HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-07-08 FINAL
7:00 P.M.
JULY 8, 1998
MEETING ROOM 24 l, SECOND FLOOR
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence,
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet~.
SP-97-64, Bethel Baptist Church (Signs #25&26j. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow
expansion of existing church use on an adjoining parcel. Znd RA for agriculture and
supporting residential uses. TM21_Ps25&.26, Located at intersect of Burnley Station
Rd (Pt 641' &- Watts Passage (Rt 600 i. Rivanna Dist. (This property is not located
in a designated growth area..
SP-98-12. Charlottesville Catholic School (Signs #91&97~. PUBLIC HEARING on a request
ro construct private school for 600 students on 17 ac. Znd R-4. l'M61A. P29. Located
along Rio Rd between Penn Park Rd ~Rt 768) &_Penn Park Ln (Rt 1481/. Rivanna
Dist.
SP-98-17. Blue Ridge Healing (Sign #53l. PUBLIC HEARING on a request to establish
Home Occupgrion Class B for energy healing &_yoga class business. Znd R2. Located
on 1.7 ac at 5675 Oak Dr, off Rt 240. in Community of Crozet. TM56C,Block C,P9.
White Hall Dist. (This property is located in a designated development area.)
SP-98-19. Brown Toyota (Sign #70). PUBLIC HEARING on a request to allow outdoor
storage & display for auto sales on 1.35 acs. Znd HC &_ EC. Located on U.S. Rt 250
E approx 1.5 mi W of intersect ~State Farm Blvd. TM78,PI4A. Rivanna Dist. This
property is designated as Community Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comp Plan.)
ZTA-98-04. Off-sim Parking for Industrial Uses by GE Fanuc. PUBLIC HEARING on a
request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow for off-site employee parking in
conitmction ~'industrial use of property. Zoning Ordinance currendy allows off-sim
parking only in conjunction w/historic properties in RA.
Approval of Minutes: July 3 and December 11 tN), 1996: August 6, 1997 and
February 18, 1998.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1 Adopt resolution regarding VDoT construction of teleconununication facilities.
5.2 Appropriation: General District Courtroom_ $17,240 ~ Form #98002).
FOR INFORMATION:
5.3 Copy of letter dated June 15, 1998. from Janice D. Sprinkle. Deputy Zoning Administrator, to
Pat Jensen. re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS - Section
10.3 I. I. Tax Map 62. Parcel 54C (Property of MARTHA N. CONDEE).
5.4 Letter dated June 15. 1998, from David Noe. Manager, Environmental Health & Safety, re:
GE Fanuc Automation. EPA ID# VAD98909551782.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of July 8, 1998
July 9, 1998
4.
5.1
5.2
5.4
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
12.
AGENDA ITEM
Call to Order.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda
from the PUBLIC.
Adopt resolution regarding VDOT
construction of telecommunication facilities.
DEFERRED until July 15. 1998.
Appropriation: General District Cour~oom.
$17,240 (Form//98002). APPROVED.
Letter. re: GE Fanuc Automation, EPA ID
#VAD98909551782.
SP-97-64. Bethel Baptist Church (Signs
#25&26). APPROVED.
SP-98-t2. Charlottesville Catholic School
(Signs #91&97). APPROVED.
SP-98-17. Blue Ridge Healing (Sign #53).
APPROVED.
SP-98-19. Brown Toyota (Sign #70).
APPROVED,
ZTA-98-04. Off-site Parking for Industrial
Uses by GE Fanuc. ADOPTED Ordinance.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda
from the BOARD.
The Board briefly discussed the use of photo
simulations in making decisions.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that Board members
had received a copy of the MI?O's statement
to Secretary of Transportation Shirley
Ybarra.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has been
appointed to the Virginia Strategy
Governor's Advisory Committee.
ASSIGNMENT
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m., by the
Cha'mnan (Mr, Bowerman was absent).
There were none.
County Attorney: Incorporate recommended
changes and bring back to Board.
Clerk: Forward to Melvin Breeden and appropriate
persons.
County Executive: Ms. Humphris asked what this
means.
Clerk: Forward conditions in memo to Wayne
Cilimberg.
Clerk: Forward conditions in memo to Wayne
Cilimberg.
Clerk: Forward conditions in memo to Wayne
Cilimberg.
Clark: Forward conditions in memo to Wayne
Cilimberg.
Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to Wayne
Cilimberg and appropriate persons.
ASSIGNMENT
12. tOther Matters continued)
Ms. Thomas mentioned that the ARB will
be holding another work session on gasoline
stations and canopies next week.
Ms. Humphris mentioned the attendance
of some Board members and staff at the
High Growth Forum in Fredericksburg. She
has been asked to serve on a steering
committee of the forum. She will be going
to Chesapeake on July 22nd. If anyune has
any suggestions for other people on how to
deal with growth management and paying
the dollar and environmental costs of
growth, let her know. After the committee
mee~s, she will report back to the Board.
Mr. Tucker mentioned that the County has
received two awards fi.om NACo. One
award is for the brochure prepared by the
County Attorney's office on reversion. The
other award is for the County's orientation
process for new employees.
ewc
Attacl~ment
Distribution list:
County Executive and staff
Board of Supervisors
Kevin Castner
Wayne Cilimberg
Larry Davis
Bill Mawyer
Amelia McCulley
Bruce Woodzdl
RESOLUTION
DRAFT: July 6, 1998
WHEREAS. the vitality of the County of Albemarle is dependent upon
maintaining the character of the County by protecting its significant scenic, historic, and
natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the land use regulations of the County have been developed to
protect these resources and to assure the public's health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the County finds that telecommunications towers can severely
~mpact the resources of the County unless such towers are strategically placed and are
constructed in ways to minimize the detrimental consequences to adjacent property
owners and the County as a whole; and
WHEREAS, to assure that full consideration, understanding, and public in put is
achieved, it is critical that the construction of any telecommunications tower be subject
to local review and approval.
NOW, TH BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY ~
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA that the Virginia ~
Department of Transportation must: ~
Limit any use of VDOT towers by private telecommunications entities
unless and until such towers are constructed after full review and approval
under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and have been determined
to be consistent with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan; and
(2)
Construct no towers until a long range VDOT plan for such towers has
been studied and adopted after receiving and giving full consideration to
County input and addressing issues of critical importance identified by the
County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation is
urged to recognize the importance of this issue to the County of Albemarle and that
irreparable damage to the County will occur if towers are constructed which blight the
landscape of the historic entrance corridors to the community.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
at a regular meeting held on
Clerk. County Board of Supervisors
h~DEPT~A~l'ORNEY~RESOLUTl\Telecommunications Towers and VDOT.wpd
RESOLUTION
DRAFT: July 6, 1998
WHEREAS, the vitality of the Co'unty of Albemarle is dependent upon
maintaining the character of the County by protecting its significant scenic, historic, and
natural resources; and
WHEREAS, the land use regulations of the County have been developed to
protect these resources and to assure the public's health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the County finds that telecommunications towers can severely
impact the resources' of the County unless such towers are strategically placed and are
constructed in ways to minimize the detrimental consequences to adjacent property
owners and the County as a whole; and
WHEREAS, to assure that full consideration, understanding, and public input is
achieved, it is cdtical that the construction of any telecommunications tower be subject
to local review and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA that the Virginia
Department of Transportation must:
(1)
Limit any use of VDOT towers by pdvate telecommunications entities
unless and until such towers are constructed after full review and approval
under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and have been determined
to be consistent with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan; and
(2)
Construct no towers until a long range VDOT plan for such towers has
been studied and adopted after receiving and giving full consideration to
County input and addressing issues of critical importance identified by the
County.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Transportation is
urged to recognize the importance of this issue to the County of Albemarle and that
~rreparable damage to the County will occur if towers are constructed which blight the
landscape of the historic entrance corridors to the community.
I Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of
a resolution adopted by the County Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia
at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, County Board of Supervisors
h\DEPT~ATTORNEY~RESOLUTI\Telecommunication$ Towers and VDOT.wpd
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, CMC, Clerk~&~''-
July 9, 1998
Board Actions of July 8, 1998
At its meeting on July 8, 1998, the Board of Supervisors took the following
action:
Item No. 5.2. Appropriation: General District Courtroom. $17,240 (Form
#98002).
Approved. Attached is the signed form.
/ewc
Attachment
pc: Richard E. Huff. II
Roxanne W. White
Robert Walters
Joe Letteri
Bill Mawyer
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR: 98/99 NUMBER 98002
TYPE OF APPROPRIAYION: ADDITIONAL
TR3~NSFER X
NEW X
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ? YES
NO X
FUND: GENERAL CIP
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
REPAIRS TO LIGHTING FIXTURES IN GENERAL DISTRICT COURT.
EXPENDITURE
COST CTR/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
1 9010 21020 331000 REPAIRS & MAINT. $17~240.00
TOTAL S17,240.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
2 9010 51009 512002 TRI~NSFER FROM CT. HSE. MAINT. $17,240.00
TOTAL $17,240.00
TRANSFERS
9150 93010 939999 TRANSFER TO OTHER FUNDS 17,240.00
9150 51000 510100 FUND BALANCE 17,240.00
REQUESTING COST CENTER: ENGINEERING
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
DATE
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Light fixture replacement in the General Distdct
Courtroom
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to appropriate $17,240 from the Courthouse
Maintenance account to pay for replacement light
lixtures in the General District Courtroom
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Mawyer: Letteri
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
July 8, 1998
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: Z
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS_:
REV1EWED BY:
/
DISCUSSION:
The General Distdct Court Judge has requested immediate replacement of the existing ceiling-mounted, fluorescent light
fixtures in the General Distdct Courtroom. The light fixtures are in disrepair and require replacement. The 14 existing fixtures
are in disrepair resulting from routine ma~ ~tenance procedures such as changing the fluorescenl tubes. Based on
recommendation from a local architect and lighting engineer, the new fixtures will be a luminous bowl type with a center
downlight, which are more practical and easier to maintain.
