure the public
that the [activity] would not be expanded beyond the parameters represented by the
applicant." He added, "You don't know what you're going to get, eventually down the
road."
Mr. Finley remarked, "No one so far has come forward tonight with any concerns from the
public. "
Mr. Thomas said, "Last time we really tried to protect the residential atmosphere of Key
West, and I would like to see the recommendation put back in there."
Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the reason the Board took it out was that they found that open
houses associated with a home occupation would not be normally considered as an activity
within the parameters of home occupations, because of traffic generated. He added that the
county has permitted open houses for home occupations in the past because it was thought
they couldn't do it otherwise. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that n0t having them listed was
essentially saying you couldn't do them.
Mr. Loewenstein stated that there wasn't any mention in the previous application of any
other kind of limiting condition on the SP as it was approved for that first year.
Ms. Hopper asked if there should be some limitation on retail activity.
Mr. Loewenstein wondered if existing traffic parameters in the ordinance take care of it.
Mr. Kamptner said, "Zoning will have to look on it on an individual basis when they get a
complaints."
Mr. Cilimberg said, "It hasn't been an issue, and I do think that if you start having regular
open houses in home occupation, you will be in violation of your Home Occupation."
Mr. Rooker stated he is comfortable with the six conditions.
The motion for approval ofSP 00-014 with six conditions passed unanimously.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
District Home Property Settlement
AGENDA DATE:
June 21, 2000
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAUREQUEST: .
Board to hold a public hearing and authorize the
Chairman to sign deed for the sale of the District Home
property in Staunton
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Tucker, White, Davis
REVIEWED BY:
-
BACKGROUND:
In October 1999, the District Home held an auction to dispose of the District Home real and personal property.
Although the highest bid received for the property was $425,000 from an adjacent property owner, Ms. Sheri
Smith, subsequent to the auction, the District Home Board ultimately negotiated a purchase price with Ms. Smith
for $600,000. Based upon the County's participation rate, which has been minimal, plus some operating
expenses that have been paid out of the assets over the past two years, the County does not expect to receive
a large settlement from the property sale.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for your review and approval is a resolution to be signed after the June 21st hearing which authorizes
the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute the deed to Sheri L. Smith on behalf of the County. Also
attached is the deed of conveyance and a signature page to be signed by the Chairman.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board hold a public hearing to receive comments on the sale of the District Home
property and approve the resolution authorizing the Chairman to execute the attached deed.
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
00.12,Q
-'::.-DjP J~ .~ RC
,!,,/
000002 75
PG 00 r 2 OCT 20 g
Account #630-700
This deed exempt from recording tax under Virginia Code ~58.1-811(c)(3).
(The following deed was prepared by Joseph B. Yount III, Attorney, at Law,
611 South WayneAvenue, Waynesboro, Virginia 22980.)
THIS DEED, Made and entered into this the 25th day of April, 2000, by and
between the Counties of ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY, AUGUSTA, BATH,
ROCKBRIDGE, Virginia, and the Cities of CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON,
LEXINGTON, and W A YNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part, hereinafter referred
to as Grantors; and SHERI L. SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable Trust
Agreement as Amended and Restated on October 31, 1996, party of the second part,
hereinafter referred to as Grantee, whose address is Quiet Entry Farm, Post Office Box 947,
Waynesboro, Virginia 22980;
WITNESSETH:
That for and in consideration of the sum ofTen Dollars ($10) cash in hand paid
and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and
pursuant to authority granted by the governing bodies of the respective counties and cities,
the said Counties of ALBEMARLE, ALLEGHANY, AUGUSTA, BATH, ROCKBRIDGE,
Virginia, and the Cities of CHARLOTTESVILLE, COVINGTON, LEXINGTON, and
W A YNESBORO, Virginia, parties of the first part, Grantors, hereby grant, bargain, sell and
convey, with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS OF TITLE, unto the
said SHERI L. SMITH, Trustee of the Sheri Legendre Smith Revocable Trust Agreement as
Amended and Restated on October 31, 1996, party of the second part, Grantee, the following
described real estate:
All those certain lots or parcels of land, together with any and all
improvements thereon and all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereunto
belonging or in anywise appertaining, lying and being in the City of
Waynesboro, Virginia, including: (1) Parcel A of Twenty-four and
- 1 -
~\ 'v
***
*** ATTA
PGO 0 I 3 OCT 20 g
Twenty-seven Thousandths (24.027) acres by survey; (2) Parcel B of One
Hundred Six and Nine Hundred Seven Thousandths (106.907) acres by
survey, both as shown on a certain "Waiver of Subdivision Plat For District
Home Farm, Waynesboro, Virginia," dated October 5, 1999, by Brenneman
Engineering, Stuarts Draft, Virginia, a copy of which plat is attached hereto
and made a part hereof as Attachment "A"; and (3) Parcel C of Five and Six
Hundred Fifty-nine Thousandths (5.659) acres by survey, as shown on a
certain "Plat For District Home - Parcel C, Waynesboro, Virginia," dated
October 5, 1999, by Brenneman Engineering, Stuarts Draft, Virginia, a copy
of which plat is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Attachment "B".
