Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05-12BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FINAL MAY I 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 10. 11. 12. 13. Call to Order. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. Consent Agenda (on next page). Public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend section 4-213 of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl. Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, of the Albemarle County Code to establish the Farmington Subdivision as an additional area of the County where dogs am prohibited from running at large. SP-2003-086. Unity Church in Charlottesville Extension (Sian #60). Public hearing on a request to allow extension on the expiration date for SUP for chumh, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 4, contains 4.5 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Hydraulic Rd, approx 0.25 mis N of the intersec w/Lambs Rd. Jack Jouett Dist. $P-2003-088. Jazzercise (Siqn #67). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of an exemise studio in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61 W, Sec 1, Block A ,P 8 contains 2 acs. Znd LI. Loc on N side of Rt 866 (Greenbrier Dr), appmx 1/4 mi W of Rt 29N (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. SP-2003-091. Kal)Da Siqrna International Memorial Headquarters (Si,qn #56). Public hearing on a request to allow the fraternal headquarters for Kappa Sigma International in accord w/Secs 13.2.2.2 & 5.1.02 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91, P 16, contains 6.14 acs. Znd R-l. Loc on Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd), approx one mi S of Mill Creek Dr. Scoflsville Dist. ZTA-2004-001. Cluster Developments. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sections 10.2.2, By special use permit, 10.3.3.3. Special prov~ions, and 10.5.2. Where permitted by special use permit, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, all of which pertain to lands W/in the Rural Areas (PA) zoning district, to delete provisions allowing rurat preservaiion developments haY'rog more than twenty development lots by special use permit. Rural preservation developments are a cluster form of development. Effective July 1, 2004, Virginia Code § 15.2-2286(A)(12) will prohibit localities from authorizing cluster developments by special use permit. Rural preservation developments having twenty or fewer development lots will continue to be allowed by right w/in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Adjourn to May 18, 2004, 4:30 p.m., for Crozet informational meeting at Henley Middle School. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 6.1 Approval of Minutes: March 10. 2004. 6.2 Adopt Resolution - Enhanced Speeding Fines on Morgantown Road 6.3 Adopt Resolution to accept road(s) in Greenfields Court Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. 6.4 Z'FA-2003-002. Personal Wireless Service Facilities, Cancel public hearing and reschedule for July 14, 2004. 6.5 Proclamation recegniz~ng May 2004 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. FOR INFORMATION: 6.6 Copy of draft Planning Commission minutes for March 16 and Mamh 23, 2004. Paula Brown-Steedly Clay Crest Farm, 3884 Jessies Ln ~. ~Pa 22911-57~3 May 5, 2004 Supervisom ~Etbexaarle 401 Mclntire Rd Charlottesville, Va 22902 07-05-04P39:02 RCCD Dear Supervisors, t amwriting-lodadfy eon~eams ~t Rt 784, Doctor's-Crossing in 8toay Po~ The road-is 2 miles long. Two tenths of the road is hard surfaced ( on the east side past the bridge). I star, ted my mad petition in t~be ~ of 1986 after 2 school buses wrecked in fzonl ofmy home. (Amazingly no one was hurt. Traffic was delayed about 2 hours). R was mentioned in the Supervisurs met4ing by Sally Thomas flint this mad was noted as dangerous in 1994 for school bus travel. In 2001 & 2002, the school bus had to have the assigtance of a wrecker to make it uptt~ hilt fzom ~ creek, easlward ~owa~d Rt 600 ( Watts Passage). These facts alone repeatedly define unsafe conditions that single out the communities children. There are also recmxJs of h~ivldaat aeOdents. In t986 prior to additional subdivision on Rt 784,safcty was an issue. This fact remains um~anged. In 19g6lhere were4t homes and 24building lots on all of R1784. Due to 2 graveyards, short driveways, septic tanks and fields, and wells, much of the road can nm get 40-50 fee~ fo~ ~ight of way. Indeed, attar 3 yeoxs of pctit/oning and meelir~ 198649), this fact is what prevented all but 2 spot nnprovements on the roacL To meet state requirements for roatt improvemems would and will condenm homes. After 3 years of working with VDOT to upgrade Rt 784, survey markers in people's yards effectively frightened most of the community out of raying for road iml~rovemems. Two 10 + lot subdivisions have been approved even with opposition due to road safety. Several smaget lot divisions have ocmltr, e& Today ttae~e ar~ 47 homes in ttae fi~st mile! Reviewing the lot divisions at the ptanJng office, I was told that if a subdivision was wanted, then il would e vtamlagy go. tl~oug/m I was also told ~at Doctor's Crossing was oa~ example of wtmt Albemarle planning did not want. The homes are not clustered, creating a "strip" effect. Rural R~sti~ Roag Ptrm was Doctor'~ Crossing's hope for SAFETYt.. Inilially it w~as stated by Sally Thomas in the Feb 04 at the end of the meeting of the Board of Supervisors, that if you cxadda'l get 50', the~a t~robabty ~ roads would no~ be upgraded. In ~ Mar. gh Boar~o£ Supervisors meeting, Ms. Thomas stated that VDOT said that Doctor's Crossing was too bad Paula Brown-Steedly Clay Crest Farm, 3884 Jessies Lfl Chaffottes~, Va Today May, 2004, there are 77 homes and 23 building lots. Doctor's Crossing can not get the necessmT-easemeJ~ts~by VDOT. C~~home~isaot Watts Passage has recently been paved to the one lane bridge and the railroad underpass. Pohy C~otmds Road has bee~ ~ to a oae laae railrq)ad tmdet'pass wi~ agOdeg~e~ appma~. These resolutions are compromises that are working. Juandiego Wade, planning, stated that VDOT would only work from paved surface to paved smfaee. Usiag Rumt Rustic Roa~desigmtio~ sm~ at the bridge and pave towar4 I~ 600 ( Wat~ Passage) .5 ora mile. This section of road is the most dangerous as seen by the school bus problems atone. The cost of this half mile m~_h is esOmaled at $50,000. Aa a~ordable prie~ m pay for safety. Meet with landowners that have land touching the road. Address all driveway g~ades, feaei~, smactm~s~ busiaess pemi~s, ~ees & pta~s that effect mad impmvemems. If the lot is a product of subdivision since 1986 ( first date of confirmed danger), then wherever possible right o~ way stmuld come ~ that subdivided ~. ( Some la~dowa~ has already gained monetary advantage by subdivisiom A landowner trying to maintain the rural character distance locations then the divided parcel is responsible. ) To insure that safew is maintained, thea aseimetmffieeatmh~ o~ ammble sa4p~thisone half mile. UseDo~t~'s Crossing as a test for a resolution, not an example of what the Planning Dept, the Board of Supeawisors, an~ VDOT ~ m~har keep 0wop!Nmtg o~ the road impmveme~ list ami dismissing. Do~lo~' s Cmssia~ w514 never meet the~ur~em cri~t~ia set by. ~ diffemm gwupa of o~ieials. Dismissing the obvious problem will insure a catastrophic event will have to occur. reptaee feaee post ia Blue ~-graded off, 20. MPI4 limit sig~,& danger b/ia4 c~we sigas. CC: VDOT, Albema~!.~ Plug ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 12, 2004 May 13, 2004 6.2 6.3 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Call to Order. · Meeting was cai]ed to order at 6:00 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Dottier. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. · There were none. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. · The Chairman presented Certificates of Appreciation to Donna Marshall and Harry Levins for their service on the Board of Social Services. Adopt Resolution - Enhanced Speeding Fines on Morgantown Road · DEFERRED the request and directed staff to develop criteria to address all such requests. Adopt Resolution to accept road(s) in Greenfields Court Subdivision into the State Secondary System of Highways. · ADOPTED the attached resolution 6.4 ZTA-2003-002. Personal Wireless Service 6.5 Facilities. · CANCELED public hearing ano RESCHEDULED for July 14, 2004. Proclamation recognizing May 2004 as Teen Pregnancy Prevention Month. · ADOPTED proclamation and Chairman presented to Mary Sullivan. NonAgenda. The Chairman recognized Cameron and Tilden Thomas. present at ti~e meeting as part of their Boy Scouts Communications Merit Badge. Public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend section 4-213 of Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article il, Dogs ano Other Animals. of the Albemarle County Code to establish the Farmington Subdivision as an additional area of the County where dogs are prohibited from running at large. · ADOPTED the attached Ordinance to designate Farmington Subdivision as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at ~arge. 8, SP-2003-086. Unity Church in Charlottesville 10. Extension (Sign #60). · APPROVED SP-2003-086, by a vote of 6:0. subject to the seven conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. SP-2003-088. Jazzercise (Si.qn #67). · APPROVED SP-2003-088, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. SP-2003-091. Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters (Sign #56). ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Schedule on June agenda when information available. Juan Wade: Provide information as requested. Clerk: Forward resolution to Steve Snell in Engineering (Attachment 1) Clerk: include on July 14 agenda for public hearing. Clerk: Forward resolution to County Attorney's office and Animal Control Officer. Notify applicant of Board's approval. (Attachment 2). Clerk: Set out conditions of approval (Attachment 3}. Clerk: Set out conditions of approva~ (Attachment 3). Clerk: Set out conditions of approval (Attachment 3). 11. 12. 13. · APPROVED SP-2003-091, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the seven conditions recommended Dy the Planning Commission and amended au me Board meeting. ZTA-2004-001. Cluster Developments. · ADOPTED ZTA-2004-001 with effective date to be July 1,2004. · Dennis Rooker requested a copy of an ordinance recently adopted by Fluvanna County requiring cluster developments in the rura areas. From me Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda, David Bowerman: · Requested the Clerk provide Board members with a copy of the letter and petition from the Branchlands community regarding the proposed Hil]sdale Drive Extension. Ken Boyd: · Asked for an update on the earthern dam issue in Key West. · The town hall meeting he spoke about last week nas been changed to Hollymeaa Elementary School from Suthedand Middle School. · Mentioned a letter Board members received regarding Doctor's Crossing in Stony Point Also discussed Allen Road as a rural rustic roaa, · Asked about the status of plans for Berkmar Road Extended. Mentioned his conversation with a developer who has offered To pave a portion of the roac Bob Tucker: · Updated Board on status of stere budget and eppropriatJon of County's budget in June. Adjourned. · The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.n" Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to County Attorney's office and copy appropriate individuals, Wayne Cilimberq: Provide Board members with copy of ordinance, /ewc Attachment ' - Greenfields Court Subdivision Resolution Attachment 2 - Ordinance: Farmington Subdivision Attachment 3 - Planning Conditions of Approval Attachment 4- ZTA-2004-001 Ordinance ATTACHMENT 1 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, tn regular meeting on the 12th oay of May 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS the streets in Greenfields Court Subdivision, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 12, 2004, fully ~ncorporateC herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded ~n the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that me street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that ihe Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in 6reenfields Court Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 12, 2004, to the seconaary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.%229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution De forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Depar~mem of Transportation. The mad(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) Greenfields Court (State Route 1398) from the intersection of Route 1403 to the cul-de- sac, as shown on plat recorded 01/11/2000 in the office me Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1886, page 0345, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile. Total Mileage - 0.08 mile. ATTACHMENT 2 ORDINANCE NO. 04-4(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAiN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fow Article II, Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Running At Large. Section 4-213. In certain areas, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Adding: (40) CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE II, DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS DIVISION 2, RUNNING AT LARGE Sec. 4-213 In certain areas. A. It shall De unlawfu for the owner of any dog to permit such dog [o run au large at any ume within the following designa~ea areas of the county: (40) Farmington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County in Dee(; Book 203, page 53; Deed Book 203, page 233, Deed Book 205, page 504; Deed Book 206, page 44; Deed Book 207, page 370; Deed Book 207, page 483; Deed Book 208, page 130; Deed Book 209, page 195; Deed Book 213, page 296; Deed Book 216, page 44; Deed Book 223, page 146; Deed Book 240, page 203; Deed Book 246, page 183; Deed Book 247, page 315; Deed Book 247, page 355; Deed Book 290, page 214; Deed Book 292, page 485; Deed Book 296, page 205; Deed Book 325, page 225; Deed Book 357, page 527; Deed Book 394, page 63; Deed Book 463, page 72; together with all streets and roads abutting the lots depicted on the said Plats. (7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74; 10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3- 10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81; 5-21-86; 5-13-87; 9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8- 88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2), 8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-4(3), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95-4(1 ), 1-4-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95; Code 1988, § 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98; Ord. 00- 4(1), 5-3-00; Ord. 03-4(2), 3-5-03; Ord. 04-4(1 ), 5-12-04) State law reference-.Authodt7 of county to adopt rms secuon Va. Code § 3.1-796.93 ATTACHMENT 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2003-086. Unity Church in Charlottesville Extension (Si.qn #60). Public hearing on a request to allow extension on the expiration date for SUP for chumh, in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61, P 4, contains 4.5 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Hydraulic Rd, approx 0.25 mis N of the intersec w/Lambs Rc Jack Jouett Dist. Use shall be limited to a maximum two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary anc use of the existing building 2 for youth activities accessory to a church use; Construction of the two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary shall commence within thirty (30) months of the approval of this ~ermit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate; New approval of septic system from the Health Department; The site shall be developed in general accoro with the conceptual plan found on Attachment F of the staff report for SP 2000-02; The property may not be further divided; There shall be only one (1) ~esidential dwelling on this proper[y; and Any expansion of, or addition to, me uses, activities or structures outlined in the staff report for SP-2000-02 shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-2003-088. Jazzercise (SiRn #67). Public hearing on a request to allow establishment of an exercise studio in accord w/Sec 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61W, Sec 1, Block A ,P 8 contains 2 acs. Znd Lt. Loc on N side of Rt 866 (Greenbrier Dr), approx 1/4 mi W of Rt 29N (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. This permit is for an indoor athletic facility as described in the SP 2003-088 justification submitted December 22, 2003 and supplementary information received February 23, 2004; Violation 2003-301 shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator prior to commencement of the exercise studio use; The indoor athletic facility use shall be limited to three thousand (3,000) square feet of an existing building located at 340 Greenbrier Drive; Class size shall be limited to a maximum of sixty (60) students; ant There shall be a fifteen (15)-minute interval scheduled between classes so that class times do not overlap and create parking shortages on the site Agenda Item No. 10. SP-2003-091. Kappa Si.qma International Memorial Headquarters (Si,qn #56). Public hearing on a request to allowthe fraternal headquarters for Kappa Sigma International in accord w/Secs 13.2.2.2 & 5.1.02 of the Zoning Ord. TM 91 P 16: contains 6.14 acs Znd R-I. Loc on Rt 20 (Scottsville Rd), approx one mi S of Mill Creek Dr Scottsville Dist. The site shall be developed in general accord with the plans, entitled Kappa Sigma Fraternity Headquarters, dated April 2, 2004; Lighting of the site shall be limited as follows: a. Light levels at the property line shall be no greater than 0.001 foot candles; b, No flood lighting of the building is permitted; c. Only the parking ~ot north of the building shall be allowed pole ligms; d. Utilize bollard type lights in place of pole lights whenever possible. Use only full cutoff fixtures; and e. Site and building illumination shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB. =inal site plans shall show a reservation, or orovide a note, for future vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels to the north and south; Final site plans shall show a ~edestrian connection from the future pedestrian/bike pathway on =.cute 20 into the site; A right turn and taper shall be constructed at the entrance in Route 20 to the satisfaction of VDOT; Landscaping shall be provided to limit the impact of the storm water area on the Entrance Corridor to the satisfaction of the ARB; and The Applicant shall construct public water service to the site via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority water line located on the west side of Route 20 and public sewer service via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority sewer line tocateo along Route 20 and the Cow Branch Creek, generally as provided in the report entitled, Preliminary Engineering Report Water and Sewer Facilities for kappa Sigma Headquarters by Draper Aden Associates, dated March 30. 