The estimated cost of replacement is $17,240:$12,040 (light fixtures)
$2,500 (installation)
$1,200 (A/E fees
$1,500 (contingency)
RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate $17,240 from the Courthouse Maintenance account for new light fixtures in the General District Courtroom.
98.126
Building Code Information
(804) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Deparnment of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road. Room 223
Charlottesville. 'V]rginia 229022,596
FAX (804) 972-4126
TFD 804) 972-4012
¢ OARD OF SUPERVISORS
Zoning Information
(804, 296-5875
Jgne15,1998
Pat Jensen
Montague, Miller & Co.
500 Westfield Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901
Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF NUMBER OF PARCELS ~ Section 10.3.1
Tax Map 62, Parcel 54C (Property of MARTHA N. CONDEE)
Dear Ms. Jensen:
I have reviewed the title information you have submitted for the above-noted property.
determination that this property consists of six (6) separate parcels:
Parcel 1 - Lot 17, Ridgemont Subdivision, originally and now 6.11 acres'
(3 potential development rights)
Parcel 2 - Lot 18, Ridgemont Subdivision, originally and now 5.54 acres
(2 potential development rights)
Parcel 3 - Lot 19, Ridgemont Subdivision, originally 9.40 acres and now unknown
(maximum of 4 potential development rights)
Parcel 4 - Lot 35, Ridgemont Subdivision, originally 13.72. acres and now
unknown (maximum of 5 potential development rights)
Parcel $ - Lot 42. RJdgemont Subdivision, originally 13.29 acres and now
unknown (maximum of 5 potential development rights)
Parcel 6 - Lot 20, Ridgemont Subdivision, originally 3.27 acres and now unknown
(1 potential development right)
It is my official
This determination results in five more pamels than are shown with a parcel number on the County tax
maps. Each of [hese lawfully separate parcels is entitled to the potential development rights as shown
above. These parcels totaled 51.33 acres when purchased. A Virginia Department of Highways raking
for improvements To Rt. 20. recorded August 18, 1987, reduced.the total acreage. The Certificate of Take
does no[ define the individual lots. Therefore, Ridgemonr lots 19, 35, 42 and/or 20 could have been
reouced, In oraer to determine acreage and specific development rights on these four lots, new surveys
that reflect the taking will be neeoeo.
This determination considered the descriptive clauses of the three deeds from which Louis Charles and
Martha Norford Condee received the parcels: DB 306/225, DB 306/402, and DB 471/380. These deeds
described and enumerated the property as consisting of six (6) distinct tots numbered within the
Ridgemont Subdivision. Three of the six lots (19.35 and 42/had been combined into tax map section 62,
parcel 54D by the County assessor's office for tax pumoses some time in the early 1970%. Two others
Official Determination, TMP 62-54C Page 2 June 15. 1998
(lots 17 and 18) were also combined into map 62, parcel 54C at that time. Lot 20 was always maintained
separately, most likely because it was numberea on a different map, tax map section 63, parcel 46D.
The only document referring to the final combination of the three tax parcels into one tax parcel is a letter
written Dy Mrs. Condee in 1977 to Mr. William S. Bradshaw, Head of Assessments for Albemarle County.
The letter refers to a conversation between Mrs. Condee and Mr. Bradshaw where she requested that her
tax bills be combined, Mr. Bradshaw apparently said he needed a letter to accomplish what she wanted.
Ms. Bonnie Deator one of Mrs. Condee's daughters, explained that in 1977 when Mrs. Condee wrote the
letter, she was 80 years old and still taking care of her own affairs. Her desire was to simplify her
paperwork by having only one property tax bill from the County.
It is my opinion that the county's combination of the six tax parcel numbers into three for their own ease,
as well as a reduction in paperwork and postage, did not legally bind the parcels into one for transfer of
ownership. Therefore, Mrs. Condee's reeuest to reduce the three even further did not bind the parcels
either. They are still six legally separate parcels with all rights and appurtenances as stated in the original
deeds,
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of the date
notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you
do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken
only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which
specifies the grounds for the appeal, in order for an appea~ to be considereo complete, it shall include a
completed application and $95 fee. The date notice of this determination was given ~s the same as the
date of this letter.
Janice D. Sprinkle
Deputy Zoning Administrator
CC:
Bonnie C. Deaton and Joan C. Blair
Maynard Sipe, Planning Departmem
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Reading Files
NOTE:
Five (5) additional parcels
Fanuc Automat~o#
June t5, 1998
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County '
401 Mcintire Rd
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Subject: GE Fanuc Automation, EPA ID# VAD9809551782
In accordance with section 9 VAC 20-60-1170.A.l.b, we are providing notice that the
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality has approved a modified permit
expiration date and this facility may no longer undertake any waste management
activities for which a permit is required pursuant to the Virginia Administrative Act, Title
9, Section 20-60-10 et seq.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at 804-978-6050.
Sincerely,
David Noe, Manager
Environmental Health and Safety
FM!3400
ISO 9001
Reg. #A2003
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Developmem
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-459~
(804) 296~5823
June 24, 1998
Wendell Lamb
P O Box 250
Standardsville, VA 22973
SP-97~64 Bethel Baptist Church
SDP~98-059 Bethel Baptist Church Site Plan Waiver
Tax Map 21, Parcels 25 and 26
Dear Mr. Lamb:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at ~ts meeting on June 23, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the site plan waiver
request dated June 5, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic
tables, and childrens' play equipment.
Staff approval of a landscape plan that adequately screens the improvements from the
adjacent Fox and Ferguson properties. Screening shall consist of native species and be
established within 18 months of approval of the special use permit. It shall include 25
trees, 6-8 feet high at planting.
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment.
All exterior lighting including existing lighting shall be fully shielded.
The house shall be used as a residence only.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review the special use
permit and receive public comment at their meeting on July 8, 1998. 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 heating date.
Page 2
June 24, 1998
The Commission also approved a waiver
follow'rog conditions:
The sketch plan shall meet ail of the conditions for approval established through
special use permit process.
The entrance from Burniey Station Road shall be established as "entrance only"
use of signage meeting the Zoning
The driveway to the house on Parcel 25 shall be barricaded or othenvise
discontinued from the parking lot for the church so that through traffic is not
The type of barricade or modification to be used shall be indicated on t
A plat combining the two properties owned by the church s
by the Planning Department
Screening of the recently constructed parking area shall be shown on the sketch
made in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action,
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Plarmer f
~la Carey
Jack Kelsey
Roger Ray
Amelia McCulley
Bethel Baptist Church
the
and
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 23, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
SP 97-64 Bethel Baptist Church & SDP 98-59 Site Plan Waiver Request
SP97-64: Special Use Permit Request
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is to expand the existing church use onto
adjacem property. The adjacent property is currently occupied by a house; the property was
recently purchased by the applicant to use as a parsonage and to expand the existing parking area.
Previously used by the Paran Methodist Church, the property is at the intersection of Bumlcy
Station Road [Route 641] and Watts Passage [Route 600]. (See Attachment A3 The parcel
containing the church building has 0.0784 acres and the parcel with the house contains 2.22
acres. The parcels will be combined by plat in the near furore.
A special use permit is required in order to expand the church use onto the adjoining parcel.
There is no existing special use permit for the church. This special use permit wouldapply to
both parcels. A "site plan waiver" has also been submitted with this special use permit
application (Attachment C).
Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section
10.2.2.35 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a church use in the rural areas. This petition is
requested for parcels described as Tax Map 21, Parcels 25 and 26 and it is located in the R.ivanna
Magisterial District. (See Attachment B.) The property is zoned KA residential zoning district
and is recommended as Rural Areas on the Land Use Plan.
Character of the Area: The area near the church is characterized as agricultural and large lot
residential.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use
permit with conditions. (The site plan waiver request accompanying this petition, is also
recommended for approval. This site plan waiver request requires Planning Commission action,
only.)
Planning and Zoning History_: The existing church building was constructed in 1935 and has
been used continuously by congregations since that t/me. In 1997. Bethel purchased the 2.22
acre parcel £or expansion purposes. Not knowing there were zoning regulations for the
expansion of parking lots, in November 1997, the Church placed gravel on their new lot to
connect the residential driveway to the parking lot. When the Minister requested a mx exemption
for the house, he was informed that a special use permit would be necessary for the church use on
that property. The Assessor suggested that the minister apply to the Zoning Department for a
special use permit.
Upon receipt of the special use permit application, the Zoning Department ascertained that a
zoning violation had occurred since the parking lot had been expanded on property adjacent m
the church without the special use permit and a site development plan. A zoning violation would
not have occurred had the.expansion taken place on just the church site. The Planning
Department has been working since December 1997 to help bring the church into conformity
with the Zoning Ordinance.
While the church originally planned for the house to be used for visiting missionaries and
ministers, training for church music, kitchen purposes, crafts, and a classroom, use of the house
is now expected only as a parsonage. Building code requirements to change the house to an area
of assembly make remodeling cost prohibitive to the church at this time.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as rural areas. Churches in
rural areas are viewed as supportive of the moral fiber of the rural community.