.-
The said Parcels A and B hereinabove referred to being a part of the real estate
conveyed to the District Board of Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge
Counties, the successors to which are the Grantors hereinabove first set forth, by deed of
Fred Driver and Daisy E. Driver, his wife, dated March 1, 1927, duly of record in Deed Book
229 at page 187 of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the County of Augusta, Virginia,
reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "A") is hereby made for a more
particular description as well as derivation of title; and
The said Parcel C hereinabove referred to being the same real estate conveyed
to the District Board for Albemarle, Alleghany, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge Counties,
and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia,. the successors to which are the Grantors
hereinabove first set forth, by deed of G. H. Branaman, Trustee, dated May 26, 1945, duly of
record in Deed Book 330 at page 436 of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office of the County of
Augusta, Virginia, reference to which deed and the aforesaid plat (Attachment "B") is hereby
made for a more particular description as well as derivation of title.
The parties of the first part include in this conveyance to the party of the
second part the cemetery lot shown on Attachment "A" as containing Three Hundred
Seventy-five Thousandths (0.375) acre, surrounded by the aforesaid Parcel A, shown on said
Attachment "A", on the express condition that the said cemetery parcel shall remain in its
NT "A" RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 6, PAGE 25 ***
-2-
PG 0 0 I 4 OCT 20 g
natural state, used for natural recreation or grazing purposes, and not otherwise be disturbed
or used for any other purpose or cultivated except as pasture, nor shall any structure of any
kind be constructed thereon.
This deed is made and accepted subject to the easements, conditions,
reservations, and restrictions of record contained in the chain of title to the property herein
conveyed which have not expired by reason of the limitations therein contained or otherwise
become ineffective.
WITNESS the following signatures and seals:
ATTEST:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
By P?f% /I ~
Sally H. Thomas, Vice-
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
~oah--hl OF -A-I hernar/e
J
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the :l ) st day of
Vice-
0Ufl e-- , 2000, by Sally H. Thomas ,. Chairmal'1 of the Board of Super.;isors
of Albemarle County, Virginia, and likewise attested by Ella W. Carey, Clerk, on behalf of
said County of Albemarle, Virginia.
My Commission expires
~O.
oJ::o/D2
Notary Public
'". ....1.
- 3 -
PG 0 0 I 5 OCT 20 g
B
f,6:tO Y/. E. BuJr.g e.
Coun.:ty Ac:lJrU.rU,o:tJr..a.toft
ATTEST:
J{~A.~
Melissa A. Landis, Deputy Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
~OF A:1lUrMj
, to-wit:
. ISr
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the -L- day of
. M ~ ' 2000, by E..to n E. Bwtg e, M Coun.ty Adrn-i..rW.:tJuJ.UJt
of Alleghany County, Virginia, and likewise attested by Melissa A. Landis, Deputy Clerk, on
behalf of said County of Alleghany, Virginia.