2004. I I'i I !11 l' ['l liiIhl!lll?llllfllq ATTACHMENT 4 ORDINANCE NO. 04-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE , DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA DE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle. Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Arf[cle III District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 10.2.2 Sec. 10.3.3.3 Sec. 10.5.2 By special use permit Special prowsions Where permitted by special use permit Chapter 18. Zoning Article III. District Regulations Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permit approves by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: (Added 10-9-02) 1. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, civic, patriotic, fraternal (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue sauad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, [ennis or similar athletic facilities (reference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. Electrical power substations, transmission lines ana related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations ana appurtenances, unmannea telephone exchange centers; m~cro- wave and radio-wave transmission end relay towers, substations and appurtenances. 7. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8 (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions [reference 5.5). 10. (Repealed 11-11-92) 11 (Repealed 3-15-95) 12. Horse show grounas, permanenT. 13 Custom slaughterhouse 14 Sawmills, planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject [o performance standards in 4.14). 15 Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled ~ersons as described in section 15.1- 486.2 of the Code ~reference 5.1.07). 16. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kennel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip (reference 5.1.01 ). 20. Day camp, boarding camp (reference 5.1.05). 21. Sanitary landfill (reference 5.1.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants, (Amended 11-8-891 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89) 27. F~estaurants and inns that are: s Located within an historic landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan, provided: (i) the structure nas been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; ano (ii) the structure shall De restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith; or 3. Nonconforming uses, :rovided the restaurant or inn is served by existing water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for bpth the existing and proposee uses and facilities without expansion of either system. (Amended 11-8-89; 10-18-00) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1. (Amended 5-12-04) 29. Boat landings and canoe livery. 30. Permitted residential uses as provided in section 10.5.2.1. (Amended 5-12-04) 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 33. Crematorium. 34. (Repeated 3-21-01) 35. Church building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gift, craft and antique snops. 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-8~) 38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82) 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82) 40. Borrow area, Borrow pit not permitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83) 41. Convent, Monastery(reference 5.1.29). (Added 1-1-87) 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, an(] supportive of the RA 'ural areas, district (reference 5.1.27). (Added 12-2-87) 43. Agricultural Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87) 44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92) 45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95) 46. Off-site ~arking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee parking for an ~ndustrial use tn an ndustdal zoning district (reference 5.1.39). 47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.11). (Added 6-16-99). (§ 20-10.2.2, 12-10-80; 3-18-81; 2-10-82; 4-28-82; 7-6-83; 3-5-86; 1-1-87: 12-2-87; 11-8-89; 10-18-00; 3- 21-01 6-10-92; 11-11-92; Ord. 95-20(1 ), 3-15-95; Ord. 95-20(3), 10-11-95; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95; Code 1998, § 18-10.2.2, Ord. 98-A(1). 8-5-98; Ord 99-18(4), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04- 18(1), 5-12-04) Sec. 10.3.3.3 Special provisions (Added 11-8-89) In addition to design standards as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 and other regulation, the following special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development: The maximum number of lots within a rural preservation development shall ae the same as may be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other applicable ~aw. Each rural preservation tract shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to application for rura~ preservation development, has Been made subject to a conservation, open space or other similar easement which restricts development on ~ne parcel, me total number of lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed lhe number available for conventional development as limited By any such previously imposed easement or easements; b. Section 10.3.3.3.a notwithstanding, no rural preservation development shall contain more than twenty (20) development lots; (Amended 5-12-04) Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural preservation development, shall be applied to the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rural preservation development within the parcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 shall be permitted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the director of current development and zoning from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provision; provided that, in either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable; (Amended 5-12-04) The area devoted to development lots together with the area of roadway necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres; No rural preservation development shall contain less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The director of current development and zoning may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3.c, as the case may be; (Amended 5-12-04) No rural preservation u'act shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted uy the director of current development and zomng at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unit shall be located on any rural preservation tract or development tot. No rura~ preservation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, ~ne director of planning and community development shall serve as agent for the board of supervisors to accept such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned omy by mutual agreement of the grantees to the original agreement. (Amended 5-12-04) g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subjec~ to the review and approval of the director of current development and zoning. (Amended 5M2-04) (§ 20-10.3.3.3.12-10-80; 11-8-89; Code 1998, § 18-10.2.2, Ord. 98-A(1 ), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1 ), 5-12-04) Sec. 10.5.2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supervisors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for: more lots than the total number perm~tteC under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no SUCh permit shall be issued for property within the boundaries for the watershed of any public ddnking water supply impoundment; and further provided that no SUCh permit shall be issued to allow more develoement lots within a proposea rural preservation development [han that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-12-04) The board of supervisors shall determine that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter,= with reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive 31an relating to rural areas including the type of division 3roposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89; 5-12-04)) The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the proper~y in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by [he United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. 2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall ce shown on [ne most recent published maps of the United States Depa~men[ of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source eeemee of equivalent reliability by ihe Soil Conservation Service. 3. The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the proper~y since 1950, to the extent that is reasonably available. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be 'n an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use permit, tn making this determination. mountain ridges, major streams and other physica barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developeo rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels ef record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. l0 The relationship of the proposed develooment to existing and proposec population centers, services and employment centers. A property within areas described below shall De deemec in proximity to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway distance of a community boundary as described in [he comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile ¢oadway distance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. The traffic generated from the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolerable road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any ~ublic drinking water ~mpoundment. the following additional factors shall be considered: (Amended 5-12-04) The amount anc quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and omer substances determined harmful to water quality for numan consurr ~tion; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development; The proximity of any paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any SUCh stream or impoundment; e The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; f. The aercentage and length of all slopes subject to disturbance during constructior or upon which any structure, pavea area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development; g. The estimated duration ana timing of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are unpredictable; n. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover nave been altered ~n anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for run-off associated with any one '~undred year or mere intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; Code 1998, § 18-10.2.2, Ord. 98-A(1 ), 8-5-98; Ord. 04-18(1 ), 5-12-04) 10,5,2,2 MATERIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT The commission and ~ne board of supervisors may require the applicant to submit such information as deemed necessary for the adequate review of such application provided that SUCh information shall be directly related to items 1,2, 3 and 9 of section 10.5.2.1. This ordinance shall become effective July 1,2004. 12 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Enhanced Speeding Fines on Morgantown Road SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of resolution requesting special speeding violation designation for Morgantown Road AGENDA DATE: May 12.2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes~ REVIEWED BY: STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker. Foley, Davis, Cilimberg Benish. Wade BACKOROUND: The residents of Morgantown Road have expressc~t concerns about speeding on Morgantown Road. The Virginia Code provides that VDOT may establish a special speeding violation designation that makes it a traffic infraction for speeding punishable by an enhanced fine of not more than $200 when the maximum speed limit is indicated by appropriately placed signs displaying both the maximum speed limit and the penalty for violations. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live. work and play. DISCUSSION: The Community Development Department staff, VDOT and County Police have been working with the residents over the oast several years to address the volume and speed of traffic on Morgantown Road. Many steps have been taken including periodic selective speed enfomement, notices sent home with students from Virginia E. Murray Elementary School reconfigu ration of the western most intersection with Rt. 250. and attendance at neighborhood meetings to listen to concerns. Another step the County would like to undertake to help alleviate the speeding problem is to request that VDOT designate this roadway for enhanced speeding violation fines and to install signage alerting motorists there will be a fine of up to $200 for exceeding the established speed limit, The Ivy Community Association supports this effort A location must meet the following criteria in order to be eligible for the enhanced maximum fine for speeding. 1. Identification of the neighborhood and specific location where s~gns will be installed. 2. Confirmation that the highway meets the definitions of local residential and collector streets as defined Dy VDOT 3. Verification that a speeding problem exists. Staff believes Morgantown Road meets all of the above criteria, To initiate this procedure, the County must request VDOT. by resolution, to designate the roadway for enhanced speeding violation fines and to install the appropriate signage required by Section 46.2-878.2 of the Code of Virginia. Staffwill forward the resolution, if adopted, to the Resident Engineer with the supporting data. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution. 04.065 06-05-34 P09:48 RCVD The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 12th day of May 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Greenfields Court Subdivision, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 12, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia: and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department c~ Transportation to add the roads in Greenfields Court Subdivision, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated May 12, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to [}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: . Nays: Absent: A Copy Test: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors The road(s) described on Additions ;orm SR-5(A) are: 1) Greenfields Court [State Route 1398) from the intersection of Route 1403 to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 01/11/2000 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle Countyin Deed Book 1886, page 0345, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.08 mile. Total Mileage - 0.08 mile. TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH WHEREAS, teen parenthood often leads to the teen mother dropping out of school, obtaining a substandard job, and becoming dependent on welfare; and WHEREAS, children bom to teen parents grow up in less supportive and stimulating home environments and expetfence poorer health, lower cognitive development worse educational outcomes, more social and behavioral problems, and are more likely to become teen parents themselves; and WHEREAS, eighty-five percent of ali adolescent pregnancies are unintended according to the Guttmacher Institute; and WHEREAS, ninety out of one hundred sexually active teens, using no contracep~on, will be pregnant wi~in one year; and WHEREAS, teen sexual activity leads not to sexually transmitted infections, including HIV infection; and WHEREAS, forty percent of Albemarle County students who answered the 2001 Youth Behavior Survey reported having had sexual intercourse, and WHEREAS, one-third of those students reported engaging in unprotected sexual activity; and WHEREAS, an urgent need still exists to increase awareness and knowledge of teen pregnancy prevention efforts among young people, parents, youth leaders and others; NOW, THEREFORE, I, Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Chairman, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby recognize MA Y, 2004 as TEEN PREGNANCY PREVENTION MONTH in Albemarle CounW, Virginia, and call its impo~ance to the attention of all our citizens. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS ORDINANCE NO. 04-4(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE 1T ORDAINED By the Board of Supendsors of the Coumy of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Animals and Fowl, Article I~ Dogs and Other Animals, Division 2, Rmming At Large, Section 4-213, In certain areas, is hereby mended and reordaiaed as follows: By Adding: (40) CHAPTER 4. ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE H. DOGS AND OTHER ANIMALS DIVISION 2. RUNNING AT LARGE Sec. 4-213 In certain areas. A. It shall be unlawful for the o~aer of any dog to penuit such dog to ran at large at any time within the following designated areas of the county: (40) Farmington Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County. in Deed Book 203, page 53; Deed Book 203, page 233, Deed Book 205, page 504; Deed Book 206, page 44; Deed Book 207, page 370; Deed Book 207, page 483; Deed Book 208, page 130; Deed Book 209, page 195; Deed Book 213, page 296; Deed Book 216, page 44; Deed Book 223, page 146; Deed Book 240, page 203; Deed Book 246, page 183; Deed Book 247, page 315; Deed Book 247, page 355; Deed Book 290, page 214; Deed Book 292, page 485; Deed Book 296, page 205; Deed Book 325, page 225; Deed Book 357, page 527; Deed Book 394, page 63; Deed Book 463, page 72; together with all streets and roads abutting the lots depicted on the said plats. {7-19-73; 8-22-73; 9-26-73; 11-15-73; 12-19-73; 1-3-74; 1-23-74; 3-24-77; 5-22-74; 10-9-74, 1-22-75; 3- 10-76; 4-21-76; 12-7-77; 5-22-78; 6-21-78; 10-7-81; 5-21-86; 5-13-87; 9-16-87; 11-4-87; 12-16-87; 9-8- 88; Ord of 1-17-90; Ord. of 8-8-90; Ord. No. 94-4(2), 8-17-94; Ord. No. 94-40), 12-7-94; Ord. No. 95- 4(1), 14-95; Ord. No. 95-4(2), 9-6-95; Code 1988, § 4-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 98-4(1), 12-2-98; Ord. 004(1), 5~3-00; Ord. 03-4(2), 3-5-03; Ord. 04-4(1), 5-12-04) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foragoing writing is a tree, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of .six to zero. as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on May 12. 2004. Clerk. Board of County SupervisOi~ Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Y. Mr. Don/er Y Mr. Rooker Y Ms. Thomas Y Mr. W.vant y Ave Nay Y COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment of County Code Section 4-213 to prohibit dogs running at large within the Farmington Subdivision SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Adoption of ordinance to amend section 4-213 of the County Code to prohibit dogs running at large in the Farmington Subdivision. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messm. Tucker, Davis and Foley AGENDA DATE: May 12. 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: Homeowners may request the Board to designate specific areas in which dogs are restricted from running at large. Generally, by Board policy, requests to designate such areas are made by petition of a majority of the lot owners with a copy of a recorded plat of the proposed area. Once the Board receives the information, it authorizes a public hearing to consider adoption an ordinance to amend Section 4-213 of the County Code to designate the area In this case, the request was initiated by the Farmington Property Owners Association on behalf of a majority of the lot owners. With the concurrence of the supervisor from this district, the matter has been advertised for consideration by the Board. DISCUSSION: The Farmington Property Owners Association has requested the Board to adopt an ordinance to designate the subdivision as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large, The minutes of the meeting of the Association reflect that the request was approved by a vote of 85 "Foe' and 16 "Against". Attached is a copy of the Property Owners Association Request and background information. RECOMMENDATION: If the Board. after the public hearing, finds it appropriate to designate the Farmington Subdivision as an area in which it is unlawful for dogs to run at large, staff recommends the Board adopt the proposed ordinance. 04.066 07-05-04^02:21 RCVD Frederick W. Payne Robert P. Hodous Donna R. DeLoria William W. Tanner Payne & Hodous, L.L.P. Attorneys at Law 412 East Jefferson Street Charlottesville. Virgin/a 22902 April 15, 2004 ........ Telephone: 434-977-~507 i-' ? ~Fa~simile: 434-977-6574 Dennis S. Rooker, Esquire : 182 Spomap Road - -- Charlottesville, VA 22911 Re: Farmington Property Owners Association/Leash Law - Our File g319-91 Dear Dennis: In accordance with your telephone conversation with my paralegal, Colleen O'Keefe. on March 24, 2004, enclosed are a tree copy of the Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the General Membership of The Farmington Property Owners Association, a color coded Index and Plat identifying the deed books and page numbers for Farmingron, and a suggested form of amendment to the County Code Section 4-213. It is my nnde~cstanding that you will presem these documents to the Board of Supervisors at the next meeting. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments regarding this matter, or if anything further needs to be done. Sincerely yours, Frederick W. Payne Enclosures cc: Larry W. Davis, Esqmre Victor M. Dandridge, III 5~ENUTES OF ~ ANN~UAL MEETING OF THE GEN~ERAL MEMBERSElIP OF TI~, FARMINGTON PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION November ~7, 2003 One hundred and two (102) properey owners were presem by proxy or in person. Vie Dandfidg~ President ofthe Ass~dat/on, called fi~e meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. in the Ballroom of the Farm~un Country Club. The ra/nutes ~om/he November 4, 2002 mmua! meeting were approved as submitted. ARC Colter Knight reiterated the rules regarding construction chae to the substantial increase in housing projects ov~ the past year. No work can be~n before 7am. A suggestion was made to make a mandatory "quiet tinW' in the neighborhood (i.e. Sundays) The issue will be explored, gmio~ stated that it is the applicant's responsibility to notify thek surrounding ~s of in tented construction. Conu~ems were made that this is not being followed. A suggestion was made to make notifying one's nei~bers a step in the application a.l~ro~.~2l p~. Security BJ Megargel reported that a sr~10oth transition was achieved with the Assoc~'ation's handling of its own security. The Assoeiation contracted with Seminole Security and has inca~ased surx~4tlance hours due to the number of car break-ins. Megargal rex4ewed the comanunity's security ex)nc, ems x~dth Seminole Security and the Albemarle Police. The cost to upgrade the cun-ent security gate is in the range of $20,000-$30,~30. A less cost~ option to explore includes repro~amming the gate and reissuing the security cards. Roads It was reported Lh~at the repaying of the roads would comraence in Spring 2004 pursuant to the mad consutlm~'s recommendations. The financing for the repaying has been secaared. No road widening :viii be undertakan. Brash control continues to be a traffic safety bayard and more diligent enforcement ~x411 be forthcoming. T~asurer The bud~t for 2004 x~ms approved as p~,~sented. Greetings The following new homeowners were welcomed: Cy and Anne Barger, Paul and Bkgitte Fleming, the Lemon Family and the Kohr Family. The new dire~ory wi31 be mailed in January. Welcome booklets will .be electronically formatted for cost effectiveness in 2004. Homeo,~mers were encouraged, to put security stickers on their cars. ] "'iii i[F[rel[I'l {![~['2i I['l ...... New Business Vie Dandr/d~ reported that a q~orum x~r~s pres~ on the five matters pre~ented for vote to the homeowners. Therefore~ the follov~ items were approved by the membership: 1) The election of Curtis Hathaway, Annie Izard and John Paterson to serve on the Board of Direetors- Vote 97 by Proxy For, 2 in Person For/1 by Proxy Against; 2) The 2004 Budget- Vote 98 For ! 2 Against by Proxy; 3) The amendment to Article l], Section 4of the Bylaws- Vote 96 For/7 Against; 4) The special assessment for road maintevaa~ee of up to 5;t00.00 per lot per year for twe~e ye. ms- Vote 95 For/6 Against; and 5) The appr~cafion of the Albemarle Leash Law to the Farraington subdivifion- Vote 85 For/16 Agaln~t. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kristin O. Landis Seeretary I hereby certify that the forego'rog is a Ixme copy of the minutes of the ammal meeting of the members of the Farmington Property Owners Association held the 17~ of November 2003 B&H (lots I-5) (lots 7-9) C (lots 7-25) -213 [ ..... ~ 223 p 146 Ot.~t.i¥'i~ ) 325 p 225 '-.';.~*'.'. ~'~::~" , :;-'.~.:.~:.*. ::,' 357 p 527 I O(lot t) O (tot S) ... p 72 o( ¢c{, ;I (part of lot, lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) ~. _47 p 355 ~[.'~[.~1~w~_> · .-! 290 p 214 .,..~..~.[..~~... ~ls 2A & 10) · -- 246 p 183 O i11 ~l;ow~ ..... ~ 394 p 63 llock ? (lots IA, 12, 14, 15, t6) ~206 p 44 March 30. 2004 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 40! Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 Don & Patdcia Lansky Unity Church of Charlottesville 2825 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-03-86 Unity Church in Charlottesville Extension; Tax Map 61, Parcef4 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lansky: The Albemarle County Planning Commission. at its meeting on March 23, 2004, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-notad oetition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Use shall be limited to a maximum two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary and use of the existing building 2 for youth activities accessory to a churcn use. 2. Construction of the two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary shall commence within 30 months of the approval of this uermit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate. New approval of septic system from the Health Department; 4. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual alan found on Attachment F of the staff report for SP 2000-02. 5. The 3roperty may not be further divided. There shall be amy one (1) residential dwelling on t~s property. 7. Any expansion of, or addition to. the uses~ activities or structures outlined in the staff report for SP-2000-02 shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 12, 2004. 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 oam. If you should have any auestions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296~5823. Sincerely, Scott Clark Planner sctjc~ Cc: Ella Carey Jack Ke]sey Rita Robinson Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2003-086 Unity Church in Charlottesville Extension SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for special use permit to allow an extension on the expiration date for a special use permit for a church, in accordance with Section 10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for church buildings and adjunct cemeteries. The property, described as Tax Map 61 Parcel 4, contains 4.5 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located on Hydraulic Road, approximately 0.25 miles north of the intersection with Lambs Road, in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 1. STAFF CONTACT(S): Benish; Clark AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBERS: Planning Comm/ssion, March 23, 2004 Board of Supervisors, May 12, 2004 ACTION: INFORMATION: Recommend approval with conditions CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: yes REVIEWED BY: On May 17, 2000, the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit request for a 200-seat church on this site. This approval was subject to several conditions, including a four-year time limit for construction to begin on the new church building. Since that time, the applicants submitted a second application (SP 2003-053), requesting an amendment of their original permit to allow expansion to 300 seats. That perrmt request was indefinitely deferred by the applican[ to allow ~.<esolution of a conflict with VDOT related to the larger church size. The current request seeks an extension of SP 00-02 .pproval for 30 months (to November 12, 2006, if this request is approved at the May 12 Board meeting). Yhe following are the conditions of approval for SP 00-02: 1. Use shall be limited to a maximum two hundred (200)~seat sanctuary and use of the existing building 2 for youth activities normally associated with a church use; 2. Construction of the two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary shall commence within four (4) years or approval for the new s~rucmre shall expire; 3. New approval of septic system from the Health Deparmaent; 4. The church will be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan found on Attachment F of the staff report (copy on file in the Clerk's office); 5. The property may not be further divided; 6. There shall be only one (Il residential dwelling on this property; 7. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structures outlined in this staffreport shall reqmre additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; and, 8. Development shall be subject to review of and issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. RECOMMENDATION: Stafffmds that circumstances relative to the church's special permit extension request have not changed in a mmmer that would alter staffs original recommendation for approval. Therefore, staffrecommends approval of SP 2003-086, a request to extend the existing approval for the church use for an additional 30 months, with the following conditions (which replace those from the approval of SP 00-02): 1. Use shall be limited to a maximum two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary and use of the existing building 2 for youth activities accessory to a church use; 2. Construction of the two hundred (200)-seat sanctuary shall commence within 30 months of the approval of this permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate; 3. New approval of septic system from the Health Department; 4. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan found on Attachment F of the staff report for SP 2000-02. 5. The property may not be further divided; 6. There shall be only one (1) residential dwelling on this property; 7. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structures outlined in the staffreport for SP 2000-02 shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; Attachments: A. Location Map B. Site Map C. StaffReport for SP 2000-02. including concept plan attachment ATTACHMENT "A" ATTACHMENT B .@ ATTACHMENT C STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: JUANDIEGO WADE APRIL 25, 2000 MAY 17, 2000 SP 00-02 Unity. Church of Charlottesville Applicant's Proposal: Request for special use permit to allow a church to accommodate 160 people and the use of an accessory building for youth activities one a day week. A special use permit and site plan for a 300 seat church were previously approved on this site. However, those approvals have now expired. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow for a church (Attachment A) in accordance with Section 10,2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for church buildings and adjacent cemetery. The property, described as Tax Map 6t Parcels 4 and 4B, contains 4.44 acres, and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District on Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) approximately 900 feet from Lambs Road (Rt, 657). The property is zoned RA- Rural Areas and.EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as open space m Rural Area 1. (Attachment B and C) Character of the Area: Roslyn Heights (a residential subdivision), zoned RA, Rural Areas is to the north of this property. The property to the south is zoned LI, Light Industrial. Hydraulic Road forms the Development Area boundary. The area west of Hydraulic Road is designated as Rural Area. The site is located in the South Fork Rivanna River watersupply watershed. There is a drainage swale toward the northern property line. The site contains a recorded waterline easement currently serving Parcel 4A. A previous plat indicated there may be a cemetery located near the back property line. RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of Special Use Permit (SP 00-02) with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: SUB-81-142 - Margaret Goodwille Laurent- On November 5, 1981, staff signed an exempt plat which created this parcel. SP 91-71 - The Board of Supervisors approved a request to construct a t50 seat - interim sanctuary, with offices, within two years of approval date and a request to construct a 300 seat church, with offices, fellowship hall and educational facilities, within four years of approval. (Attachment D) The church office is the only part of this proposal that was commenced. SP 92-09 - The Board of Supervisors approved special use permit for a day care for 25 children, which was initiated and functional until September 1997. (Attachment E) This special use permit is till valid. SDP 93~046 - A site plan was approved for a 300 seat church and three accessory buildings. It has since expired. A new site plan will be required since the previous plan has expired. The current proposal (SP 00-02) is for a 160 seat church. The special use permit for the day care center was activated and met all of the conditions of approval. The day care center was in use until the Fall of 1997 with approximately 20 children. It has moved to another site. The applicant wishes to keep the day care special use permit. It was approved in 1992 under a different applicant. The special use permit runs with the land. They are requesting that Existing Building 2 on Attachment F be used as a building for youth activities one-day a week until the day care center special use permit is exercised. The site plan approval for the church has expired as well. The applicant will have to go through the site review process again for approval of the site plan. The applicant is proposing substantially the same plan for development for the site as was previously approved. A conceptual plan for the new church with the two existing buildings can be found in Attachment F. Staffwilt make it a condition of approval that the church is developed in general accord with this conceptual plan found on Attachment F of this staff report. This site contains a private waterline easement that serves Parcel 4A. The property owner visited the Planning Department during the week of April I0 regarding this easement. He wanted to insure that it was noted on the conceptual plan (Attachment F). It is noted on the conceptual plan. He has been in contact with church officials and has indicated that he is agreeable with this plan. All adjacent property owners will be contacted again during the site plan process. Appropriate agreements will be required with site plan review/approval. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area 1, adjacent to a designated Development Area, and within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed. Extensive staff comment regarding this church was provided in the original staff report for this proposal (Attachment G). Staff raised policy concerns regarding the church in this location. but noted "prior legislative decision to grant a similar use request within close proximity." There do not appear to be any significant changes in circumstance since approval of SP-91-71 for Unity Church that alter these conclusions. The property is within the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area map showing Parcel 4 and 4B for water service only. Hydraulic Road is now designated as an Entrance Corridor Route. There~bre, development of the site of will be subject to reviewby the Architectural Review Board, STAFF COMMENT: Regarding the special use permit, staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. Staff does not anticipate any substantial detriment to adjacent properties if the 160 seat church and youth activities one day a week are approved. The church is anticipating having night meetings three times a week and the church office will be open every weekday from 10-4 p.m. with two employees. The office is currently, and has been for the past eight years, in use weekdays 10-4 p.m. with two employees. The day care center will open in the future in Existing Building 2 on Attachment F. Although the church will be located in the Rural Ama, the development area is across Hydraulic Road (Route 743), Hydraulic Road is a major collector with approximately 18,000 daily vehicle trips. There are no residences in close proximity. Roslyn Heights is located approximately 1000 feet to the north of this property. There are several other churches in close proximity to this proposed site. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby. While located in the RA, Rural Area District, staffdoes not anticipate any change in the character of the district. Two other churches are located on RA zoned property in the area, one at the comer of Hydraulic & Lambs and a second at the comer of Hydraulic & Earlysville Roads. This proposal is substantially smaller (sanctuary size) than the prior approval for SP-91-71, Unity Church. As of April 12, 2000 this property was added to the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and will be subject to ARB review. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the ordinance as stated in Sections t.4, 1.5, and 1.6. Stafffinds no conflict with these provisions of the ordinance. (Attachment H) with the uses permitted by right in the district, This use will not restrict permitted uses on any adjacent property. with additional rezulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance. The supplemental regulations do apply to this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Health Department has already approved this use (Attachment I) tn 1992 Staff requested the Health Department to review this less intensive proposal again because of 3 the time lapse. Yhe Health Department has a new method for determining the water usage of churches to accommodate for large gatherings such as weddings, funerals, and large dinners, etc. and is requesting additional information fi.om the applicant. Those comments can be found on Attachment J. VDOT's comments can be found on Attachment K. The will be able to meet these requests. VDOT will review this proposal again during the site plan process. Summary: Staff opinion is that certain uses such as churches, day care, and schools conUdbute to the welt being and moral fib'er of the community. Staff finds the following items as favorable for this request: 1. The use and site plan for development of the site was previously approved. 2. The site is in close proximity to the Development Area and other churches. Staff finds the following items unfavorable for this request: The site is located in the South Fork Rivarma River watersupply watershed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of Special conditions: Use Permit (SP 00-02) with the following 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Use shall be limited ro a maximum 160 seat sanctuary and use of the Existing Building 2 for youth activities one day per week; Construction of the I60 seat sanctuary shall commence within four (4) years or approval for the new structure shall expire; New approval of septic system from the Health Department; The church will be developed in general accord With the conceptual plan found on Attachment F of this staff report; The proper~y may not be further divided; There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property; Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structures outlined in this staff report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; and, Development shall be subject to revlexv of and issuance of a certificate of Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. ATTACHMENT F March 30. 2004 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 01~04-04 ~02:10 RCV9 Elizabeth Helmke Jazzercise 3210 S. Chesterfield Court Charlottesville. VA 22901 RE: SP-03-88 Jazzercise (Sign #67); Tax Map 61W, Section 1, Block A, Parcel 8 Dear Ms. Helmke: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 23.2004. by a vote of 7:0. recommended approval of the above-noted uetition to the Board of Supermsors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. This permit is for an indoor athletic facility as described in the SP 2003-088 justification submitted December 22 2003 and supplementary information received February 23 2004. 2. Violation 2003-301 shall be corrected to the satisfactior of the Zoning Administrator prior to commencement of the exercise studio use: 3. The indoor athletic facility use shall be limited to 3.000 square feet of an existing building located at 340 Greenbrier Ddve 4. Class size shall be limited to a maximum of 60 students: 5. There shall be a 15-minute interval scheduled between classes so that class times do nor ovena~ ano create parking shortages on the site. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this r)etition and receive oublic comment at their meeting on May '12, 2004. 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 f you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, p~ease do no[ nes~rare ro contact me .434 296-5823. Sincerely, Susan Thomas AICP Senior Planner Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: SP 2003-088 JAZZERCISE SUSAN THOMAS, AICP MARCH 23, 2004 MAY 12, 2004 Applicant's Proposal: Tiffs special use permit request would allow an indoor athletic facility in a portion of an existing building, on property zoned LI, Light Industrial. The subject building is located at 340 Greenbrier Drive, across from the Williams Companies offices, approximately ¼ mile west of Seminole Trail on the north side of the street. If approved, the Jazzercise studio would occupy approximately 3000 square feet ora building that also houses office furnishing and windows businesses. (See Attachments A, B, C and D) Request for special use permit to allow establishment of an exercise studio in accordance with Section 27.2.2(15) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for indoor athletic facilities in an LI, Light industrial district. The property, described as Tax Map 61W Section 1 Block A Parcel 8 contains 2 acres, and is zoned LI, Light Industrial. The proposal is located on the north side of Greenbrier Drive (Route 866), approximately 1/4 mile west of Seminole Trail (Route 29 North), in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood One. Character of the Area: This portion of Neighborhood One has a wide variety of existing commercial, office and industrial uses along Commonwealth Drive, Greenbrier Driver, and Seminole Trail, with high concentrations of residential use (mainly multi~family) located close by re the west on Greenbrier and Commonwealth and in numerous smaller neighborhoods/developments such as Minor Hill, Turtle Creek, Berkeley, and Four Seasons. Immediately east of the site is a parcel of undeveloped land, and to the east of that property is the Flowers Bakery. re the west is a small office building, on the comer of Commonwealth and Greenbrier. Across the street is the office of a natural gas rransmissmn company, a large office building east of that, and behind them re the south the former Comdial plant, rhls facility was once originally an indoor ice flak, and later it was used by Comdial as office space. It now houses a variety of smaller uses. Recommendation: Staff believes that the proposed use is appropriate for the site, with conditions. The Jazzercise facility complements the nearby residential uses, and also fits well with office and other industrial and commercial uses in the general area. With no impacts other than parking, the indoor athletic use could co-exist virtually on any site in the urban area that had adequate parking and could accommodate the characteristic music and movement associated with this type of business. Zoninq and Subdivision History: The existing building was approved as an ice rink in 1972 (SDP-189), and later used as additional plant space by a nearby manufacturer. Since then, a variety of smaller businesses has located there, currently including Design Environs and Windows and Door Pros. Zoning and Subdivision History: The exisfmg builc~mg was approved as an ice rink in 1972 (SDP-189), and later used as additional plant space by a neazby manufacturer. Since then, a varie,~y o f smaller businesses has located there, currently including Design Environs and Windows and Door Pros. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this area for Community Service in Neighborhood One. Zoning is LI, Light Industrial, Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. The intent of the Light Industrial, district is: "to permit industries, offices and limited commercial uses which are compatible with and do not detract from surrounding districts." Indoor athletic facilities are allowed in a LI district by special permit. The 1996 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan makes the following recommendations relevant to this request: Industrial Service uses are recommended for the undeveloped area north of Hydraulic Road, between Route 29 and Commonwealth Drive. As an alternative, this area may be considered for mixed-use development consistent with the Transitional designation to include commercial services serving additional community scale needs rather than regional demands. Major considerations in the review of any alternative land use proposals will be the impact to the surrounding road system and adjacent residential uses, and consistency with the land use development standards of the Comprehensive Plan. The Neighborhood Model The Neighborhood Model, an adopted part of the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, sets forth twelve principles for evaluating development proposals within the Development Area. Neighborhood Model principles most strongly reflected by this proposal are: Mixture of Uses - The proposed site and adjacent parcels are characterized by a mixture of uses with considerable variety, which is a benefit to the neighborhood and the larger area. The exercise studio use blends very well with surrounding and nearby commercial, office, and residential uses, providing a health-oriented activity convenient [o many kinds of users. Neighborhood Centers - This stretch of Greenbrier Drive, from Seminole Trail to Commonwealth Drive. seems to be a center for the neighborhood extending to the west. north and south. There is the potential for additional future uses in the unoccupied portions of the building and the immediate vicinity to supplement the neighborhood center. Redevelopment - The new use in an exisfng industrial building is a positive example of t!us Neighborhood Model principle. No new buildings or parking are proposed with this special permit application, and no changes to the site are necessary for this use. For these reasons, the remairfmg principles of the Neighborhood Model do not appear to be applicable to this analysis. 2 Analysis of the Special Use Permit as related to Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right ~o issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits.for uses as provided in this ordinance mag be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to ad/acent property, Staff has not identified any detriment to adjacent property that would result from inserting the exercise studio use in an existing building. Staffsees the proposed supporting commercial use as a complement to existing employment, commercial and residential uses in the area. The location of the facility on a bus line and within walking distance of nmmerous neighborhoods is positive from the standpoint of accessibility. that the character qf the district will not be changed thereby. The activity associated with the proposed exercise studio will not negatively change the character of the district. Although potentially more active than other uses cm-rently in the same building, the exercise studio fits in well with the overall area and can be accommodated adequately on the site. In an industr/al area, the noise and activity associated with indoor athletic use can be accommodated. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The proposed exercise studio is a supporting service to the LI district and nearby residential and commercial districts. Its introduction further m/xes uses on the site. one of the principles of the Neighborhood Model. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Tiffs new use should not impact any other uses in the district. Building Code and Zoning Services has determined that sufficient parking exists on the site, and VDOT and Engineering have identified no deficiencies in access or circulation. There is currently a zoning violation on the site, however, related to the failure of one of the existing businesses to obtain a zoning clearance as well as changes that have been made to the building that are not reflected on the approved site plan. The site must be brought into compliance with the Zoinng Ordinance before Jazzercise can commence business. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, The Supplementary Regulations section of the ordinance does not address this use. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. In staff's opinion, the addition of the exercise studio nsc in this portion of Neighborhood One is positive for the existing industrial, commercial and residential uses. The site is accessible to pedestrians, vehicles and transit, well located for activity throughout the day, and can accommodate the Jazzercise parking demand without adversely impacting other uses in the building. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors which are favorable to tiffs request: I. The building is existing; 3 ATTACHMENT "A" County of Albemarle ':- Department of Building Code and Zo [ OPFICE USE OI~_LY ~. ,~ ~ ~ I ,, x / ~'~ I I ,'%L,,t~IVIC. I~/I U Application for Special Use Permit t "E~ting Use (*staff w asa st you wit~ ~c~c i/ami) ~ thi$ an amendment to an existing SpCsl Use Permit~ lAre you submitting a site deve opment p an with fll~ application? O Ye.~ No Addrcs$~ S-~S~d ~' City ¢¢~'(0,~[~ State ~. Daytime Phone ( ~ ) ~l} ~$'~' E-mail~5~ Owner of land ~^, tis,c~l in the County's Daytime Phone (q~) ~Di¢ I Daytime Phone (~) ~{.]-~ ~ Fax# E-mail~a ~P~( ~-~7fi' v r~Si:.. . ~Tv? Location of property 0ana,m.~.,.tcr~:=,o.~.o~otneO _(2¥eD/~ bx3 ~.' ['h~V'C. Cf, t o['t,?~ [ ~q_ u. e/) '* ~ ;P;0· . Docstneownerofthis property own (or have any ownership interest in) an~abuttingpropeay7 Ifyes, please list those tax map aha parcel numbers t'qO. OFFICE USE ONLY ~ ~ , ~-- ~ Hi~tory: C1 Spec:al Use Permits: ~ ZMA$ and Proffers: 7..1 Variances: ¢¢~ ~ ~1 L.