En ineerin - .- hal sis.' The County's Engineering staffhas reviewed this request for
engineering issues such as pavement construction and driveway entrances. In consultation with
VDOT, the Engineering Department supports the proposal to place a barricade between the
residential entrance and the church parking area and to make the entrance from Bttrnley Station
Road an "entrance only". The applicant has agreed to these measures. The enlarged parking lot
does not require stormwater management.
STAFF CO - - ~NT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
adjacent property.
There has been a church at this location since 1935 and ongoing congregational activity. The
enlarged parking area and use of the adjoining house as a parsonage are minor changes that are
not expected to be detrimental to adjacent properties. Two adjacent property owners to the east
of the property have expressed concern about future church expansion on the parcel near their
homes. (See Attachment D.) These persons also commented on the recent clearing of the lot
which resulted in more visibility of the church and lights used in the parking lots.
The Zoning Departmem has determined that there is no violation relating to glare from the lights
in the parking lot; rather, lights that were previously screened are now visible at the church.
To address the concerns of the adjoining owners, staff is recommending that the church be
limited to the activity which is shown on the accompanying site plan "waiver" request. Staff aiso
believes that the planting ora vegetative screen for the full length of the eastern boundary will
help to mitigate concerns of adjoining property owners. This screen would not need to meet the
zoning ordinance requirements for screening; rather, trees could be planted to "grow" a screen so
that in 3 - 4 years, vegetation blocking the view of the adjoining properties will be reestablished.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
At the present time, most of the recently purchased property is undeveloped and used
agriculturally. The added parking lot does not appear to have changed the character of the
neighborhood. Neighbors, however, feel that additional construction would alter the rural
character of the neighborhood.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The RA zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for preservation of
agricultural and forestal lands and activities; provide for water supply protection; be an area of
limited service delivery; and to conserve natural, scenic, and historic resources. The church is
viewed as a use supportive of rural Albemarle County residents.
with the uses permitted bv fight in the district,
By-right uses in the RA district are single family and duplex housing, agricultural uses, pubhc
buildings and uses; veterinary services; tourist lodging; mobile homes; and farm wineries. The
proposed use is viewed as being in harmony with these uses.
with additional re_inflations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations relating to churches.
and with the public health, safety'and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special
use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the
location requested.
Regarding transportation Safety, VDOT has approved the entrances shown on the plan. The
Engineering Department believes that water quality will not be dimirdshed with the parking lot
proposed. The expansion of the church use onto the adjoining parcel is viewed as furthering the
service provided by the church; therefore enhancing the general welfare of the community.
SUMMARY,~
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
2.
3.
The Land Use Plan suggests that churches are supportive to the rural areas in the County.
Adverse traffic impacts have not been experienced with this expansion,
Furore activities and expansions can be controlled through the special use permit
conditions,
Like private schools and day care facilities, churches are viewed as enhancing the moral
fiber of the community.
The church building has been in this location since 1935 and expansions of facilities
often ensure a continuing presence of a congregation. The previous church had to
relocate because the site did not support the size of the congregation.
The special use permit and accompanying site plan waiver request will rectify an existing
zoning violation.
Staffhas identified the following factors which are unfavorable tO this request:
Recent clearing activities have removed trees ~vhich provided privacy to adjoining
property owners; adjacent owners have noticed the visible impact of the church on the
adjoining neighborhood.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staffrecommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the site plan waiver
request dated June 5, 1998 and incidental improvements such as storage sheds, picnic
tables, and childrens' play equipment.
Vegetation to establish a future buffer between properties to the east and the church
properties shall be planted within 18 months of approval of the special use permit. Such
vegetation shhll consist of evergreen trees, planted in a double row on 15 foot centers,
with a height of at least 8 inches.
Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit
amendment.
SDP 98-59: Site Plan Waiver Request
.REQUEST:. Bethel Baptist Church has mq~aested a waiver of full site development plan
requirements [32.2.2] foran existing church on 3.004 acres zoned PA, TMP 21-25 & 26. A
waiver of two requirements [4.12.6.1 ] has also been requested for the one-way access into the
site and ability to leave all parking spaces undelineated (See Attachment E). The "sketch" plan,
dated June 5, 1998 and prepared by Roger Ray, Surveyor, is shown on Attachment C.
BACKGROUND: A site development plan is required for this use because the applicant is
expanding a parking lot onto an adjoining parcel, The parking lot provides parking required for
4
the use and an entrance onto Bumley Station [State Route 641] is being modified, There ~s
currently no site development plan for the property. The reason for the requested waiver of a full
site development plan is that the church building is existing and the parking area has been
enlarged with a gravel addition. Full engineering drawings and improvements are not required.
One-way access into the site from Burnley Station Road is requested to satisfy VDOT concerns
regarding sight distance. The request to leave parking spaces undelineated is a request made for
aesthetics purposes. To have only a few parking spaces out of an entire lot delineated looks
unusual. The configuration of the parking lot provides for a straightforward pattern of parking
and safety and maneuverability is not a m~ or issue.
DISCUSSION: Staff supports the applicant's request and VDOT' s recommendation for a one-
way entrance into the site from Bumley Station Road. This change will make the situation safer
since sight distance is not adequate for an exiting movement. Regarding the requrrement to
delineate parking in the parking lot, the church bad an existing gravel lot that was not striped.
This lot was expanded by 18 spaces although only 5 spaces were needed to satisfy zoning
requirements, The ordinahce requires that only the 5 spaces be delineated. It seems reasonable
that, with the configuration of the parking lot and its infrequem usage (2 - 3 times per week) that
the requirement for delineation be waived.
A full site development plan for the property is not recommended for this property since the
sketch plan provided indicates the level of change that took place in November of 1997 and
indicates that all zoning an engmeering requirements can be met, Revisions to the sketch plan
will be needed to show screening of the parking lot along Watts Passage where the new parking
lot began and at the rear of the new portion of the parking lot. Screening shrubs are
recommended at these locations.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff opinion is that the requirement of a full site development plan
would not forward the purposes of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. With
revision, the sketch plan will indicate the changes needed to bring the site into compliance. As a
result, staff recommends approval of the application to allow waiving of the site development
plan requirement, with the following conditions:
The sketch plan shall meet all of the conditions for approval established through the
special use permit process.
The entrance from Burnley Station Road shall be established as"entrance only" through
use of signage meeting the Zoning Ordinance requirements for an "incidental sign".
The driveway to the house on Parcel 25 shall 'be barricaded or otherwise physically
discontinued from the parking lot for the church so that through traffic is not allowed.
The type of barricade or modification to be used shall be indicated on the sketch plan.
A plat combining the two properties owned by the church shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Depamuem.
Screening of the recently constructed parking area shall be shown on the sketch plan and
made in accordance with Section 32.7.9.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Parcel Map
C - Site Plan, Waiver Request
D - Letters from Adjoining Property Owners
E - Letter from Applicant Requesting Waiver of Site Plan
[:\GENERAL\SHARE\ECHOLS\SP\BETHEL.SR
ATTACHMENT A
SP 97-64
BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH
...... Vii [
ALBEMARLE
COUNTY
ATTACHMENT B
SP 97-64'
BETHEL BAPTIST CHURCH
WHITE 3~HALL AND
RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SECTION
21
ATTACHMENT I
Elaine Echles
Albermade County Zoning Department
401 MclntJre Road
Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596
February 2, 1998
Ms. Echles.
We are writing to you in reference to a piece of property that is currently being reviewed for a
change in zoning. Namely, the item numbers are 25 and 26, which refer to a house on Watts
Passage in Albermarle County, owned by Bethel Baptist Church. Our residenCe is located at
5382 Watts Passage, and adjoins the property in question.
From what we understand, an application has been submitted to change that piece of property
from residential to "special-use". This concerns us for several reasons. First, we believe that
house to be located within the same sub-division as our own, and therefore feel it is necessary
for this matter to be voted upon by all of the homeowners involved. Second. should the owners
ever decide to expand the church parking lot onto that property, it would undoubtedly affect the
peace and enjoyment of our own property. Since acquiring the property, the owners have
cleared a number of trees on the property, and expanded the parking lot to the north side of the
house. As a result, dUsk-to-dawn lights are increasingly visible all night long, as are automobile
headlights and noise. Increasing the parking lot anymore would only exacerbate the current
situation
Additionally, we are deeply concerned that granting a "special-use" permit for this property
opens up a world of possibilities that would adversely affect the value of our property and others
surreundin~ it, both in terms of real property value and private enjoyment. It is not our intent to
hamper the growth bf a church in the community, however we feel there are other possibilities
that don't require such a drastic and permanent changeto a growing neighborhood.
Please take our thoughts into consideration before any decision is reached with respect to this
m~tter. We plan to attend the public hearing on February 24 as well. and look forward to
learning more details about how this change will affect our neighborhood. Please feel free to
contact either of us at (804} 973-0140 if further clarification of anything presented here is
necessary.
Sincerely,
Diane C. Ferguson
Vincent & Linda Mancini
5370 Watts Passage
Charlottesville, Va 2291 l
February 16. 1998
Ms. Elaine Echles
Albemarle County Zoning Dept
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. Va. 22902-4596
Dear Ms. Echles,
We are writing to you regarding Item 25 and 26, ~vhich would allow a "Special Use" zoning for
the single-family residence recently purchased by Bethel Baptist Church. We occupy a home in
the same Whispering Pines subdivision.
We are already unhappy with the unapproved removal of several large trees and the extension of
their parking lot, as the lights that illuminate this area now shine into our bedroom windows and
are very disturbing.