My Commission expires. r;[)1U. .3 If Z(J) 3
C1J W(IJ;.~blrRM!
~ lUM ~l~ cwJ
&1J C LV (ili~ .
[balance of page intentionally left blank)
-4-
PG 00 , 6 OCT 20 g
o
COUNfY-OF AUGUSTA,
'j ,.
,r~, ---..-..
By;/ /i ~ 7"/~0';'
}. Donald Hanger ,//
j/. Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
, lerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
CGlLJ\\~ OF UuSUMev
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the ~ 4Ql, day of
~f
, 2000, by 1. Donald Hanger, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
.. ,. .of,Augusta County, Virginia, and likewise attested by Patrick J. Coffield, Clerk, on behalf of
;.;~~r~~J !.:.....;,~?~:~;;}; .. . .
.:'::';>~.:,.~':.. ~~~a~9o.~ty.9tAugusta, Virginia.
i~~\'4::"'i~;'~t;\~:tl!f ... ~ ~-
i,~", f/;....1i : ,.~\t~''l:ll;"!'-:!'' My CommissIOn expIres ~ '3 \) j:J) 3
.i{4::'~;.(,;/: ,7?;k\\;r~;~~: i '.. ~ R .1
" '1..... ,I .- . '. ,', - .. .' ;~:w.' "''.,."1'' . ", N,'. ~ .
'j1 .I,~.,~ .... 4: J-l~. ..,";>~~r:_;~('~~. (';~ ~~ I ~ .
. ': <;:. ., "It ~...\.'l'....,:;:' Notary PublIc
>.t:;,~:. ~,~:t~~{
[balance of page intentionally left blank)
-5-
PG 0 0 I J OCT 20 g
COUNTY OF BATH, VIRGINIA
BY.~t:..~
Stuart L. Hall
Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
(Yo~ a' G12L:-
Claire A. Collins, Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
a.tJu.f\J~ OF OPV4,
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the I Stft day of
-:f~G:
, 2000, by Stuart L. Hall, as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of
Bath County, Virginia, and likewise attested by Claire A. Collins, Clerk, on behalf of said
County of Bath, Virginia.
My Commission expires .U~/u..,(.. 3( ~OO;)..... \\\\I"'.I!i;~~~,,_
lnf A~M" ~~) ,,'>~\'!J'lrfT(!/:"<
l A _ I J .... ,'(' '* .....0."" /} .
. A"'~ ~~ ~." "'fJ ~'{:...' v.. '-;,
I N P bl' .:: . o~ 'l>.\.lLi!.:! ~ ;,J, ..
otary U IC !' I (,././ '".6..... ...':, ,,:..;;:.;
~~ g&.~:~i' ~", ..-.~ ~:... .~\~. :
::....~.a _....!.\.::f. l.L'" ....,.. 0 ~ ......"'.
~ ~.!.J ~ ~ ~7&t,9 f~ ;:: ~ c. S":~
__ u.1 '1...::.0. Wf'.'''''''';''v~\:) g, ..."
.. ... ';~""" ~.. ';If (,0', ...~... 0 ....... "'* .
"'~.? "<>.o::pa~:(t.~,i~~J/.: ~.'
"""" . '1(':. . "",,- ... f~~.','lI' ;pr ..,:'- ::r .t
".'.., :..' e.. ....?':J:1~~~ l~~" ~
~::" /"1.:.' r~'\q....-...,"
[balance of page intentionally left blank) ')~~.'. if. :~. \;~,. ,....~..v:.
.,.......,~~t,j;1";.
-,
- 6-
PG 0 0 I 8 OCT 20 g
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
C~ OFJm~
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the I ~ ~ day of
~, 2000, by Nana~IJW. Sauder, as Chairman of the Board of
Supervisors of Rockbridge County, Virginia, and likewise attested by Don G. Austin, Clerk,
on behalf of said County of Rockbridge, Virginia.
'." My Commission expires (, / 1,0 /(j;)....
QAl ftJ ~!J. N. j~ I
. (J Notary Pubhc
...'.....:. t(; , '[b2z1anq'iidjpage intentionally left blank]
.~~ ::: ',' /~~~ .,...