~tcr of Authori~uon ? ATTACHMENT D Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that. "Thc boara hereby rese~-V~-'unto itself the rtght to issue all special use Permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for/~i~:f~ provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a ~ding by khe bo~d of supervisors that such usc will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and that such use wilt be in harmony with thc purpoic and inmnt of this ordi,mncc, with the uses permitted by right in ibc district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, and with thc public health, safety and general welfare. Thc items which follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your requ~t. Piece complete this form and provide additional information which will azsist 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?. thepro os d,peeia. How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? How is the use in harrnony w,th the uses permitted by right in the district? '-~,~ How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community? ~ ATTACHMENT D Describe your request in detail and include ali pertinent information such as the numbers ot persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the usc: . ATTACtIMENTS REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recor~e~fl plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the re. zoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the pla~ 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 sigmng 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 thc applicant is thc agent of the owner, a documcn3 acc.eptable to the County must be submRtted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency· OPTIONAL ATTACHlvtENTS: 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 n'ue and accurate to the best of my knowledge. SignatuYe Printed I~lamc Date Daytime phone number'of Signatory ATTACHMENT D Attachment to Special Use Permit for J~7~ercise. My request for this Special Use Permit involves 3000 square feet of space at the DeSign Environs Building located at 340 Greenbrier Ddve. I would like to use this location as an indoor athletic facility to hold Jazzercise classes and also offer the space to others for similar types of fitness classes. I have attached a flier which outlines the Jazzercise program. The space available at 340 Greenbrier Drive came to my attention and I was immediately aware that this space would be beneficial to the community surrounding Greenbrier Ddve, my current clientele and me. I believe opening this facility will provide a convenient service to the community in the area. 340 Greenbrier Ddve is located within walking distance to many townhouses as well as apartment developments such as Trophy Chase, It is also close to a bus route and convenient for clients using public transportation. In an effort to make the most of the proposed space, I would like to offer it to others who need a place to hold comparable fitness classes. Finding available space can be difficult and this would provide an opportunity for others as well as use the space to the fullest. I would like to make it available to programs including but not limited to: yoga, tai chi and other martial arts programs, Bones for Life, Feldencds, etc. Jazzercise would fit well with the building space, the community, and would provide space for other fitness programs. /© Jazzercise, SP 2003-088 This is information relating to the application for a Special Use Permit to allow an indoor athletic facility at 340 Greenbrier Drive. I would like to address the questions listed in item B below. Activities to take place in the facility: Along with holding our Jazzercise classes. would like to make the facility available to others who teach similar or comparable programs. As I have found with my own business finding affordable and available space in this area can be extremely difficult. Making the space available to others would not only help people in need of a facility but also maximize use of the space. Instead of these other activities finding new spaces to hold their programs, we could have several programs work out Of one space already in existence. I.would like tc make the space available to programs including but not limited to: yoga, tai chi. Feldencrais, Bones for Life, and pilates. Operating hours: I would like to make this space available for use between the hours of 8:00am and 9:00pm. Maximum class size: The maximum class size would be 60 students. Currently, our average class size is 20 students. Transportation factors: Please see the parking study attached. Will classes over/ap in time such-fhat adverse impacts to parldng will be created (peop/e ardving and departing at the same time): Our classes have a 15-20 min. window between them which gives people time to leave as others are amwng for the next class. (Example: In the evening, we currently have a class that ends at 5:30pm with the next class staking at 5:45pm, Most students from the first class leave the facility by 5:35-5:40pm. As they depart, they are opening spaces for new students to park in.) Even if tf'~re is overlap between classes, there should be sufficient parking to cover the overlap. Please note attached parking study. As stated in my application for the Special Use permit. Jazzeroise would fit well with the building space, the community, and would provide space for other programs to meet. Thank you for your time and please let me know if I can provide any further information. Sincerely, Elizabeth Maddocks Hetmke Jazzercise. SP 2003-088 /// ATTACHMENT D Parking Study The parking lot at 340 Greenbrier Ddve has 98 parking spaces. An indoor athletic facility requires I parking space per 75 square feet of space used. Jazzercise would be leasing 3000 square feet of space at the location, requiring a total of 40 spaces. Our current average class size is 20, and the maximum class size for the Greenbrier Ddve location would be 60. Even if we one day grew to the maximum class size for this facility parking would not be a problem. Please note the following when considering the amount of parking needed: · We have students who carpool to class as well as students who use other methods of transportation to come to class, including JAUNT and bicycle. · The Greenbrier Ddve location is close to several housing communities. We would be within walking and biking distance to potential and current clients, The location is close to a bus route, Students would be able to take public transportation to class. · We would be renting space from Design Environs, a company that uses large amounts of building space with few employees. On average they have 6 cars in the parking lot during the workday. · The majority of our classes are held after work hours and on weekends. In this case, we would be the only business using the parking lot. If you have questions or nee(: further information piease feel free to contact me, Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Elizabeth Maddocks Helmke ATTACHMENT D 2. Parking is adequate, and a separate entrance and exercise area exists for the exercise studio use; 3. This proposal reflects several principles of the Neighborhood Model, among them Mixture of Uses, Redevelopment, and Neighborhood Centers; 4. The indoor athletic facility would offer services to residents, employees, and others meeting a need and demand for health and fitness oppommities in the urban area Staff has identified no factors that are not favorable to this request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that no adverse impacts to other uses on the site or adjacent properties will occur as a result of the exercise studio use. The studio will b~nefit current and futures residents within Neighborhood One and the larger area. Staffrecommends approval of SP 2003-088, with the following conditions: i. Violation 2003-301 shall be abated prior to commencemm~t of the exercise studio use; 2. The proposed exercise studio shall be operated in general accord with the special permit justification submitted December 22, 2003 and supplementary information received February 23, 2004; 3. Any enlargement or expanszon of the exercise studio use or structures, within the existing building or in a building addition, will require an amendment to this Special Permit (SP 2003-088). Attachments: A - Area Map B - Site Map C - Existing Site Plan D - Applicant's Justification 4 STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COM1VIISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: MARGARET DOHERTY APRIL 27, 2004 MAY 12, 2004 KAPPA SIGMA INTERNATIONAL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERS SP-03-91 ]¢RATERNAL CLUB IN A R-l, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BACKGROUND ,-: The Planning Commission held a worksession on this applicatiun on March 16th. The applicant presente~l the concept plan and staffpresented questions to the commission, on the appropriateness of the use and the potential impacts on the district and surrounding properties. The Commission concluded that the use could be appropriate, but that fmlher detail about the layout would ultimately determine its appropriateness, particularly as it relates to adjacent~residential properties. Further, the commission agreed that the scale of the improvements could be made to work, if it they we're better oriented with Route 20 and the predominant topography. ]?here were two serious unanswered questions: 1) the entrance location and VDOT entrance m~provemem requirements; and 21 the location of parking lots to adjacent residential properties. The Commission recommended using porous paving or stabilized turf for those parking spaces closest to the adjacent residential parcels. Finally, the Commission agreed with stafftha~ connection to public utilities is reasonable and that the sewer line should be extended using a gravity flow system. CHANGES TO THE PLAN The applicant has submitted a revised plan which includes the following changes (See Attachment E): · They oriented the building better to Route 20; · They differentiated future phases; · They obtained approval from Zoning of their parking study (see Attachment B) which recommends 88 parking spaces. Of these, about half are shown as stabilized sod, located adjacent their residential neighbors; They show a ped/bike pathway along Route 20: and They have provided a preliminary water and sewer report, which describes two options for providing public utilities to the site. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Request for special use permit to allow the fraternal headquarters for Kappa Sigma International, in accordance With Sections I13.2.2.2 and 5.1.021 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for fraternal clubs. The property, described as Tax Map 91 Parcel 16, contains 6.14 acres, and is zoned R-1 IResidential] and E- C, [Entrance Corridor]. The proposal is located on Scottsville Road (Route 20), approximately one mile south of Mill Creek Drive, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as UrbanDensity in NeighbOrhood 4. (See Locator Map as Attachment A) RECOMMENDATION Staff finds that the request for a fraternal club generally complies with the provisions ~)f the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval of SP 03-91. ..... 'Tf ...... II1[~ .Ilfl'-Ii,~ Ill ......... COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL /'he subject property is designated Urban Density on the Lend Use Plan Map in Neighborhood Four. Following is the recommendation from the Development Area Profiles (page 58), relative to this property: · Upgrade Route 20 and construct bicycle facilities and walkways in conjunction with these upgrades. Determine the right-of-way requirements Jbr these road upgrades and obtain ~nd/or reserve right-of-wqv as necessary; The Virghnia Department of Transportation (VDOT) recommends that the applicant dedicate a nnmmum of 25 feet of additional right-of-way along Route 20. In their first review of the apphcation, they were requking left end right mm lanes into the site which would require major work in Route 20. The applicant submitted a Turn Lene Wan-ant Analysis to the Engineering Department end VDOT (See Attachment C). They revised their plan to show a 100 foot taper into the site. VDOT has reviewed the material and agrees that the great majority of Kappa Sigma's traffic will be commg from and going to the north, therefore, a left-mm lene into the site'is not necessary, however a right turn lane will be necessary. Therefore, as a condition of approval, the applicant shall satisfy VDOT reqmremems for an entrance perm/t. The plan also also sltows a ped/bike pathway along Route 20, to be constructed upon demand of the County. Neighborhood Model The following analysis addresses conformity with the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model: Pedestrian The concept plen includes a pe&bike pathway along the frontage of Route 20. The Orientation design end timing of construction of the pathway should be coordinated with other improvements in the right of way. The plen also shows a sidewalks around the building and a trail around the front lawn. Provision should be made to allow access into the site from the ped/bike pathway along Route 20, potentially from the proposed trail. Neighborhood Not Applicable. Friendly Streets and Paths Interconnections Veh/cular and pedestrian connections to adjacent properties should be shown, such that if a signaled intersection is constructed north or south of the site, Kappa Sigma will have access to it in the future, when traffic on Route 20 increases. Parks and Open The plan shows terraced gardens and future picnic pavilions end walking trail. Space Neighborhood This site is within a portion of the Development Areas which has not been developed Centers to it's potential, therefore, the closest neighborhood center may be the City of Charlottesville. 2 Buildings and The Architectural Review Board application will include building elevations a~d a Spaces of Ituman detailed landscape plan to ensure consistency w/th the Entrance Corridor guidelines. Scale Relegated The park/ng is mostly relegated behind structures and staff believes with ARB I Parking guidelines regarding scree~ng of parking areas, this criterion can be met. Mixture of Uses This is a very specific use which does not benefit fi.om a mix of uses. There are residential properties surrounding the site although they will hkely not benefit from this use. Mix/Housing Not Applicable. Types Redevelopment Not Applicable. - Site Planning With the revised layout, this criterion has been met. that Respects Terrain Clear Boundaries A significant issue for the Rural Areas across the street will be lighting. This site is w/Rural Areas currently surrounded by no commercial lighting of any kind, therefore whatever ighting is installed has the potential to create a great impact. Therefore, staff proposes conditions below which address this criterion. Entrance Corridor The application has been before the Architectural Review Board for advisory comments regarding their special permit application. The ARB voted 4-0, expressing no objection to the special permit, subject to the following conditions: · Site and building illumination shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB. · Landscaping shall be provided to limit the impact of the storm water area on the Entrance Corridor to the satisfaction of the ARB. The ARB made the following suggestion for the conceptual plan, for the benefit of the applicant's preliminary site plan submittal. In addition to all requirements of the ARB Preliminary Site Plan Review Checklist, please provide: · A brick screen and vegetation to eliminate visibility of the dumpster area; 3 · A lighting plan that shows minimal site and building illumination (in terms of both number and intensity). Utilize bollard type lights in place ofpote lights whenever possible. Use only full cutoff fixtures} · Eliminate visibility of the 7-space parking lot; · Provide a plant schedule that identifies the proposed trees and shrubs (botanical and common name'} and plant caliper and height; · Propose different types of plant materials that share similar characteristics; · Provide large shade trees at the corners of the building and add foundation shrubs; · Show that visibility of mechanical equipment will be eliminated from the Entrance Corridor; · Carefully consider all signage for the site and building; and · Show that illumination of the cupola will be limited and appropriate to the site. STAFF COMMENT The revised concept plan has been reviewed by members of the Site Review Committee, which recommends approval of the special permit. The only remaining issues are: 1) public utihties, 2) vehicular and pedestrian connections on-site, and 3) lighting. Public Utilities The applicant presented an analysis of water and sewer service alternatives, provided as Attachment D. The County policy states that new development within the jurisdictional area for water and sewer should be required to counect. The applicant would prefer te counect to the public water via extension o f the water line located on the west side of Route 20 and public sewer by pump station and a 3" force main, which is ~ referred to in their report, on page 4, as "Solution #1". Staffbelieves the best alternative is what is referred~-~-~ to as "Solution #2", which includes public water service via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority water line and public sewer service via extension of existing ACSA sewer line located along Route 20 and Cow Branch Creek. This provides a public connection, which can serve this site and future development in this part of the Development Area. Staff has been in contact with another property owner interested in utilizing the sewer line and believes a cost-sharing agreement may be possible. Vehicular and Pedestrian Connections Staffasked the applicant to show vehicular and pedestrian connections to the adjoining parcels to the north and south and to the ped/bike pathway along Route 20. The applicant is interested in securing a private entrance and is not interested in sharing access with adjoining parcels. The comprehensive plan calls for pedestrian and vehicular connections in the Development Areas, wherever feasible. However, since the adjacent parcels are not likely to develop in the near future, staff is willing to accept reservations for future vehicular connections and a pedestrian connection to the ped/bike pathway on Route 20. Lighting This site is located in a dark part of the County, therefore any new lighting will have a dramatic effect. Staff believes that the site should be lit with mostly residential-type lighting except within parking lots and along sidewalks where safety maybe a concern. To this end, staff proposes strict restrictions on the use of lighting as described below. ~ RECOMMENDATION WITH CONDITIONS Staff finds that the requesl for a fraternal club generally complies ;vith the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan, and recommends approval of SP-03-91, with the following conditions: The site shall be developed in general accord with the plans, entitled Kappa Sigma Frateruity Headquarters, dated April 2, 2004; Lighting of the site shall be limited as follows: a. Light levels at the property line shall be no greater than 0.001 foot candles; b. No flood lighting of the building is permitted; c. Only the parking lot north of the building shall be allowed pole lights; d. Utilize bollard type lights in place of pole hghts whenever possible Use only full cutoff fixtures; and e. Site and building illumination shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB. Final site plans shall show a reservation for future vehicular and pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels to the north and south; Final site plans shall show a pedestrian connection from the ped/bike pathway on Route 20 into the site; 5. A right turn and taper shall be constructed at the entrance in Route 20' to the satisfaction of VDOT; Landscaping shall be provided to limit the impact of the storm water area on the Entrance Corridor to the satisfaction of the ARB; and The Applicant shall construct public water service to the site via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority water line located on the west side of Route 20 and public sewer service via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority sewer line located alone Route 20 and the Cow Branch Creek, generally as provided in the report entitled, Preliminary Engineering Report Water and Sewer Facilities for kap~oa Sigma Headquarters by Draper Aden Associates, dated March 30, 2004. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: ATTACHMENT B: ATTACHMENT C: ATTACHMENT D: ATTACHMENT E: Locator Maps Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Parking Study Preliminary Engineering Report Water and Sewer Facilities Concept Plan, entitled Kappa Sigma FraterniO: Headquarters, dated April 2, 2004 ATTACHMENT "A" ATTACHMENT"A- 8 ATTACHMENT B Draper Aden Associates Engineering * Surveying * Environmental Services 8090 Villa park Drive Richmond. Virginia 23228 (8043 264-2228 · Fax: (804) 264-8773 daa@daa.cora · www.daa.com March 30, 2004 ~AR 8 0 2004 Ms. Lori Gar'rea. AIA Glave and Holmes Associates 801 East Main Street Suite 300 Richmond. VA 23219 Re: Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters Turn Lane Warrant Analysis DAA #R03456-05 Dear Ms. Garrett: We are pleased to provide you with our initial findings regarding turning lanes for the proposed Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters. to be located in Albemarle County, Virginia. The new facility replaces the previous one located on Route 250 West. This letter summarizes our study methodology and recommendations. In preparation for this analysis a parking study was prepared by Draper Aden Associates dated February 26, 2004. The parking study was reviewed by the design team and Kappa Sigma, and then was submitted to the county for review and comment. It is now being used as basis for projected site ti'affic in this analysis. Traffic Counts Traffic counts along State Route 20 at the project site were performed on Thursday, March 25, 2004. from 7am to 9am (morning) and 4pm to 6pm (evening). Results are as follows: AM PEAK PERIOD SOUTH- NORTH- TOTAL INTERVAL BOUND BOUND 2-WAY 7:00-7:15 28 94 122 7:15-7:30 41 122 163 7:df J- ;".4 b '."d lf¢8 -' '~' ' 41 ''~' 7.4o-&tYd 1 bS. , 8:110.fl:15 43 '10;5 . . 14:~ ' "t .. ?07 ' ." .v..., 8:H~. 8.30 ~') ' ' '~ 8:30-8:45 50 127 177 8:45-9:00 49 90 139 TOTAL 337 1060 1397 PEAK HR 169 627 796 PM PEAK PERIOD SOUTH- NORTH- TOTAL INTERVAL BOUND BOUND 2-WAY 4:00-4:15 136 46 182 4:15-4:30 103 j 49 152 4:30-4:45 99 50 149 , ,.~ 1 o4. " '" 118,.: :' 6 ' . :~.1o.!.30. . . . ., .. .1R0 ~, :qr; ,, m; 786 ..nb '.9:31 5:45-6:00 84 37 121 TOTAL 963. 382 1345 PEAK HR 541 200 741 Blacksburg, Charlottesv/lle, Hampton Roads, Richmond. VA · Raleigh/Durham. NC 9 ATTACHMENT B Ms. Lori Garreu February 26. 2004 Page 2 of 5 Left Turn Analysis The attached Exhibit 9-75 (VDOT Road Design Manual. Volume 1) provides a guide to determining where left-turn facilities should be considered on two-lane highways. This analysis was based on traffic volumes and based on the posted speed of 55 mph. Ikh'lc ' - 818 5~ - 1~ ~ ~ ~- ~ "~.~."~':,.'~; 410 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m ~o ~ 2~ ~5 ~ 51o ~ ~ 2~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 195 i~ ~ ~ ~_ 1~ j~. ~ ~ .o 210 ~ ~ ~,-2~ 210 ~ l~ '1~- A~5 ~ '~ - .~:. ~ 115 4~ ~ ~ 215 ~ ~ .- ~ -~ 215 Based on the traffic counts, the worst-case period to determine whether or not a left-turn lane is warranted is 7:30am - 8:30am. The opposing traffic volume during the peak hour ts 169 veliicles and the advancing volume is 627 vehicles (heading to Charlottesville). Based on the above table, the opposing traffic volumes for 100 and 200 vehicles were used to determine the basis for 169 vehicles. Additionally, since State Route 20 has a posted speed limit of 55 mph, the advancing volumes for 50 mph and 60 mph were then used to determine averages as shown below. Opposing Votume Advancing Volume 20% [0% 5%~ 169 285 378 519 10 ATTACHMENT B Ms. Lori Garrett February 26, 2004 Page 3 of 5 Based on the left turn percemages in Exhibit %75 and in the above tables, an advancing volume tttreshold of 627 vehicles corresponds to a left turn percentage of 4%. The left turn percentage of 4% corresponds to 25 left tums as an allowance (627 x 4% = 25 left tums). According to the parking study, a total of 23 vehicles (right tums and left tums) will enter the site during the worst-case peak hour. Based on a 95/5 southbound/northbound directional distribution, l vehicle (less than 1% of the advancing volume on Route 20) is expected to turn left into the facility, therefore, a left-turn lane is not warranted. 11 ATTACHMENT B Ms. Lori Garreu February 26. 2004 Page 4 of 5 Right Turn Analysis Figure C-1-8 (VDOT Road Design Manual. Volume 1) graphically represents the guidelines for right turn treatment on a two-lane highway. The worst-case peak-hour (4:45pm - 5:45pm) southbound approach volume is 541 vehicles. Based on the 95/5 southbound/northbound directional distribution. 22 vehicles are expected ro tam right into the facility. Based on Figure C-1-8. a right-turn taper is warranted for the Route 20 southbound approach. c.-15 PHV - Peak Hour Volurae (also Design Hourly Volume oqutvalont) A~ustment for Riqhl Turea For posted speeds at or under 70 km/h (45 mph), PHV tight tum~ > 40, and F3HV total < 300. P~ljusted right tums - lq-IV Right Tums - 20 If PHVis not known use ~: PHV = ADT x K xD K =ftae percent of A/~)T eccurdng in ~e peak hour O=tlm percent of traffic in the peak ~r~rec~on of tlcr~ Note: An average of 11% for K x D will s~fflce. GUIDELINES FOR RIGHT TURN TREATMENT (2-LANE HIG~NAY) FIGURE ~-1-8 ATTACHMENT B Ms. Lori Garret/ February 26, 2004 Page 5 of 5 Conclusion Based on this analysis, no left turn lane is needed to accommodate the facility. A right turn taper is required to provide safe entry to the site during periodic events on weekday evenings. We trust this mm lm~e analysis assists you in the successful development of this important project with a properly sized parking allocation. Attachments cc: Dixon Betz. Kappa Sigma Don Rissmeyer, Draper Aden Associates Sincerely, D PER ADEN ASSOCIATES Transportation Program Manager Draper Aden Associates Engi~eeriu~ · Surveying · Environmental Services 8090 Villa Park Drive Richmond. V~rginia 23228 ~804) 264-2228 · Fax: (804] 264-8773 daa@daa_com · www. daa.cora February 26, 2004 ATTACHMENT C ~MAR 8 0 2D04 Ms. Lori Crarrett, AIA Glave and Holmes Associates 801 East Main Street Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 Re: Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters Parking Study DAA #R03456-05 Dear Ms. Garrerr: We are pleased to provide you with our findings regarding parking needs for the proposed Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters, to be located in Albemarle County, Virgtnia. This letter summarizes our study methodology and recommendations. In preparation for this study, the current si[e plans prepared by Draper Aden Associates and the Programming Document prepared by Glave and Holmes Associates were revie~ved, and the proposed development, as relates to parking needs, was discussed ~vith Lori Garrett (Project Architect with Glave and Holmes), and Mitchell Wilson (Executive Director of Kappa Sigma Fraternity). Attached Table 1 summarizes the various proposed building facilities based on the programming document. These are reformatted somewhat into a form more appropriate for ultimate conversion into parking needs. It is noted that all development will occur in the initial phase of development, with the exception of the conference facility, boardroom, lodging, and recreation amenities. Table 2 summarizes the various activities m take place on weekdays and weekends, utilizing the planned facilities presented in Table 1 As parking demand is generated by people (i.e., drivers) rather than actual building facilities, the description set forth in Table 2 is the primary basis for generating parking. That is, because of the unique time, size, and purpose of various activities, normal parking guidelines based on empirical data, building codes, or other sources are nor appropriate in this particular case. Although, weekday parking conditions will occur on a more frequent basis, the weekend conditions are critical in this particular analysts because of the anticipated higher level of activity and associated parking need_ The key parking generator will be the charter member meetings occurring on weekends, which will involve 30-50 attendees on a somewhat regular basis, and up to 500 attendees every decade or so. Blacksburg, Chm-lotresv~le. Hampton Roads. Richmond,VA · Raleigh/Durham. NC AT'rACHNIENT C Ms. Lori Garrett Februar3 26. 2004 Page 2 of 3 generator will be the chapter member meetings occumng on weekends, which will involve 30-50 attendees on a somewhat regular basis, and up to 500 attendees every decade or so. Table 3 provides an estimate of parking demand for each of the different user types - administrative staff, visiting attendees, lodge patrons, etc. - and based on Table 2 assumptions. The big variable in weekday parking demand is whether or not a local meeting (assumed to average 24 attendees) occurs. Without such a meeting, daily parking demand is estimated to be 27, whereas the parking demand including a community meeting increases to 39. The peak parking demand conditions will occur on a weekend. A typical weekend is assumed to include a chapter meeting of up to 50 college student attendees, generating 17 parking spaces (assuming worst case that they all arrive by private auto. with an average of three (3) persons per car). Visitors using the lodging facilities as well as some limited support staff will generate additional parking on weekends. During the summer, Leadership School meetings involving up to 200 attendees will generate a parking demand of approximately 76. agmn, assuming they all arrive by automobile. Table 4 provides a summary of parking space needs based on the data developed in the first three (3) tables. Estimated parking needs are summarized by weekday and weekend in Table 4. It should be noted that the parking demand data through Table 3 represents the number of vehicles that must be parked during a given time during the day. It is the recommended practice that the theoretical parking demand is increased 15% to determine the actual number of parking spaces to provide. That is. there should be a surplus of 15% to account for vehicles improperly occupytng two (2) parking spaces, vehicles in the process of entering or exiting the parking space (but not technically parked), and accounting for spaces which may be vacant in one (1) aisle or area of a parking facility, hut not be apparently available to the driver seeking the space in another aisle or area of the parking. With this in mind, it is estimated that the weekly parking space requirement would be 31 spaces, or 45 spaces when a community meeting is taking place. The weekly critical, that is greatest, parking needs occur on the weekend. During a weekend with a chapter meeting event of up to 50 attendees, total parking space requirements are 30 spaces. For the larger chapter meetings occurring, on average, every month or two (2), the total parking space requirement increases to 88 spaces. The once per year or greater events - greater than 300 attendees - generate additional parking demands, which it can be reasonably argued are not be cost effective to construct and maintain parking onsite. That is. the additional parking demand for these larger events should be accommodated at offsite facilities. A generally sound practice for meeting parking demand is to provide sufficient parking to meet those needs that occur on a regular basis, and to meet greater parking needs occurnng on an irregular basis by providing offsite facilities, transit, shuttles_ and other alternatives for special events. In this case. the key factor to consider is what frequency of parking demand will be accommodated onsite. As previously discussed, weekend events with up to 200 attendees - larger chapter meetings plus Leadership School meetings primarily in the summer - wilt occur, on average, every month or two (2L Events occurring involving greater parking demand likely will be limited to one el) or two (2) times per year. Accordingly, it can be argued that providing P:\R03\400XR03~S6BR03456-05\REPORTS\LTR - 04 0226 - GmTett - Kat>Da Sigma HQ Parking - TEF. cloc ATTACHMENTC Ms. Lori Garret[ February 26. 2004 Page 3 of 3 a total of 88 parking spaces will accommodate events on all but perhaps several days per year. but not be over-designed in that they will be effectively utilized at least once every month or so. Additionally, the County will allow 120% of the determined parkin~ need. meaning site plans for this project could include between 88 and 106 ~88 x 120%) parking spaces. We trust this assessment assists you in the successful development of this important project with a properly sized parking allocation. Sincerely, DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES Attachments cc: Mitchell Wilson Don Rissmeyer Thomas E. Fi)mn. P.E.. PTOE Transportation Program Manager P:LR03\400~R03456\R03456 O~\RE~ORTS\LTR - 04 0226 - Garrert - Kappa 3~gma HQ Parking . TEF.doc ATTACHMENT C Table 1 PROPOSED BUILDING FACILITIES Kappa Sigma Fraternity Headquarters Building Facilities Square Footage/Units Initial Phase Full Build-Out Administrative Offices 6,600 SF 7.430 SF 300 seats 300 seats Chapter Meeting Room (3.300 SF) (3.300 SF) Lodging (B&B Style'~ 8 rooms 8 rooms ...................................................................... L4_,__¥_ 0___sY~ _ (4_.½_0_0_S_F) ..... Conference Facility 300 seats ..................................................................................... _E -_4pO__S__F_) ..... Board Room 950 SF Miscellaneous - HVAC, restrooms _ ~ _e c_.r_e__a tj2p_F_ ac i li_t i_e_s- ................................................................... _6_,__8_0_~_S_F __ P.\R03\400\R03456kR03456-05XREPORTS\TBL - 041~226 - Table I TEF doc 17 Table 2 PLANNED EMPLOYEE AND VISITOR ACTIVITIES Kappa Sigma Fraternity Headquarters ATTACHMENT C Weekdays l Administrative Personnel - 20-25 employees in the 6,600 - 7.430 SF. 2 Museurn/ArchivefLibrary - 1 or 2 staff, several visitors on a typical daily basis. 3 Lodging - assume 2 units occupied on typical day. 4 Miscellaneous Facilities Use - assume once/twice per week a local community group of 20-25 persons meet. Weekends Chapter Member Meetings - meeting in the Chapter room - typical weekend would be 30-50 members (mostly college students) plus support staff (say, 5). Every 2-3 months would be 50-100 persons, including a Board meeting. In summer months, weekend Leadership Schools average 200 members plus support staff (say, 5). Lodging - assume 4 rooms occupied, outside of Chapter meeting attendees. Remaining lodging, recreational, archives, etc. - their use would be by onsite Chapter members (item 1). "Grand Conclave" Chapter Meeting - Every year or two, 300 persons (members plus wives) visit. Decade Event - a major celebration every 10 years or so involving up to 500 attendees. p.\R03\400\R03¢56~R03456 05\REIN )RTS\TB L - 04 0226 Table 2 - TEFdoc Table 3 PARKING DEMAND Kappa Sigma Fraternity Headquarters ATTACHMENT C Weekday Administration - Parking rate, per Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation_ 2nd Edition. for General Office is 2.79 sp/l.000 GSF (weekday). For 7.430 SF this equals 21 spaces. This is consistent with 20-25 employees projected. Assume: 21 spaces. Museum/Archive/Library - occasional visitation. Assume: 2 spaces. Lodging - ITE Parking Generation for lodging without restaurant is 0.51 spaces/room. Assume: 4 spaces. Local Community Meeting - plan for 24 attendees, average 2 per car. Assume: 12 spaces. Weekend 1 Chapter Meeting Room - for typical weekend, up to 50 attendees (college students) arriving in autos (say, 3 per car), plus 5 support staff at 1 per car). Assume: 17 plus 5 equals 22 spaces. For 100 attendee meeting every several months and 200 attendee Leadership School meetings in summer, assume 200 attendees driving by auto (3 per car) plus 5 staff. Assume 72 spaces. Also. some attendees at a limited number of these meetings may arrive by vanes, resulting in a lower parking demand. For larger events, assume additional parking demand accommodated offsite. 