One of the main reasons we purchased the site of our home was because it was a single-family,
residential area If this "Special Use" zoning is approved, we feel it will change the face of our
neighborhood, as well as the value of our home, and all the other homes adjacent to the church.
Please consider our feelings in this matter before any decision is made, and we hope to see you
at the Planning Commission meeting on February 24th.
Sincerely, ~
Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Mancini
ATTACHMENT E
P.O, Box 93
Stanardsville, Vkgln~a 22973
May 28. 1998
County of Albemarle Department of Plenning and
Community. Development
401 Mclndre Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
To Ms. Elaine K. Echols and other concerned personnel,
The property known as Mt. Chapel or Paran2Mefl~odist Ch-rch was purctmsed by
Bethel Baptist Church in 1992. This long standing churchproperty continues to be a
country churck
Recently, Bethel Baptist Church was able to purchase Ihe house and lot that borders
the church property. The purpose of this purchase was to enable our church facilities to
include a parsonage, as well as, to extend the parking area,
Our reason for requesting a site plan waiver and not a full-blown site plan is that there
is no change in buildings or land. The only change which bas occurred is the clearing
away of a small area between the two properties which was formerly an unsightly dmnping
area for passing motorists.
Bethel Baptist Church's desire is that the two land parcels become one so that the
members might enjoy the privileges that accompany church property.
If you have need of additional information, please contact me at (804) 985-7217.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Pastor V~andol[Lamb
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1
Planning Dept,
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Com~'uniW Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 4596
(804) 296-5823
June 24, 1998
M E Gibson, Jr., Esq
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
105-109 East High St
charlottesville, VA 22902
SP-98-12 Charlottesville Catholic School
Tax Map 6lA, Parcce129
Dear Mr. Tremblay:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23, 1998,
recommended approval of the above-noted
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
The site plan shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated June 5, 1998,
submitted with this petition. Relationships of recreational areas
buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access
fromRio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be
from parking lots to the school buildings.
2. EnrolLment will be limited to not more than 600 students.
Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. Construction
of permanent facilities shall commence within five (5)years of the date of the site plan
approval. A thll site development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the
use of temporary units or permanent construction.
Page 2
June 24, 1998
A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the
County i~ able to fund adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If
such connections cannot be made at that ftme, then the school will bond pathway
improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to fund the
adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed within eight (8)
years of site plan approval, the bond will be released and the pathway not required to be
installed.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 8, 1998. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not.
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICPP
Senior Planner
Cc: ~ Carey
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 23, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
SP 98-12 Charlottesville Catholic School
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposalis to construct a parochial school and
recreational facilities to serve up to 600 students on the property known as the Ballard property
near the City of Charlottesville's Pen Park. The school site is on the north side of Rio Road,
property located between Penn Park Road and Pen Park Lane. (See Attachment A.) The 17.25
acre parcel contains two houses, associated outbuildings, and pastureland. Ail of the buildings
on the parcel will be removed.
The proposed Campus wilt house grades K through 12 with a cluster of buildings including
classrooms, an administration building, a cafeteria, and a gynmasmm. Two playing fields are
proposed on either side of the building cluster. Extensive landscaping and screening is proposed
for the site. ISee Attachment C.)
The applicant has also verbally asked for permission to use temporary classroom units
("portables") on the site for the school during construction of the school buildings so that the use
could be established in the Fall of 1999. Construction is expected to be phased over aperiod of
several years as enrollment grows.
Petition: The petition is for approval ofa specialuse permit, ia accordance with Section
15.2.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, to allow a private school in a residential district. This petition
is requested for the parcel described as. Tax Map 6lA, Parcel 29, located inthe Rivanna
Magisterial District. (See Attachment B.) The property is zoned R-4 Residential zoning districl
and is recommended for urban density on the Land Use Plan. The petition also contains a request
ro waive the two-way circulation pattern in ~iccordance with Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow fora one-way, circulation pattern for student drop-off near the front of the
school.
Applicant's Justification for the Request: The applicant has provided a written description of
the request as well as a justification for why it should be approved. (See Attachment D.) The
applicant has said that the school will:
· be a less intensive use than by-right use of the parcel
· create an open, attractively landscaped campus
· not impact peak-hour traffic as much as a by-right development.would impact peak-hour
traffic
· provide a valuable educational resource to the County's families
· have no adverse impact on adjacent properties
· be in keeping with the County's Comprehensive Plan which says that schools should be
located near recreational facilities in residential areas
· have no more 5mpact than a public elementary school.
The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on May 13 to receive comments from nearby
residents and to provide information to the neighborhood. Comments from that meeting are
provided in Attachment E.
Regarding use of temporary classroom units, the school has asked permission to use these un/ts
during the construction of the gchool buildings so that they are not paying on alease for facilities
elsewhere and a mortgage on the Ballard land at the same time. Building Codes and Zoning
Services views these portable units as they do modular buildings. They are regulated as site-built
structures. A site plan showing the mobile units would have to be approved prior to
construction, if this special use permit is approved.
Character of the Area: The Pen Park area is one of mixed density residential and recreational
use. The property in question backs up to the City's Pen Park golf course. The Village Square
neighborhood is across the street from the property. The RiverRun development is across Penn
Park Road from the property. Where the school property does not abut a right-of-way, it is
bounded by single family residences.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use
permit with conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_: The Ballard property formerly contained 9 parcels that were
combined in 1989 to make a single 17.25 acre parcel.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan shows this area as Urban Density residential
with a density of 6 - 34 dwelling units per acre. This designation anticipates a mix of residential
dwelling types as Well as associated supportive residential uses, such as schools and churches.
If the property were to be developed residentially, density could range from 100 to 500 dwelling
umrs, according to the Comprehensive Plan. These un/ts would accommodate roughly 250 to
1250 future residents. As part of the "infill" policy, the County must consider the loss of
residential land for the school use. The County must also balance the need for residential land
with the need for supporting educational uses.
Population projections indicate an increase in population of 16,000 by the year 2015. There are
roughly 4400 acres presently available in the development areas for residential development ro
acc0rmnodate this population increase, according to the Albemarle County Land Use Plan.
Site Plan Rea_uirements: A site plan will be required for this use if the special use permit is
approved. Use of temporary classroom units will also necessitate submittal of a site plan. The
site plan will insure that all improvements for safe and convenient access during construction, as
well as other engineering and zoning requirements are met prior to a certificate of occupancy.
En~neering Analysis: The County' s Engineering staff has reviewed this request for general
engineering issues shown on the conceptual plan such as transportation and stormwater
management. (See Attachment F.) Major improvements m the intersection will be required for
site plan approval. If the special use permit is approved, a preliminary site plan will be submitted
subsequently forapproval. The improvements for useofthe site fora school include atraffic
signal at the intersection of Rio Road and Penn Park Road and possible road widening and
restriping along Rio Road and Pen Park Road to improve turning lanes.
The primary entrance.to the property would be from Penn Park Road. This entrance is endorsed
by the Engineering Department and VDOT. A second entrance to the property is shown on the
conceptual drawing (Attachment C) and has been approved tentatively by VDOT. This entrance
would allow for right tums into the property and right tums only out of the property.
The conceptual plan indicates that stream and spring protection will take place. Stormwater
management plans will be provided with the site plan. Grading will take place on the lot to
enable the use to be accomplished. Final stormwater management plans and best management
practices required through the water protection ordinance should ensure that the least
environmental impact to the stream and spring occurs on the property.
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be,of substantial ~detriment to
adjacent property.
If approved, the Charlottesville Catholic School will be a large private school on a major
collector road in Albemarle County, near several residential developments. The Land Use Plan
suggests that this area would be appropriate for high density residential housing and other related
uses. In as much as the high density housing would not have a detrimental effect on adjacent
property, the school is also not anticipated to have a detrimental effect on adjacent property.
Several residential neighborhoods in Albemarle County surround existing public and private
schools and these schools are viewed as advantageous to the surrounding residential areas,
alhtough as a parochial school, this proposal would serve a larger area.
An additional 824 vehicle trips per day (412 each way) will occur with this use when it is fully
built out, according to figures from the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Rio Road currently has
26,000 vehicle trips per day in the area of Pen Park Road and Penn Park Road has 2700 vehicle
trips per day. Trip generation from the school is not expected to reduce the level of service along
these roads. The school's traffic generation also is expected to be less than trips that would be
generated by a residential use ofthe property. A residential use would generate between 1000
and 8750 trips per day, depending upon the type of housing. A traffic signal is warranted at this
time at the intersection of Rio Road and Penn Park Road. With the monetary contribution of the
Catholic School, the signal will be installed next summer.
Other impacts expected from this use include noise generated from activities on the playing
fields and outdoor events typically associated with school playing fields. As with typical outdoor
events the periodic use ora public address system will occur. Noise impacts will be mitigated
through the use of screening trees. The fields were situated along Rio Road to the north and Pen
Park to the south to diminish the effects of sound from the playing fields on adjoining residential
properties. Exterior lighting for the school will be required to have a downward reflected fixture
so that glare is not cast on adjoining properties. No lights for the fields are proposed.
By comparison, playing fields generally would not be associated with a residential developmem
although, for high density residential uses, recreational space is required. Public parks also
generally provide play areas. The use of the property for a private school for 600 students and
the associated outdoor recreational activities will likely provide more noise than a residential
development. Again, this noise level should be reduced by the use of screening trees surrounding
the property.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby.
At the present time, the property is mostly undeveloped and used residentially and agriculturally.
The addition of the school will not change the appearance of the zoning district, nor will it
drastically change the appearance of the neighborhood. In many ways, the school will look like
an e~ension of the adjoining City park.