'.~.~~
-7-
PG 0 0 I 9 OCT 20 g
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
ATTEST:
~.~O'0
e eO. Cox. Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
City of Charlottesville, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the z/ !Jr
AUGtI.51
day of
,2000, by J. Blake Caravati, as Mayor of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia, and likewise attested by Jeanne O. Cox, Clerk of Council, on behalf of.saflf,City of
. .. . J.,...:~Aft4;:~;t7{~~;;i'
CharlottesvIlle VlrgIma ,~,"~'~;:'<::"!P".,.: ic'1(?t::.
, ..... ",*V}3';~}~Wl;~f;~W:!t!!:'?
My ComnllsslOn expIres Apl'd '- 30 l Z 0 tJ J~>:.~~~ :?i;~;;':/o~;::r;~~...:"
k2 ~ k a .i~{fr.iTt;]W');;' :'~;-1\~~;::;~.
,t...4..- ~Vt ,~t--- "'~~'>l1.;\~':l~,~j.~.,.'.:" .,,'...~.~.f:}:;;':!~
-; ;~",.,,,,, /""\; ':/.tJf.....,:;.:1.~. .:J .:.~. ~ ,J': l."~I!"':'!:
N () """'J /1Y pu Jt2 c....1 C-.'~'~'~~~':'.~.:":;1.'.jJ"~!.;1/).~~..:;..;t~
IffJ-" U "~.'~'...It.~ :"'.!tIfY,..q.:~J." <....'::.1.::'.'
.:'.:~~;.~~~~ >~~~~l ~~t,.\ ~ ~.~ .' tS>':.::'
<H'~~f'~~i~fjJf
[balance of page intentional(v left blank]
-8-
PG 0 0 2 0 OCT 20 g
~
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
~ OF ~h.,-(.~L~-
I"
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the ;?J~,.{ day of
9-Tl-L/ , 2000, by James L. Crawford, as Mayor of the City of Covington,
Virginia, and likewise attested by Edith S. Wood, Clerk of Council, on behalf of said City of
....
, ......'; !~~::
if;: l~' ::E~oVi'ngton, Virginia.
.:~' ",\,"'" , ".'411111 f.'/;'
\\ .. t' /I ',' ." ,..
",\~;'it,:,:.:.$" .J ell,l ..;,,'~fr~'.i.
~ .:.:;..';',:' .- 0.. rfA ~ ...~ ;,!;
f....~,.......t,.6.i~~ 0: ...-.. l.., -;'';l. .4..
.. ':Y. ,.1.,. '/if;". ...~ -:. t,
~ 1:t l~"i:;.~" I~.~!~' ~:-; \ .-\:.
::a ::;, ,~J:t~~ .~~~;:~ ~ : ::!:
; -< i ~ ~t#f. ~.~~~r:: ~ : 1~ g
- "'l3 . ~ .!"'.'. . -I ,.,..., ~ . :::J-
% ~ ..~~-""~-f(: .~~.~~~\ ....,~., I.'
...... ~ :'s,.... \.~~ ",. .........
. '/ '. . p.' a :;.;[
..':.of "'", "/.,..... a.,11 .... U ,'" d.
. ~"'~ ....- ,,,lo~ aC> ...\".::;:1
.. '" ..1.".. . ,...,;;) . :"1.1.'...
:;::. '11,.. . V ~,\,,\' ~.;~.
,.~.../tl" , itl'" . .x',:-
'", /<:i;' '~~:.1'r "(~
My Commission expires ()l//\..30f;oo::<
'1-m tl.J1A_/itL.( _ U_lJat'dlL/
Notary Public
[balance of page intentionally left blank]
- 9 -
PG 0 0 2 I OCT 20 g
CITY OF LEXINGTON, VIRGINIA
ByJH,~~.
H. E. Derrick, Jr. . '\
Mayor
ATTEST:
1!~~
Karen Roundy, Clerk
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
o OF~
, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this the S::= day of
~
, 2000, by H. E. Derrick, Jr., as Mayor of the City of Lexington,
Virginia, and likewise attested by Karen Roundy, Clerk of Council, on behalf of said City of
Lexington, Virginia.