2 Lodging weekend use higher than weekday use (say, 1 space/room versus 0.51 spaces/room), and assume 4 rooms occupied separate from chapter meeting attendees. Assume: 4 spaces. 3 Conference Center. Museum/Library/Archives, Recreational Facilities. Board Room, remaining 4 lodge rooms - assume users of these are included in the Chapter Meeting Room and Lodging parking demand. P'~R03x400hR03456~R03456 05\REPORTS/TBL 04 0226 - Tat ~ 3 TEF. doc Table 4 SUMMARY OF PARKING NEED SCENARIOS Kappa Sigma Fraternity Headquarters ATTACHMENT C Weekday parking Need Without local community meeting - 21 staff+ 2 library + 4 lodging = 27 x 1.15~ 31 spaces required With local community meeting - 21 + 2 + 4 + 12 commumty = 39 x 1.15 45 spaces Weekend Parking Need With typical weekend event (50 attendees) - 17 attendees + 5 staff+ 4 lodging = 26 x 1.15 30 spaces With weekend event of 200 attendees - 67 + 5 + 4 = 76 x 1.15 88 spaces With larger events - accommodated additional demand offsite 88 spaces Note: Initial phase and full build-out (add Conference and Boardrooms) parking needs are the same. ~ Increase parking demand by demand 15% efficiency factor for number of spaces needed to meet P:~.03 ~00\R03456 R0345 )5kREPORTS TBI, - 04 0226 - Table 4 FEF doc 2O ATTACHMENT D Preliminary Engineering Report Water and Sewer Facilities for Kappa Sigma Headquarters Albemarle County, Virginia Prepared for: Ivk. Dixon Betz Kinder Morgan Bulk Terrrdnals, Inc. 3500 N. Causeway Blvd.. Suite 210 Metaire, LA 70002 Prepared by: Draper Aden Associates Engineering · Surveying · Environmental Services 700 Harris Street. Suite E, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 March 30.2004 DAA JN: R03456-07 2i ATTACHMENT D TABLE OFCONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 SOEL CONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... PRIVATE SEWER ......................................................................................................................... 1 PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER ....................................................................................................... 2 PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY ....................................................................................................... 2 PUBLIC WATER DISTRIBUTION SERVICE ............................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................... 3 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 3 22 ATTACHMENT D INTRODUCTION Draper Aden Associates (DAA) was retained to prepare a preliminary engineering report for providing water and sanitary sewer services to the site of the proposed new Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters. This project site is approximately 6-acres of land. located west of and adjacent to Stale Route 20 and approximately one-half mile south of the signalized intersection of State Route 20 and Route 53. Site visits, discussions with state and local governmental agencies, and preliminary engineering calculations were completed for evaluation of the available options for providing water and sewer utilities for the project. Final approval of the selected utility systems will fall on the two (2) agencies having jurisdiction for these services: Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA), for the public water and sewer, and the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Thomas Jefferson District for on-site private utilities. SOIL CONDITIONS Soils were evaluated utilizing the information provided in the GeotechnicaI Evaluation and Subsurface Exploration for Kappa Sigma that was prepared by Draper Aden Associates (February 4. 2004) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service's Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia, August 1985. The site has an initial layer of organic topsoil approximately six inches in depth. The second layer, of varying depths, consists of ML tsilts) and NIH (elastic silts). The soil survey classified these soils as "Rabun Clays". The percolation rate provided in the soil survey was estimated to be between 0.6 and 2.0 inches per hour. This type of soil condition'is considered moderately well suited for the installation of onsite disposal systems, and additional soil testing would he required as part of the septic field design if onsite treatment is chosen for the project. For this preliminary engineering report, we used an average percolation rate of 1.3 inches per hour for the designated soil type (or 46.15 minutes/inch as shown in the calculations below. PRIVATE SEWER The Virginia Department of Health has guidelines for estimating sewerage flows, however, none of the classifications directly apply to this type of mixed-use facility. Using the architectural programming document prepared by Glave and Holmes. we have developed the following group occupancies as the worst case scenario for the project: ATTACHMENTD Demand Calculations (from the Health Department Regulations) Office (daily use) - 25 people x 20 gal/person/day. ....................................................... = 500 gpd Auditorium - 300 seats x 5 gal/seat/da3 ......................................................................... = 1,500 gpd 8 lodging rooms - 2 people each x 65 gal/per/day ......................................................... = 1,040 gpd TOTAL DEMAND ........................................................ = 3.040 gpd Septic Field Calculations (from the Health Department Regulations) log y = 2.00 + O.008(x) where y = SF per 100 gals x = percolation rate (minutes/inch) log y = 2.00 + 0.008 (46.15 rain/in) y = 229.08 Area Required = 229.08 x (3,040gpd/100)= 6,964 square feet Area Required = 7,000 square feet, In addition to the required area, the Health Department requires a reserve area equal to the required area of the field. Therefore. the total area of the site dedicated to a septic field would be 14,000 square feet (or 0.32 acres). PUBLIC SANITARY SEWER ACSA currently has an existing ten (10") inch PVC gravity sewer line located at the south end of the newly constructed Stone Creek Apartments. This sewer line is approximately 2,600 feet north of the site and along State Route 20 near Route 53 (See Figure 11. The manhole at the terrmnus is approximately 9 feet in depth and would be sufficient to connect a new line to the ACSA system. As an extension of the system, the Service Authority would like to maintain the same pipe sizing; therefore a ten-inch grawty server extension is used in this PER for comparison. Two alternative alignments were evaluated in this PER as shown on Figure 1. each following the creek for part of it's length to take advantage of the topography. Another option would be the installation of a grinder type pump station on the site. Sewerage would then be collected in the pump station and pumped via a three-inch force main to the connection at Stone Creek Apartments. for the purposes of this study. PRIVATE WATER SUPPLY On-site water supply systems for this project would involve the development of a well. pressurized tank. and a large ground storage tank with a fire pump and stand-by generator. Based on a mn,,lmum fire flo~ of 500 _~:dlons per minute [gpm'* and a minimum duration of two hours, a ground storage tank of approximately 60,000 gallons would be required for fire protection, as was assumed in this study. ~TTACHMENT D PUBLIC WATER DISTRIBUTION SERVICE Located within the same Stone Creek Apartment complex mentioned for sewer service, is an eight-inch (8") ductile iron waterline. The line has an existing valve at the terminus (roughly the same location as the terminus for the sewer line) and would be readily available to connect a new waterline at this location. The average pressure at this point is reported by the ACSA to be 85 pounds per square inch (psi). Based on some preliminary head loss calculations, this pressure would allow for a fire flow of between 1,200 gallons per minute (gpm) and 1,300 gallons per rmnute (gpm) at the site. with an approximate pressure of 35 pounds per square inch (psi). This seems to be adequate for fire flow wtthout the installation of a fire pump or onsite storage tank, as would be required with a private well. More detailed calculations should be prepared to confirm these initial findings as part of the design of building systems. The Service Authority would like to maintain their 8" waterline in order to accommodate future demands. This line would thus have the capability of providing fire protection and domestic water supply, Two alternate routes were evaluated in this PER (See Figure 1), along State Route 20. Since the ACSA limits only include the areas west of State Route 20, the waterline on the west side of the road seems preferable to ACSA~ as well as Kappa Sigma. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS An additional consideration for the extension of public utilities is the need to obtain environmental permits for impacts to wetlands in and around Cow Branch. Based on our initial assessment, crossings of this creek can be minimized and permitting might be possible without mitigation, however, the wetland limits and permit requirements would need to be determined as part of detailed design. CONCLUSIONS A summary of the options considered in this study, along with estimated construction costs are shown below: WATER SERVICE OPTIONS Alternate 1 Public Water Service via extension of $130_000 Existing ACSA system (west side of SR 20) Alternate 2 Public Water Service via extension of $150.000 Existing ACSA system (east side of SR 20) Alternate 3 On site Service via development of a $195.000 well. fire pump, and tank ATTACHMENT D SEWER SERVICE OPTIONS Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3 Altemate 4 Public Sewer Service via extension of Existing ACSA system (creek only) Public Sewer Service via extension of $140,000 Existing ACSA system (SR 20 and creek) On site Seruice via development of a $ 55.000 drainfield and tank Public Sewer Service by pump station $ 75.000 and 3" force main. When evaluating best how to serve this facility, it is important to consider both cost and reliability. Public utilities are typically more reliable and maintenance would not be Kappa Sigma's responsibility, however, public utility bills would arrive monthly. An additional consideration is the comments being received from county staff and the Planning Commission. where they are strongly encouraging the development of public utility systems. Planning Commission has further commented that they would prefer one of the gravity sewer systems presented in this report. With this in mind. Kappa Sigma might choose either of two solutions: Solution #1 - meets Kappa Sigma needs Water Alternate 1 Public Water Service via extension of Existing ACSA system (west side of SR 20) $130.000 Sewer Alternate 4 Public Sewer Service by pump station and 3" force main. $75.000 TOTAL BUDGET = $205.000 Solution #2 - address both Kappa Sigma and county needs Water Alternate 1 Public Water Service via extension of Existing ACSA system (west side of SR 20) $130.000 Sewer Alternate 2 Public Sewer Service via extension of Existing ACSA system (SR 20 and creekj $140.000 TOTAL BUDGET = 5270.000 Hopefully, cost sharing of $65.000 can be developed to better meet county needs with solution #2. We look Forward ro receiving direction from Kappa Sigma and moving into detailed design services as soon as possible. 26 Z LU COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Depamnent of Corramunity Development Planning 401 Mctntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 -4012 May 6 2004 Lori Garrett Glave & Holmes Associates 801 E, Main Street, Suite 300 Richmond VA 23219 RE: SP-03-91 Kappa Sigma International Memorial Headquarters; Tax Map 91, Parcel 16 Dear Ms. Garret't: The Albemarle County PLanning Commission at its meeting on April 27, 2004, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this appreva~ is subject to the following conditions: The site shall be developea in general accord with the plans, entitled Kappa Sigma Fraternity Head~luarters. dated April 2, 2004; Lighting of the site shall be limited as follows: a. Light levels at the property line shall be no greater than 0.001 foot candles: b. No flood lighting of the building is permitted: c. Only the parking ot north of the building shall be allowed pole lights; d. Utilize boflerd type lights in place of pole lights whenever possible. Use only full cutoff fixtures; and e. Site and building illumination shall be limited to the satisfaction of the ARB. 3. Finalsiteplansshallshowareservationforfuturevehicularand pedestrian connections to adjacent parcels ta the north and south; 4. Final site plans shall show a pedestrian connection from the pod/bike pathway on Route 20 into the site; 5. A dgnt turn and taper shall be constructed at the entrance in Route 20' to the satisfaction of VDOT 6. Landscaping shall be provided to limit the impact of the storm water area on the Entrance Corridor to the satisfaction of the ARB; and The Applicant shall construct publicwater service to the site via extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority water line located on the west side of Route 20 and public sewer service v~a extension of the existing Albemarle County Service Authority sewer line located along Route 20 and the Cow Branch Creek, generally as provided in the report entitleo. Preliminary Engineering Reoort Water and Sewer Facilities for kappa Sigma Headquarters by Draper Aden Associates, dated March 30. 2004. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on May 12, 2004. 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 2 May6,2004 If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823, Sincerely, Senior Planner MD/jcl Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Wendell Wood Mitchell Wilson COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Deparm~eqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclnfire Road. Room 218 Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 RECEIVED APR 0 g 20n Cogmy of AIk/emarie MEMORANDUM TO: Robert W. Tucker, Jr, County Executive DATE:FROM: April Joan 6,McD°wel~'2004 Principal Planner~ RE: ZTA-04~01 Cluster Development The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 30, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the above-noted zoning text amendment with the recommendation that the effective date be as close to July 1, 2004 as possible. Attached please find a staff report which outlines this amendmenL The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review this amendment at their May 12, 2004 meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. JMD/jcf ATTACHMENT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 04-01 Cluster Developments SUBJE CT~ROPOSAL/REOUEST: Amend Sections 10.2.2, 10.3.3.3, and t0.5.2 o£tl-~e Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the requirement of a special use permit for Rural Preservation Developments in the Rural Areas having more than twenty lots. This ordinance text revision would delete provisions allowing RPD's with more than twenty lots and bring RPD ordinance requirements into conformance ;vith Virginia Code. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg; Benish: McDowell REVIEWED BY: Benish. Cilimberg .AGENDA DATE: March 30, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: N/A ATTACItMENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROI32h~: The Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of Intent on December 10.2003, to bring the Rural Preservation Developments ordinance requirements into conformance with Virginia Code (Attachment A) The Executive Summary that accompanied the Resolution of Intent revision is attached as reference (Attachment B). line Executive Summary provides the background and a discussion of the proposed ordinance ;ext amendment. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources. DISCUSSION: As the Planning Commission is currently still reviewing the draft Plan in worksessions and with public hearings to be conducted in the future, it is easily predicted that changes to the zoning ordinance to implement the Rural Preservation Development strategies that are contained in the draft Plan will not be completed by July 1. The proposed text change to eliminate Rural Preservation Development with more than 20 lots would bring the County into compliance. Staff considers that this revision to eliminate larger RPDs is an interim measure that will be replaced by zoning ordinance performance standards that implement strate~es contained in the Plan The alternative to this text change would be to remove the special use requirement for RPDs of over 20 lots without benefit of having standards to reflect the policies contained in the draft Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing the history of Rural Preservation Developments in the County, the temporary removal of RPDs of over twenty lots from the zoning ordinance would not have had a significant impact on development in the Rural Areas. Rural Preservation Developments were added to the zoning ordinance m 1989 as an alternative to conventional subdivision. Since that rime. fourteen RPDs have been approved and three are currently under revie~v. Of the fourteen approved RPDs. only four required special use permit approval for over twenty lots. The ten other applications, ro which no action had ever been taken, three had more than twenty lots. ZTA 04 0I Cluster Developments 1 March 22, 2004 'r. ~'~' ' lllll'f~131 I,~tI, I lib ....... RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Zoning Text Amendment 04-01, per Ordinarice No. 04-I8(), to amend Sections 10.2.2, 10.3.3.3, and 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: A Executive Summary, Agenda Date December 10, 2003 B Resolution of Intent, Adopted December 10, 2003 C Ordinance No. 04-I8( ) ZTA 04 01 Cluster Developments March 22, 2004 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Rural Preservation Development Resolution of Intent SUBJE CT?PRO?OSAL/P~ QU~ ST: A Resolution of Intent to bring Rural Preservation Developments ordinance requirements into conformance with Virginia Code STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg; Davis P, EV't~WED BY: Benish, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: December 10, 2003 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTAC~ENTS: Yes ITEM NUMBER: INFOt~M_~,.TION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUnd: The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance requires that Rural Preservation Developments (RPD] of 20 lots or more obtain special use permit approval. Effective July 1, 2004, the Virginia Code will prohibit localities from authorizing cluster development (Rural Preservation Developments) by special use permit and instead Mil require that all localities allow these developments by-r/ght. Standards, conditions, and criteria regulating cluster developments (Rural Preservation Developments) may be established by localities. Rural Preservation Development strategies are an integral part of the draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan currently under review by the Planning Commission. As it is unlikely that the Comprehensive Plan and subsequent Ordinance revisions pertaining to l~D's will be implemented prior to the effective date of the Virginia Code allowing ail RPD's by-righk a Resolution of Intent has been prepared now to repeal the conflicting Albemarle Zoning Ordinance regulation. DISCUSSION: The draft Rural Areas element of the Comprehensive Plan contains policies and strategies for Rural Preservation Developments that would utilize less land for the residential lots and create larger preservation lots. Although the draft Plan is under review at this time, the timing for bringing the Zoning Ordinance requirements into compliance with the Virginia Code regulations would probably extend beyond the Juiy 1 effective date. Therefore. staff believes that it is prudent to avoid this foreseeable conflict, and proceed with a Resolution of Intent to repeal Albemarle's regulation requiring a special use permit for RPD's of 20 lots and greater at this time. The repeal of this section of the Ordinance regulation would not affect the reqmremem for Rural Preservation Developments ro adhere to criteria and standards for these .types of developments that are already contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Ho;vever, the absence of a special use permit requirement for P,-PD's of 20 or more lots would eliminate the public hearing process. It is anticipated that further changes to the Zoning Ordinance will be made when the Rural Areas Comprehensive Plan is adopted. To date. staff has not had any recent discussion ;vith developers or landowners regarding potential RPD developments w/th 20 or more lots. Since 1990. out ora total of !3 RPDs the County approved 8 with 20 or more lots. In the past 10 R. PD Reso. of Intent ATTACHMENT A years. 3 RPD's were approved for 20 or more lots and 3 for less than 20 lots. Two RPDs w/th less than 20 lots have be~n denied. No RPDs with 20 or more lots have been denied. The achievement of the County's Strategic Plan objective to "Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources" and the goal to "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character" would not be compromised with the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Intent, as the existing standards contained in the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance that provide protection for important natural, scemc, and historic resources would be maintained. .RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached Resolutqon of ~tent. ATTACI~VIENTS: A B Resolution of Intent Albemarle Zoning Ordinance Section 10.3.3 - 10.3.3.3 Rural ]?reservation Devdopment RPD Peso. of Intent ORDINANCE NO. 04-18(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE 1T ORDAINED By the Board of Superdsors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are mended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 10.2.2 Sec. 10.3.3.3 Sec. 10.5.2 By special use permit Special prowsions Where permitted by special use permit Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit Chapter 18. Zoning Article III. District Regulations The following uses shall be permitted only by special use permil approved by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 31.2.4: tAdded 10-9-02) i. Community center (reference 5.1.04). 2. Clubs, lodges, rowe, patriotic, fi'atemal (reference 5.1.02). 3. Fire and rescue squad stations (reference 5.1.09). 4. Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities treference 5.1.16). 5. Private schools. 6. Electrical power substations, u~ansmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, primping stations and appurtenances, unmanned telephone exchange centers; micro- wave and radio-wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances. Day care, child care or nursery facility (reference 5.1.06). 8. (Repealed 3-5-86) 9. Mobile home subdivisions (reference 5.5). I0. (Repealed 11-11-92) 11. (Repealed 3-15-95) 12. Horse show grounds, permanent. i3. Custom slaughterhouse. 14.Sawmills. planing mills and woodyards (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 1 15. Group homes and homes for developmentally disabled persons as described in section 15.1- 486.2 of the Code (reference 5.1.07). 16. (Repealed 11-15-95) 17. Commercial kermel (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14'~. 18. Veterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14). 19. Private airport, helistop, heliport, flight strip t reference 5.1.01). 20. Day camp. boarding camp (reference 5.1.05 L 21. Sankary landfill (reference 5.i.14). 22. Country store. 23. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants. (Amended 11-8-89) 24. (Repealed 11-8-89) 25. Flood control dams and impoundments. 26. (Repealed 11-8-89~ 27. Restaurants and inns that are: a. Located within an tfistoric landmark as designated in the comprehensive plan, provided: (i) the structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; and (ii) the structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectural character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith; or b. Nonconforming uses, provided the restaurant or inn is sm-ced by existing water and sewerage systems having adequate capacity for both the existing and proposed uses and facilities without expansion of either system. (Amended 11-8-89; 10-18-00) 28. Divisions of land as provided in section 10.5.2.1. (Amended 5-12-04) 29. Boat landings and canoe 1/very. 30. Permitted residential use s as provided in section 10.5.2.1. t Amended 5-12-04) 31. Home occupation, Class B (reference 5.2). 32. Cemetery. 33. Crematorium. 34. (Repealed 3-21-01 ) 35. Cburch building and adjunct cemetery. 36. Gi~, cm~ and antique shops. 2 37. Public garage. (Added 3-18-81/ 38. Exploratory drilling. (Added 2-10-82) 39. Hydroelectric power generation (reference 5.1.26). (Added 4- 28-82) 40. Borrow area, borrow pit not pcm-aitted under section 10.2.1.18. (Added 7-6-83) 41. Convent, Monastery (reference 5.1.29). tAdded 1-1-87) 42. Temporary events sponsored by local nonprofit organizations which are related to, and supportive of the RA, rural areas, district (refer6nce 5.1.27~. (Added 12-2-87) 43. Agricultaral Museum (reference 5.1.30). (Added 12-2-87) 44. Theatre, outdoor drama. (Added 6-10-92) 45. Farm sales (reference 5.1.35). (Added 10-11-95) 46. Off-site parkiag for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site employee parking for an industrial use in an industrial zon'mg district (reference 5.1.39). 47. Animal shelter (reference 5.1.i1). [Added 6-16-99). (§ 20-10.2.2, 12-10-80; 3-18-81; 2-10-82; 4-28-82; 7-6-83; 3-5-86; 1-1-87: [2-2-87; 11-8-89; i0-18-00; 3-21-01; 6-10-92:1 I-11-92: Ord. 95-20(1), 3-15-95; Ord. 95-20(3), [0-11-95; Ord. 95-20(5), 11-15-95; Code 1998, § 18-10.2.2, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord 99-18(4), 6-16-99; Ord. 02-18(6), 10-9-02; Ord. 04- 18(1), 5-12-04) Sec. 10.3.3.3 Special provisions (Added 11-8-89) In addition to design standards as set forth tn section 10.3.3.2 and o~her regulation, the following special provisions shall apply to any rural preservation development: a. The maximum number of lots witlfm a rural prese~rvation developm6nt shall be the same as may be achievable pursuant to section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 and other applicable law. Each rural preservation watt shall count as one (1) lot. In the case of any parcel of land which, prior to application for rural preservation development, has been made subject ro a conservation, open space or other similar easement which restricts development on the parcel, the total number of lots available for rural preservafion development shall not exceed the number available for conventional developmcmt as limited by any such previously maposed easement or easements; b. Section 10.3.3.3.a norwithstancVmg, no rural preservation development shall contffm more than twenty (20) development lots; (Amcmded 5-12-04) c. Provisions of section 10.3.3, rural presmwation development, shall be applied to the entire parcel. Combination of conventional and rum] preservation development within the parcel shall not be permitted, provided that the total number of lots achievable under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2 shall be pmavJtted by authorization of more than one (1) rural preservation tract. Notl~mg contained herein shall be deemed to preclude the director of cra'rem development and zoning from approving a rural preservation development for multiple tracts of adjoining land, or on land divided or otherwise altered prior to the effective date of this provision; provided that, in either case, the provisions of section 10.3.3 shall be applicable: (Amended 5-12-04) l?he area devoted to development lots together w/th the area of roadway necessary to provide access to such lots shall not exceed the number of development lots multiplied by a factor of six (6) expressed in acres: No raral preservation development shall cuntim less than one (1) rural preservation tract. The director of current development and zoning may authorize more than one (1) rural preservation tract in a particular case pursuant to the various purposes of rural preservation development as set forth in section 10.3.3.2 or in accord with section 10.3.3.3.c, as the case may be: (Amended 5-12-04) No rural preservation tract shall consist of less than forty (40) acres. Except as specifically permitted by the director of current development and zomng at time of establishment, not more than one (1) dwelling unil shall be located on any rural preservation ~ract or development lot. No rural presc~vation tract shall be diminished in area. These restrictions shall be guaranteed by perpetual easement accruable to the County of Albemarle and the public recreational facility authority of Albemarle County in a form acceptable to the board. In accordance with Chapter 14 of the Code of Albemarle, the director of planning and community development shall serve as agent for the board of supervisors to accep~ such easement. Thereafter, such easement may be modified or abandoned only by mutual agreement of the ~ntees to the original agreement. (Amended 5-12-04) g. Each application for a rural preservation development is subject to the review and approval of the director of current development and zoning. (Amended 5-12-04) 20-10.3.3.3.12-10-80; 11-8-89; Code 1998, ] 18-10.2.2. Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98: Ord. 04-18(1), 5-12-04) Sec. 10.5~2 Where permitted by special use permit 10.5.2.1 The board of supermsors may authorize the issuance of a special use permit for: more lots than the total number permitted under section 10.3.1 and section 10.3.2; provided that no such permit shall be issued for property witl'fin the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water supply impoundment; and further provided th,at no such perrrfit shall be issued to allow more development lots within a proposed rural preservation development than that permitted by right under section 10.3.3.3(b). (Added 11-8-89; Amended 5-12-04) The board of supervisors shall determ'me that such division is compatible with the neighborhood as set forth in section 31.2.4.1 of this chapter,, with reference to the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan relating to rural areas including the type of division proposed and specifically, as to this section only, with reference to the following: (Amended 11-8-89; 5-12- 04)) The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation m its suitability for agricultural or forestal production as evaluated by the United States Depamnent of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or the Virginia Deparunent of Forestry. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Deparrmem of Agriculture Soft Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivalent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. 4 The historic commercial agricultural or forestal uses of the property since 1950. to the extent that is reasonably available. If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be m an agricultural or forestal area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one [1) mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestal use within five (5) years of the date of the application for special use penni~. In making this detm'mination. mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if fifty (50) percent or more of the land within one (1) mile of the boundary of such property was ~n parcels of record of five (5) acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determ'mation, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract fi:om the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the proposed development to ex/sting and proposed population centers, services and employment canters. A property within areas described below shall be deemed m prozan'nty to the area or use described: a. Within one mile roadway distance of the urban area boundary as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) b. Within one-half mile roadway d/stance of a community boundary, as described in the comprehensive plan; (Amended 11-8-89) c. Within one-half mile roadway d/stance of a village as described in the comprehensive plan. (Amended 11-8-89) The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of services. The traffic generated fi:om the proposed development would not, in the opinion of the Virginia Department of Transportation: (Amended 11-8-89) a. Occasion the need for road improvement; b. Cause a tolerable road to become a nontolemble road; c. Increase traffic on an existing nontolerable road. With respect to applications for special use perm/ts for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment, the following additional factors shall be considered: (Amended 5-12-04) The amount and quality of existing vegetative cover as related to filtration of sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption; b. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development; c. The mount of impervious cover wl'fich will exist after development: d. The proximity of any paved tpervious or impervious) area, structure, or drain field to any perennial or intermittent stream or impoundment; or during the construction phase, the proximity of any disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment: e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability; f. The percentage and length of all slopes subject m disturbance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pm*mous or impervious) or active recreational area shall ex/st after development; g. The estimated duration and tinYmg of the construction phase of any proposed development and extent to which such duration and timing are anpredictable; h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have been altered m anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder; i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 17 et seq. of the Code of Albemarle can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: 1. Reqmre periodic inspection and/or maintenance; 2. Are susceptible to failure or overflow for nm-off associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. (§ 20-10.5.2, 12-10-80; 11-8-89; Code 1998, ~ 18-10.2.2, Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98: Ord. 04-1811), 5-12-04) 10.5.2.2 .M_ATF~RIALS TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT The commtss~on and the board of supervisors may reqtftre the applicant to submit such information as deemed necessary for the adequate rewew of such application provided that such information shall be directly related to items 1, 2, 3 and 9 of section 10.5.2.1. This orcFmance shall become effective July 1. 2004. I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an OrcFmanee duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on May 12, 2004. 'Cl~ard of County Superviso,~ Mr. Boyd Y Mr. Donder Y Mr. Rooker Y Ms. Thomas Y Mr. Wyam Y Aye N~ Y 6