The property would look much different if high density housing or single family housing were
constructed. If high density housing were constructed, the property would be more in keeping
with the character of the zoning district; but the zoning district also anticipates that public
schools will be located within the district to serve the residential population.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance.
The R-4 Residential zoning district was created to establish a zone that provides for compact,
medium density, single-family development; permits a variety of housing types; and provides
incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental, and
residential amenities. The zoning district also recognizes the potential for public and private
schools which provide educational support m residents of community.
with the uses permitted by fight in the district.
Uses permitted by-fight in the R-4 Residential zoning district are housing, public utilities, public
facilities such as schools and parks, and tourist homes. Similar to public schools, the private
school is viewed to be in harmony with these uses and supportive of residential development.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations relating to private schools.
and with the public health: safety_ and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special
use permit process which assures that proposed uses are appropriate in the location requested.
The addition of a private school to the County's educational facilities is viewed as enhancing the
general welfare of the community. Not only will the private school be supported by private
rather than public funds, but educational oppommities for residents also will be expanded.
Regarding transportation safety, scheduled Rio Road improvements do not extend to this
property. The Meadowcreek Parkway, when constructed, should remove a major mount of
traffic from Rio Road. If it remains on schedule, Meadowcreek would be constructed by the
time the school reaches its anticipated capacity of 600 students. With required modifications to
the intersection, traffic safety should be enhanced, These modifications include a new traffic
signal, which VDOT would install in the summer of 1999. The Catholic School will pay a
portion of the costs for that signal.
Pedestrian safety can be accommodated with a pathway across the front of the property parallel
to Rio Road and additional paths into the school property. The staffmcommended to the
applicant that the paths be constructed along with the first phase of the development when
grading for the playing fields would be done. The applicant, however, was worried that
providing a path along Rio Road that did not connect to Penn Park Road and Pen Park Lane
would create an unsafe walking situation for pedestrians. Additionally, the applicant was
concerned that any walkway installed during the first phase would be removed with road
improvements for Rio Road associated with Pen Park Lane improvements. Pen Park Lane is
expected to be improved in the near future.
Staff has indicated to the applicant that, if the Pen Park Lane ,tRio Road improvements are made
at the same time as construction of the first phase of the school, the County could extend the
paths across the intervening properties using County sidewalk funds to make a continuous path
between Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If the sidewalk connections through the
intervening properties cannot be made during the first phase of the project, staff recommended
that the applicant bond the sidewalk or pathway improvements and install them atthe time of
construction of the Pen Park Lane/Rio Road improvements take place, lfthe path is not
constructed by the time the second entrance to the property is installed, because the Pen Park
Lane/Rio Road improvements have not yet been made. the staff would recommend that the bond
be released back to the school. The school has agreed to these recommended conditions.
SUMMARY:
5
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
2.
3.
4.
The Land Use Plan suggests residential and residentially supportive uses in this area of
the County.
Adverse traffic impacts will be mitigated by proposed access and intersection
improvements, including a new traffic signal.
The project appears to have been pOSitively received by and compatible with the
neighborhood.
The conceptual plan layout provides for the majority of the activities to beheld in the
center of the parcel, away from adjoining residences. Vegetative buffers are provided
where residential lots adjoin the property; recreational uses are shown.on the front of the
parcel- and on the rear ofthe parcel where the property adjoins Pen Park.
As with churches and day care facilities, private schools are viewed as enhancing the
moral fiber of the community.
Private schools reduce pressure on the County for additional public schools.
Staff has identified the following factors which are tmfavorable to this request:
The property could be developed at a density of 4 dwelling units per acre and provide for
100 to 500 more dwelling units in the development areas.
Residential holding capacity will have been lost with the development of this area as a
school.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staffrecommends approval of this special use permit with the following conditions:
The site plan 'shall conform generally to the conceptual plan, dated June 5, 1998,
submitted with this petition. Relationships ofmcreatinnal areas to property boundaries,
buildings to recreational areas, and provision of pedestrian access parallel to Rio Road
and from Rio Road into the parcel shall be maintained. Pedestrian access shall be
provided from parking lots to the school buildings.
2. Enrollment will be limited to not more than 600 students.
Use of temporary units is allowed until permanent facilities are constructed. A full site
development plan will be required for the facility regardless of the use of temporary units
or permanent construction.
A walkway or pedestrian path will be provided with the first phase of the project, if the
County is able to fired adjoining connections to Pen Park Lane and Penn Park Road. If
such connections cannot be made at that time, then the school will bond pathway
improvements to be constructed by the school when the County is able to fund the
adjoining connections. If those improvements have not been constructed by completion
of the second entrance to the school, the bond will be released and the pathway not
installed.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - LocationMap
B - Tax Parcel Map
C - Conceptual Plan
D - Applicant's Justification of Request
E - Neighborhood meeting comments
F - Eng'meering comments
I:\GENERAL\SHA.RE~ECHOLS\SP\CATHSCHL. SR
~EMA,r'{LE COUNTY
ATTACHMENT A
~ L ~,1:, M/-~ I',[LE
'\
; dOUET¥, RIVANNA AND
RLOTTESVILLE DISTRICTS
SECTION
GHARLOTTESV6
RIVANNA
ATTACHMENT B
SEGTION 6lA
.... *~ '~ ~ RIVANNA DISTRIGT
ATTACHMENT D
SPECIAL USE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE CHARLOTTESVILLE CATHOLIC SCHOOL
Responses to Questions Listed on Application Form
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? Urban density residential (R-
6 through R-34).
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? The proposed use will not
negatively affect adjacent property. In fact, the proposed private school will be extremely
compatible with the adjacent residential properties and Penn Park. As indicated in the Albemarle
County Community Facilities Plan 1990-2000, it is desirable to locate schools near residential
areas and existing recreation/park sites. (In locating schools near recreation and park sites, the
County hopes to share certain facilities, and Applicant is open to discussing such possibilities with
the County, as Applicant's athletic facilities will likely be available during the summer months.)'
Applicant's proposed development of the site will be less intensive than by right
development of the parcel, thereby having a positive effect on adjacent properties. Applicant
anticipates matriculating approximately 200 students upon completion of the primary facilities,
and then gradually increasing matriculation to 600 kindergarten through grade 12 students by
2006. School facilitieswill be added and/or enlarged as the student body approaches 600. Even
at its final stage of development, however, the proposed use will be less intensive than many by
right developments of the subject parcel. As 'the parcel is presently zoned R-4, and has a
Comprehensive Plan designation of' Urban Density Residential (R-6 through R-34), the parcel
could be developed into a densely populated residential area by right. If so developed, the parcel
would likely be divided and subdivided several times to accommodate the numerous dwelling
umts, would likely entail the development of ail the land with a crowded, urban-like setting, and
would significantly impact peak hour traffic on Rio Road. In contrast, Applicm~t will not
subdivide the subject parcel, will strive to create an open, attractively landscaped campus, and
will not impact peak hour traffic as much as a by right development would.
In planning the layout of its facilities, Applicant will address possible concerns of
adjoining landowners relating to noise and lighting from athletic fields, by locating its athletic
fields in the center of the subject parcel, away from adjacent dWellings.
Applicant acknowledges that any development of this property will impact traffic.
Nevertheless, as Applicant's afternoon peak hours will differ from Rio Road's afternoon peak
hours, and as the Applicant will not conduct classes during the summer, Applicant is confident
the proposed use will have a significantly lighter impact on local traffic than a by right
development would. As traffic will surely be a critical issue, however, Applicant has e~gaged
a traffic consultant firm to study the effect the proposed private school may have on local traffic,
and Applicant will provide the County with the results and conclusions of its traffic study once
it is completed.
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district surrounding the
property? The proposed use will not affect 'the character of the surrounding district, as the ~..~
private school will be compatible with surrouuding residential areas and Penn Park. It is also ~
important to note that CATEC, a public tectmical school, is located a short distance north of the
site on Rio Road.
How is the use in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance? The
proposed private school is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
because it will not only provide a valuable educational resource to the County's families, it will
also benefit neighboring landowners because it will be a much less intensive use of the subject
parcel than would otherwise be permitted by right. According to § 1.4 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the intent of the Ordinance is "to improve public health, safety, convenience and welfare of
citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia, and to plan for the future development of communities
to the end. . that new cormnunity centers be developed with adequate. . educational facilities.
· .. Inherent in that charge is the County's responsibility to protect the interests of private
landowners. With respect to this Application, therefore, the Ordinance requires the Board of
Supervisors to both provide educational resources to the community, and protect the interests of
citizens who own property near a proposed school location. The proposed use for the subject
property permits the Board of Supervisors to accomplish both of these tasks.
First, the proposed use will provide a valuable educational resource to many citizens
of Albemarle County. In its first year of operation (Fall 1996), the school enrolled thirty (30)
students. In this, the school's second year of operation, enrollment has more than doubled to
' sixty-six (66). During recent open houses, an additional forty-five (45) families have expressed
an interest in enrolling their children in the Charlottesville Catholic School. Clearly, there is a
growtng need for this school.
Second, the school's proposed location will not negatively affect adjacent landowners.
As discussed above, it is desirable to locate a school near a residential area and/or park. The
proposed school will blend attractively with Penn Park and nearby residential areas. Indeed,
when compared to possible by right uses, the proposed private school is the better development
choice because it is a less intensive use of the land.