My Commission expires ~/,A, .,5~ ;(CJO:L
~.r..u./ I.1~PubliC
[balance of page intentionally left blank)
- 10-
CI
STATE OF VIRGINIA, AT LARGE,
CITY OF W A YNESBORO, to-wit:
The foregoing instrument was aclrnowledged before me this the ~ 1 ""- day of
~
, 2000, by Charles 1. Ricketts, ill, as Mayor of the City of
Waynesboro, Virgima~ a.I1d likewise attested by Bonnie S. Hamby, Clerk of Council, on behalf
of said City ofWaynesboro, Virginia.
My Commission expires ~ . .30 I A otJ ;;.,
~C.~
:J 'kotary P.uMi~ -
- 11 -
.
PG 0 0 2 3 OCT 20 IS
EXTRACT AS TAKEN FROM THE APPROVED MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING .OF
W A YNESBORO CITY COUNCIL AS HELD oN TUESDAY~OCtOBER 12~1999:
**********
Waiver of Subdivision RequirementslBrenneman for District Home Board of Directors: Mr. Giles
stated that he was in receipt of a request from James Brenneman, Land Surveyor, agent for District Home Board
of Directors, for a Waiver of Subdivision Requirements to divide a single lot into two lots for District Home. He
stated that an auction had been scheduled for the end of October to dispose of the personal property and the real
estate and that it would be in the best interest to dispose of the real estate in two tracts, one containing the buildings
and one that is open acreage. He stated that if a sufficient price is not offered at the auction, it is possible that this
request may be brought back to Council for further configuration of the land. He stated that the staff recommends
approval of the request.
Mr. Higgs noted that the property is co-owned by nine different localities. He asked if the spring and
pump house would remain the property of the City ofWaynesboro to which Mr. Giles replied that it would as it
is not being sold at this time.
Mr. Irvin asked ifbids could be refused if they are not sufficient. Mr. Giles stated that he suspected that
a minimum bid would be set.
Resolution by CouncillWaiver of Subdivision Requirements/Request of James Brenneman, Land
Surveyor, aeent for District Home: Mayor Ricketts then called on the City Attorney to read the resolution that
had been prepared to handle the matter. Mr. Yount read the resolution in its entirety as shown herein below:
RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOL VED by the Council of the City of Waynesboro, Virginia, that the request of James
Brenneman, land surveyor and agent for District Home Board of Directors, owners, for a waiver of subdivision
requirements as to lot lines only, to divide existing Tax Map Parcel B6-1-44, into new Parcels A and B (containing
24.027 acres and 106.907 acres respectively), in accordance with the attached "Waiver of Subdivision Platfor
District Home Farm, Waynesboro, Virginia," dated Oct. 5, 1999, by James Brenneman, a copy of which is
attached hereto, be, and the same hereby is approved as requested, all in accordance with the foregoing plat and
staff repO!i 4f..ted October 8, 1999, each of which is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof
.f _~.(. ~
(appHcafjll,,~~#W."'r 9-:~ I:,
"'~i....J"'"" .'~.". :'. ~~:' .~~'.~: ...~;(l
~, ..' 't,. ". .. ....1 '. <f.. I'
.. . ft..~~/ ;;~.~:~~~~~~bv:€~ adoption of ~he foregoing r~solution. Second~d by Mr. Hicks, ~e moti?n carri~d and
. ~ ~~bn,..~ a,iiop.(e<! on the unanunous aff'mnatIve votes of CouncIlmen Egleston, HICks, HIggS, Irvm and
.. .'. P1 ,:y 1..: .":'~~'): ~."
" U..;.. j'l~' ~ ~ ;.~l
:. .-' ::. ~~'~.~.
Ji'f .. ~""\l""':?''';
· > .~t'-.t
. i. oj f.f";1>;~:ll>;. **********
, ; ,fl.. ;'. '}"if.. ''!J''A~r:~
" " j;7 .... ,,;: i7..~..;t.~~!