Therefore, because the proposed private school will address the growing need in the area
for a private Catholic school, and will be located on an ideal pamel near a park and residences
where it will not negatively tmpact nearby landowners, the use is ~n harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district. The proposed
use is in harmony with the uses permitted by right in this district, as it will neither interfere with
nor negatively affect such property uses. It is also important to note that pursuant to Section
15.2.1.11 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, a public school would be permitted by
right on this parcel. The proposed private school will likely be similar in size and matriculation
to a public elementary school. As such, it will be very similar to a by right use of this land.
Therefore, the proposed use is in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district.
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this
use? None.
How will this use promote the public health, safety~ and general welfare of the community?
The proposed private Catholic school will meet the educational and extra-curricular needs of
many residents of Albemarle County and surrounding communities, who wish to have their
children receive both a secular and religious education.
10:46. FAX 804 979 1221
ATTACHMENT E
CIL4RLOTTESVILLE
Cf4 TtlOLIC SCHOOL
OPEN HO USE
I:or' otu' neJv .eigltbors a! Pelt
WED. MA g 13, 1998
6:00PM- 8:00PM
JEFFERSON-MADISON REGION~IL LI#RAR Y
CENTRAL BRANCH
JEFF£R$ON ROOM
201 EAST MARKET STRE£'T
CtIA RL 0 TTE$ F'IL L E
WE'D LIKE TO IN~/ITE THE COMMUNITY TO .-I N
OPEN HOUJ'E TO DISCUSS ISSUES REL/I TiNG 1'0
THE P~NS FOR TIlE NEW Ct[ARLOTTEJ'VILLE
CATHOLIC SCtlOOL, TO BE LO~ITED /i T T/Il; i 7
ACRE PARCEL A T RIO ROAD ~ND. PEN P/IRK.
- · e~..~'.'7 ," ~
J
05/14/98 TItU 12:22 FAX 804 979 [221
Jora~ X. TAc, c~rr. m
M. E Camo~, j~
T~o~s F_. A~2RO
PATR It'"IA D. McGRAw
L~w OFFiCes
TREMBLAY & SMITH, LLP
P.O. Box ~s
GHARLOTr~VILLL VIRGINIA ~2soz.1585
ms.~cs EAST HICH ST~Iih'T
TELEPHONE (~o~) 977.44S!
FAC~IMIL~ (80$) 979-1Z21 ';
VIA FACSIMILE
May 14, 1998
R. I~ LswmsroN
I.. R~t
T. Storm, J~.
Ms. Elaine K_ Echols
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Planning
· 401 Mclutire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Fax: 972-4035
RE: Charlottesville Catholic School -- Ballard Property
SP-98-12
Dear Elaine:
The Open House for the Charlottesville Cathohc School was held on.Wectu~sclay, May
13, 1995, from &00 m 8:00 p.m.-in the lefferson Room of the Jefferson-Mad/son Regional
Library. All of the surrounding property owners and homeowners associations were invited to
attend. The turnout was quite good, and the room was filled. I would- esiimate approximately
2(I people attended.
Most of the people that attended stated their ~nthusiastic support for the project. Some
of the comments of support were:
I can see no problem with thc proposed school. It would be a welcome addition
to the neighborhood.
We prefcr the school to apartments.
We are very happy you are planning a school in that location ~nd know you will
be a good neighbon
This will increase our prolmrty value.
The school is much better than ~ltemative developments of the land.
Let us know what we can do to help SUpport your appl/cation. ,.._~,,
QS/1.4/gS .TWJ :[2:23 FAX 804 979 122:[ TI~LAY & $I~ITH
Ms. Blaine K. Echols
May 14, 1998
Page 7.
There were some concerns expressed, which we will be able- to address either as part of
thc applicaiion process or as pan of the operaling procedures for the future. The concerns and
solutions are as follows:
Concern: Traffic at the intersection of Rio Road and Pen Park Road is bad now.
We need a traffic signal at thal lnt=rsecfion.
Solution: We agree, and Wilbur Smith confirmed, a traffic signal is ne~led at the
intersection. ,We are rne~dxig with r~pras~mtatives of VDOT to explore ways to
ma!~.e that happen in the event Meadowcre~k Parkway is not plarmed to be built
by the time th.e school opens.
2. ~ We.are conc~mad thc children will walk along Rio Road to get to the
school, and this presents a safety issue.
Solution: Thc roles and regulations of thc school will not permit "walkers."
Concern: We arc concerned about the possibility of careless teenage drivers
attending high school,
Solution: Driving to school will be a privilege. If the privilege is abused, it wilt
be revoked. The potential problem is minimal. At full capacity, there will be 200
students in the high schooI, approximately. 50 of which will be old enough to
drive.
4. Concern: We a~c conc.~emad about thc students parking in our neighborhood.
Solution: Thc rules and regulations of the school will require students that drive
to school to park on the school grounds. If the school re~eives reports of students
p,arking in the neighborhood, the driving privileges for the offenders will be
revoked,
Concern: We are concerned about the traffic leaving thc school entrance, turn'rog
lei~ onto Pen Park Road to go to Rio Road. Will this impa~ traffic on Pen Park
Road?
Solution: The entrance to the school will be located between the two
entrances/exits to/from River Run, and traffic exiting from the school should not
significantly ~Tect the flow of traffic along Pen Park Road.
05/14/9S TI~ 11~:2:1 FAX 804 979 ll21 ~LAY & SI~ITH . -~::.~t~.
Ms. Elaine K. Echols
May 14, 1998
Page 3
Concern.' We would prefer that during the construction phase, constructions
v~ehicles not usc Pen Park Road~.
Solution: The construction contract documents will require contractors and
delivery vehicles to enter and exit the site off Rio Road.
Cqnccm.~ We are concem~l that if there are large sports gvents, penplc attending
will park in the ne~ghborbeod.
Solu~i.'on: If the surfao~l parking ar~a on the school grounds is insufficient to
handio thc parking, overflow parking will be on grass surfaces for s~ecific events.
Given the small size of the school, it is unlikely parking for athletic events will
be a problem; however, if it becomes a pwblem, the school will post signs or take
other measures to advise those attending athletic events that they may not park in
the adjoining neighborhood.
~oncera: Some of the residents on Pen Park Road abutting the school property
asked if there will be barriers between the school property and their houses.
Solution: The school will install fences where the school prop~'ty abuts
residences.
As you will note, we are able to address each of thc concerns of the neighbors. We are
encouraged by the support of the neighborS and are glad to report thai no one attending the Open
House voiced opposition to the project.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best personal regards.
Heidi H. Parker
I-1HP:erl
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department o£ Engineering & Public Works
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Elaine Echols, Senior Planner
Glenn E. Brooks, Senior Engineer ~'~
16 June 1998
Charlottesville Catholic School, conceptual plan
The plan received on 5 June 1998 in support of the special use permit has been reviewed. The
secondary entrance on Rio Road has been added with dashed lines, and notes have been added to
the plan for future lane improvements on Rio Road, and for stormwater detention.
As a general commitment on the applicant's part to provide what improvements will be found
necessary through site plan review and further studies and computations, the sketch plan
revisions are acceptable. However, as a conceptual plan, or a preliminary stte plan, it would be
necessary to refine the plan to clarify the items which are only noted on the current plan.
To clarify the "stormwater detention" note for subsequent plans, it is necessary to indicate the
type of BMP measures to be provtded, as well as thezr loeatwns. These BMP s must serve both
for detention, and for water quality improvement. The BMP's are preferably located such that all
of the runoff from impervious areas ~s captured, and in an area that will be large enough, or of a
character suitable to the BMP chosen in regards to safety, maintenance, and effectiveness.
To clarify in subsequent plans the specific Rio Road lane improvements proposed, the plans need
to show the existing lane conditions, and the proposed changes. The notes and drawings of Rio
Road should be specific enough to limit the scale of improvements, such as indicating that the
extstmg right turn lane vall be lengthened as necessary for stacking, or that road vadenmg w~ll be
necessary to add a new left turn lane. It is our understanding that these parts of the traffic study
are being worked on now. At th~ secondary entrance, the short dashed median proposed in Rio
Road to prevent left roms may present a hazard. Traffic controls for the site are preferably kept
on the site An angled entrance or entrance channeled by a curbed island is suggested. Of
course, any lane or entrance improvements should be supported by the traffic study, and by
VDOT.
As discussed above, with specific improvements to be resolved with preliminary and final site
plan reviews, the Engineering Department recommends approval of the special use permit with
the revised sketch plan. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or
require additional information.
Copy: SP-98-12
File: ccs3.doc
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296~5823
June 5, 1998
Michael & Heather Penny
5675 Oak Drive
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP-98~17 Blue Ridge Healing
Tax Map 56, Parcel 9
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Penny:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unanimously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Superdsors. Please tiote that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Students not to exceed eight per class.
Not more than six classes per week and one class per day is to be held.
Zoning/Inspections Department approval of off-street parking.
Only one employee other than the applicant.
Hours of operation shall be between the hours of 8:45 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on July 8, 1998. Any new or additional
information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Juandiego Wade'
Transportation Planner
cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JUANDIEGO R;'WADE
JUNE 2, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
SP 98-17 BLUE RIDGE HEALING ARTS
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to establish an energy healing and yoga c}ass
business (Home Occupation B). The applicant?s description for the use can be found in
Attachment A.
Petition: Petition to establish a Home Occupation Class B for an energy healing and yoga class
business The site is located on 1.7 acres at 5675 Oak Drive in the Community of Crozet The
property is zoned K-2 and described as Tax Map 56C Block C Parcel 9. The property is located off
Route 240 at the end of Oak Drive in the White Hall Magisterial District. This area is in the
Community of Crozet development area. (see Attachment B, C and D)
Character of the Area: This property is developed in a rural residential neighborhood. Access to
the property is off Oak Drive. Oak Drive is a private road.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the special use permit for compliance with provisions
of Section 5.2. of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History: In March 1997, the applicant was granted a Home Occupation Class
A for a massage and yoga class business. The Class B is required to allow the business to locate in
the existing garage on ske..
Comprehensive Plan: This area is located in the Crozet community development area,
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use
permits hereunder. Special use permits for use as provided in this ordinance may be
issued a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such that such use will not be of sd0mmt/al
detriment to adiacent property.
The applicant proposes to have yoga and energy healing classes in a 24x24 garage. The applicant
already has a Home Occupation Class A for a yoga and massage business in the house. The new
Page 1 of 3
classes will be conducted in the house until the garage is renovated. The applicant will meet only once
a day. The total number of classes will not exceed six classes per week. The classes could take place
in the morning or afternoon, but classes will not begin earlier than 8:45 A.M. and end before 9:00
P.M. The classes will have no more than eight people. The applicant's driveway is able to
accommodate at least ten vehicles. If approved, this Home Occupation could generate up to an
additional sixteen (16) trips per class. As noted earlier, these classes will not exceed six a week. The
applicant will be the only employee.
This site is on a private road, Therefore, the only issue would be the potential additional traffic
impact of maintenance to the private road. There has been no expressed opposition to this home
occupation request. The County Zoning/ Inspections Department comments can be found on
Attachment E.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The character of the area will not be changed if this special use permit is approved. The area is not
identified as significant in the Open Space Plan and is not m an agricultural/forestry district.
that such use will be in harmony with purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed the purpose and intent of the Ordinance as stated in Section 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 and
finds that this use meets the intent.
with the uses permitted by right in any adjacent property,
This request will not affect uses permitted by right on adjacent property.
with additional provided in Section 5.0 of this Ordinance,
Section 5.2 contains regulations for Home Occupation (Attachment F ). The regulation stipulates
that the Planning Commission must grant approval for all Home Occupations that generate traffic
volumes greater than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. This Home
Occupation could generate up to an additional sixteen (16) trips per class. While staffconsiders this
traffic more than what would be expected of a normal residence, staffnotes that daycare for fewer
than six children are permitted as a Class A occupation by right and could generate 20 vehicle trips
per day. The applicant's request to have one class per day with a maximum of eight students will be
consistent with this permitted Class A use.
and with the public health, safety, and welfare.
This special use permit will not adversely affect public healtlL safety, and general welfare.
Page 2 of 3
SUMMARY
Staffhas identified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
1. The use will not generate au excessive amount of noise as classes wilt be held inside.
2. The applicant will be able to accommodate all parking on site.
Staffhas identified the following factor which is viewed as negative:
1. The additional amount of~faffic the use will generate
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of SP-98-17 Blue Ridge Healing Arts Home Occupation Class B for
au energy healing and yoga class business.
Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this request, a modification of Section
5.2.2.1 (d) of the Zohing Ordinance must be granted to permit the greater volumes than would
normally be expected in a residential neighborhood. Only the Planning Commission must act on
the waiver request. If the Commission is to act favorably on this request, staff recommend that the
Planning Commission grant the modification, and recommends the following condition of
approval:
Students not to exceed eight per class.
Not more than six classes per week and one class per day is to be held.
Zoning/Inspections Department approval of off-street parking.
Attachments:
A-Description of Energy Healing and Yoga
B-Tax Map Location
C-VDOT Map Location
D-Subdivision Map Location
E-Zoning Comments
F-Section 5 2 of Zoning Ordinance
A:\SP9817.RPT
Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENT A
Blue Ridge Healing Arts
Yo__9_gal Using traditional hatha yoga postures, breathing exercises and deep relaxation,
students rediscover their inner peace of mind, and relaxed body accessing their
natural stress-free state of being.
Energy Healing: Through disharmony, stress, and disease energy blocks are created
in our body and in the human energy field that surrounds our physical body. Using
dance, breath, movement and visualization, students will learn to clear their own
energy field; thus, creating great health and well- being on all levels.
C:\DOCS~BLUEDEF.DEF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
40
ATTACHMENT B
.. /
SP 98-17
BLUE RIDGE HEALING ARTS
Io0
WHITE HALL
DISTRIOT
SECTION
56
Gao
ATTACHMENT C
'k
SP 98-17
BLUE RIDGE HEALING ARTS
CASTLE ROCK
'POP
TOM
MOUNTAIN
[~OAZ
\
\
\
\
ALBEMARLE-. COUNTY
ATTACHMENT D
PARK VIEW D.B.~69 Pg. 415
SP 98-17
BLUE RIDGE HEALING ARTS
· ~"_ _' '"~ ..... :'- ..... WHITE HALL DISTRICT SECTION 56 C
Building Code Information
(8O4] 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road. Room 223
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
FAX (804) 9724126
TFD (80419724012
ATTACHMENT E
Zoning Information
(804) 296-5875
MEMORANDUM
TO: Juandiego Wade, Senior Planner
FROM: Jan Sprinkle, Chief of Zoning Administration ~D~
DATE: May 26, 1998
RE: SP 98-17. Home Occupation Class B, Healing Arts
Home occupations are intended as a means to allow residents to work in their homes
as long as they do not affect their neighborhoods by such things as increased traffic.
parking along the public or private streets, signs, noise, vibration, glare, air pollution,
water pollution, radioactivity or electrical interference. Since this request is for 6
classes per week with a maximum of 8 persons per class, we feel that the resulting
traffic will be generated ~n greater volumes than Would normally be expected in a
residential neighborhood. Therefore, a modification of Section 5.2.2.1(d)will be
reqmred from the Planning Commission to allow the increase in traffic.
Please verify with the applicant that the area devoted to the use does not exceed 25%
of the floor area of the dwelling or 1500 square feet. If either of those numbers will be
exceeded, the Planning Commission will also need to modify Section 5.2.2.1 (a).
If the Board of Supervisors chooses to approve this SP and to allow classes, this
department will need to insure that there is sufficient off-street parking for the maximum
number of students. These spaces Will either have to meet Section 4.12.6.3, Minimum
Improvements, or have a reduction authorized by the Planning Commission. Section
4.12.~.3(a), last paragraph cites the possible reduction.
5.2
~.2.1
5.2.2
5.2.2.1
ATTACHllql~T ~
HOME OCCUPATIONS
CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED
Except as herein provided, no home occupation shall be
established without approval of the zoning administrator.
Upon receipt of a request to establish a home occupation,
Class B, the zoning administrator shall refer the same to
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for
approval of entrance facilities and the zoning administrator
shall determine the adequacy of existing parking for such
use. No such clearance shall be issued for any home
occupation, Class B, except after compliance with section
5.2.3 hereof. (Amended 3-18-81)
REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME OCCUPATIONS
The following regulations shall apply to any home
occupation:
Such occupation may be' conducted either within the
dwelling or an accessory structure, or both, provided
that not more than twenty-five (25) percent of the
floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the conduct
of the home occupation and in nc event shall the total
floor area of the dwelling, accessory structure, or
both, devoted to such occupation, exceed one thousand
five hundred (1~500) square feet; provided that the use
of accessory structures shall be permitted only in
connection with home occupation, Class B;
There shall be no change in the outside appearance of
the buildings or premises, or other visible evidence of
the conduct of such home occupation other than one (1)
sign. Accessory structures shall be similar in facade
to a single-family dwelling, private garage, shed, barn
or other structure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specifically compatible
in design and scale witk other development in the area
in which located. Any accessory structure which does
no= conform to the setback and yard regulations for
main structures in the district in which it is located
shall not be used for any home occupation;
There shall be no sales on the premises, other than
items handcrafted on the premises, in connection with
such home occupation; this does not exclude beauty
shops or one-chair barber shops;
-70- (Supp. ~1, 3-18-81)
5.2.2.2
5.2.3
No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation
in greater volumes than would normally be expected in a
residential neighborhood, and any need for parking
generated by the conduct of such home occupation shall
be met off the street;
All home occupations shall comply with performance
-standards set forth in section 4.14;
Tourist lodging, nursing homes, n~rser¥ schools, day
care centers and private schools shall not be deemed
home occupations.
Prior to issuance of clearance for any home occupation, the
zoning administrator shall require the applicant to sign an
affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent ~o
abide by the foregoing regulations.
CERTAIN PERMITS REQUIRED
No home occupation, Class B, shall be established until a
permit shall have been issued therefor. The provisions of
section 5.6.1 ~of this ordinance shall apply hereto, mutatis
mutandis.
-70.1-
BOARD OF SUPERVISG ....
June 5, 1998
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclnfire Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
~804) 296-5823
Jim Grigg
Daggett & G-rigg
1001 East Market St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SP-98-19 Brown Toyota; Tax Map 78, Parcel 14A
Dear Mr. Grigg:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 2, 1998, unaffumously
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that
this approval is subject to the following conditions:
Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB.
Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the approved site plan.
Vehicles shall not be elevated.
The Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at thi[r meeting on
July 8, 1998. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Margaret M. Pickan
Design Planner
MMPI jcl
cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Kelsey
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARGARET M;M. PICKART
JUNE 2, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
SP-98-I9 BROWN TOYOTA
A ,~licant's Pro o al_: The applicam proposes to display automobiles for sale and operate an
automobile dealership on this site, which was most recently used as a gas station. The service
station building, gas pump island, and a residence with associated outbuildings at the back of the
site will be removed and a new 6000 square foot auto dealership building will be constructed.