:'?-.; ~1 :~~ ~rinie:~~bY, Clerk of Council in and for the City...ofWaynesboro, Virginia, do hereby certify the
I' ~~~. @rego$g'lg~be:~~f;. and exact copy as taken from the approved minutes of a regular meeting of Waynesboro City
n c6\ilitn'-'asnei'd $.ILTuesday, October 12, 1999.
'~. :1~ ;;;..
....
::a
ti
~
3l
e
'"
:E
'"
.r:
~
ri
.r:
..
E
<(
€
o
z
e
8
::;
~
'"
'"
@i
~
OX)
~
~
'"
..,
+
C
lA
-
a;-:
~
~i
~~
. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DFFICIAL RECEI?T
WAYNESBORu CIRCUIT COURT
nEED RECEIPT
B20CLR000002375 RECEIPT: 00000005925
PHYMENTr FULL PAYMENT
PAGE: 12 RECORDED: 10/20/00 HT il:~7
EX: Y LOC: CI
EX~ N PLT ~ iljl)~
DATE: 10/cO/00. TIME: 11;49:13 ReCDUNT:
CASHIERr ~EM RE6~ WYOi TYPEr DBS
IHSiRUMENT : OuOOOE375 EOOK:
&RANTDR: ALFE~ARlE CDUNTY
GRANTEE: SMITH. SHERI L: TR
AND ~]DRES5 ~'p 0 BOX 947 WAYNESBORO. VA 2,980
RECEIvED OF: VELL!NES FIRM .
CHECK i $1,C4~,OO
uESCRr?TIuN 1: PLAT REtaRDED PLAT BDOK 6. PAGE 25
2: .
CDNS!DERHTION: 600~OOO.OO ASSUME/VAL: .00
CODE DESCRIPTION PAID CODE DESCRIPTION
301 DEEDS 33.00 145 VSLF
039 DEEDS AND CONTRACTS 900,00 214 CITY GRANTEE TAX
21E TRA~SFER FEES 1.00 lOb TECHNOLOGY FUND FEE
nATE OF nEED~ 04/25/00
PASES~ 13
NAMES: I)
MAP: 920b30700
PAl;)
EaGO
31)/),00
b.Oi)
TENDERED :
AMOUHT PA ID:
CHAN6E MH
CLERK uF COURT: JEANETTE J. AKERS
1,242.00
1.,242,01)
. ,OJ)
DC.1B (11198)
t>
to.)
to.)
\C
W
- .
t:1
~ ~
. 0
.'t'"'
to.)
-
00
-
l,s
:;
-
~
~i
~~
~~
-~ ~
tT.l
~~
o
o
Cl
~
wVl
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
t'I.2
Cl
~
-
Ii
-
o
C2
-<
$3
o
~
:>
~
~
en
t:Jj
o
~
o
tj
~
(J)
~
~
()
~
~
o
~
I
~
~
()
CP
""""
(')
NOlES
************************************************************************~
1 This is the tract ofland acquired at Augusta County DB 330-436 on May 26, 1945
ts
~
"%1
o
:=
~
""4
o
.....
00
..
Ch
<::-
:x>'
8
8
:x>'
()
::r:
3:
t:E:I
2:
8
t:I:l
o
110.18
166.62
110.12
166.03
NIl 12' 59"W
N06 04' 24"W
976.81
570.00
No fj. R T L. C C :erg
************************************************************
CURVE DATA
55.15
83.91
~\
~.
~
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
Members, Beard ci Supervisas ~ V
Ella Washingtcn Carey, Q1c, CW'
Reading Ust fa- June 21, 2000
June 15,2000
February 9,2000
Mr. D:rrier
MEMORANDUM
March I, 2000
Pages I - I 7 (end Item I 0) - Mr. D:rrier
Pages 17 (Item 10) - end - Ms. Humphris
March 20,2000 (A)
April 12, 2000
April 1 9, 2000
few:.
Ms. Th01las
Mr. D:rrier
Ms. Humphris
.