The proposal includes a total of 82 parking spaces, with most of the display parking situated
behind the building.
Petition: Proposal for a special use permit for outdoor storage and display for automobile sales
on 1.35 acres of land located on U.S Route 250 approximately 1.4 miles west of the intersection
with State Farm Boulevard. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 14A, is located inthe
Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is zoned HC Highway Commercial and EC Entrance
Corridor Overlay District and is designated as Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Character of the Area: This site was most recently used as a gas station. It is currently occupied
by a service station building and a residence. Adjacent properties are developed as automobile
dealerships. Other automobile dealerships exist in the vicinity and most nearby parcels are
commercially developed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the provision of Sections 30.6 and 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of SP 98-19 subject
to conditions.
Planning and Zoning History_:
No history is available for this site.
Comprehensive Plan:
This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 3 of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan lists auto dealer as a primary use for this service designation
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff'will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits
permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued
upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to
ad_latent property_,
It is anticipated that the addition of automobile display and sales wilt have no neganve impact on
the surrounding uses or on the site itself, due to the existing development of adjacent properties
and the designation of the area for regional service in the Comprehensive Plan.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
The potential impact of the use on the character of the district has been addressed by the ARB,
which has expressed no objection to the use based on the Entrance Corridor guidelines.
Conditions have been recommended by the ARB: those conditions are incorporated into the
recommended conditions of approval for the special use permit.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intern of this ordinance,
Staffhas reviewed this request for compliance with the purpose and intent of the EC district.
Based on the recommendation of the ARB, this use is in harmony with the purpose and intent of
the EC district.
with the uses permitted by fight in the district,
The storage, display and sale of automobiles is a use permitted by right in the underlying HC
district. The proposed expansion of the use will not restrict permitted uses on adjacent property.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in Section 5.0 specifically addressing the sale of automobiles.
and with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Issues related to the EC Overlay District will be addressed by appropriate conditions of approval.
SUMMARY:
This use is by special use permit due to the use of outdoor storage and display of vehicles within
the Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This use is permitted by right in the underlying HC
district. The Architectural Review Board has reviewed this request for its impact on the Route
250 East Entrance Corridor. Their acnon, which is included as Attachment D, expressed no
objection to the proposed use and indicated that conditions of the Special Use Permit should not
limit the ARB review of the final Certificate of Appropriateness. It is staff's opinion that with the
AKB's approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, this use is consistent with the intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plar}.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staffrecommends approval of SP-98-19 subject to the following conditions:
I Use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the ARB.
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in areas shown on the site plan
3. Vehicles shall not be elevated.
ATTAC -'- MENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Site Plan delineating Storage/Display Area
D - Architectural Review Board Action Letter
A:\SP9819.RPT
3
E
MTN
c
ATTACHHENT. A i
SP 98-19
BROWN TOYOTA
5
/I
[ATTACHMENT B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
BROWN TOYOTA
7g
MONTfCELLO
SDOTTSVILLE AND
.... r' RIVANNA DISTRICTS
SECTION 78
J ATTACHIqENT D i
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road, Room .218
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax ~804) 972 - 4035
May 20, 1998
Jim Grigg
Daggett & Grigg
1001 E. Market Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SP 98-19; ARB-P(SDP)-98-16 Brown Toyota (250 E); Tax Map 78, Parcel 14A
Dear Mr. Grigg,
The above-noted item was reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at its meeting on May
19, 1998. The Board expressed no objection to the Special Use Permit, recognizing that the expanded use is
/~'oposed for an Entrance Corridor and that conditions of the Special Use Permit should not limit the ARB review
?the final Certificate of Appropriateness.
The Board provided the following comments and suggestions for the benefit of the Applicant's final ARB submission:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
7)
Continue the brick across the bottom portion of the windows.
Provide complete landscaping information. The landscape plan should address trees to be saved along the
common property lines. Trees should be used to soften the appearance of the building and the parking.
Provide a perspective view illustrating the visibility of the extended service bays and the retaining wall from
the west.
Consider options for softening the appearance of the service bay portion of the building.
Provide material and color samples. The brick should be compatible with the buildings on adjacent
properties.
The building should not appear to be cluttered with wall signs. The ARB will look closely at the character
of the proposed signs and logos, and their appropriateness for the building and the Entrance Corridor.
Complete sign information should be submitted.
Complete site lighting information should be provided, including proposed wall fixtures.
If you have any questions concerning any of the above, please feel free to call me
Sincerely,
.dargaret M.M. Pickart
Design Planner
cc: ':/SP 98-19 ARB-P(SDP)-98-16
ORDINANCE NO. 98-20(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, 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 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding New:
Section 5.1.39. Off-site employee parking for industrial use.
By Amending:
Section 4.12.3.3.
Section 10.2.2.
(Untitled)
By special use permit.
CHAPTER 20. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled)
Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the
public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof
other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of
required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such
space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is
located the use to which such space is appurtenant or, in the case of cooperative
provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the
combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special
use permit to allow off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections
5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46 or off-site employee parking for an industrial use pursuant to
sections 5.1.39 and 10.2.2.46.
Sec. 5.1.39. Off-site employee parking for industrial use.
In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or to provide
additional parking, off-site employee parking may be authorized only when: (1) the
provision of on-site parking is not physically feasible or, when considering the general
public interest, as opposed to the private interest of the applicant, is not physically
desirable; (2) the proposed off-site parking is limited to employee use; (3) the provision
of off-site parking does not change the character of the area surrounding the property
on which the off-site parking is located, and does not require substantial alteration to
roads; (4) alternate transportation opportunities have not eliminated the need for
additional parking; and (5) the parcel on which the off-site parking is located is either
contiguous with the parcel on which the industrial use being served is located, or if the
two parcels are not contiguous, they are separated only by a public street or a private
road.
To insure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site
employee parking is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the
following requirements:
The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is not physically
feasible or physically desirable due to topographic constraints such as critical
slopes ane natural drainage features; wooded and buffer areas; unusual
configuration of the lot or remaining undeveloped area on the lot; entrance
corridor and/or landscaping requirements; stormwater management
improvements; the location and visibility of the site; and other physical features
of the property.
The applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a determined effort to reduce
reliance on single occupancy vehicle use by putting in place incentives and/or
employee programs to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicles.
Where public transit reasonably could be made available, the applicant should
demonstrate that efforts have been made to coordinate routes and times with the
public transportation service and the workforce hours.
The parking lot shall be located designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate
s~gnificant visual impacts from all public streets, private roads and adjacent
properties, and to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to adjacent
properties resulting from vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff,
degradation of water quality and other similar disturbances.
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan or a site plan with his application for
a special use permit. The ~31an shall show the approximate location of the
parking lot on the property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its
distance from the off-site parking to the industrial site, and shall identify how
persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the off-site parking
tothe building or use. The plan shall also show all features of the parking lot,
which will insure that the parking lot will not adversely change the character of, or
significantly impact, the area surrounding the property on which the parking lot is
proposed, and will impact to the ,east extent practicable the property on which
the ~3arking lot is proposed. The features which shall be shown on the
conceptual plan or site plan, and which may be required as a condition of
approval of a special use permit, include but are not limited to:
VisUal or noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing or planned
terrain and/or vegetative screening;
Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will
minimize noise, light pollution, dust, glare, and runoff and which will
protect water quality and protect trees designated to be preserved and will
result in no significant degradation to the environment;
A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light
structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with
section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded
in such a manner that all light emitted from the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane of the fixture; and
Changes proposed to the entrance and public road, including any
necessary road-widening, or grading and removal of trees to
accommodate sight distance.
The off-site parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply
to the off-site parking subject to this section, except as expressly provided
otherwise therein.
Article III, District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2. By special use permit.
46.
Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site
employee parking for an industrial use in an industrial zoning district (reference
5.1.39).
l, Ella W, Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing wdting is a true, correct
copy of an ordinance adopted by a vote of five to zero at a regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, held on July 8, 1998.
~'1~, Board ~f ~;ou"~ty Super/~ isors
Wayne Cilimberg
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Elaine Echols
Wednesday, July 08, 1998 3:10 PM
Larry Day s; Greg Kamptner Jan Sprinkle; David Hirschman
Wayne Cilimberg
GE Fanuc Text Amendment TONIGHT
Everyone but Jan/Amelia has received Sally Thomas' comments regarding the Fanuc Text Amendment. Sally would like
to propose some modifications for tonight to that amendment.
1. She wants an applicant to demonstrate that they have tried to reduce Single Occupancy Vehicle trips to and from the
facility and been successful but not successful enough.
2. She wants the parking lot constructed for the least amount of pervious surface or the stormwater management on the
facility to be constructed to produce the least amount of runoff. I told her that there are few good alternatives to asphalt in
terms of construction, use, and maintenance of parking lots. We could be more restr ct ven terms of stormwater detention
and BMP's that produce the most amount of"filtedng" time for stormwater to parc through the soil and the least amount of
volume and velocity for the release of the water to the channels to the streams.
For #1. we could propose a modification to 5.1.39 b. which currently says, "The applicant shall demonstrate that he has
made a reasonable effort to make public transportation available to emp}oyees of the industrial use. and/or to provide for
alternate transportation opportunities, and that these efforts have not resulted in a diminshed need for vehicular parking."
The acDlicant shall demonstrate that he has made a determined effort to reduce reliance on sinole occuoancv vehi.cle use
bv Du(ti'na in place incentives(all'employee Droclrams to encouraaelc~ :'c'..:c."d b!c,/~!!~_, w~_!k!~_. ~ie~hc,;=,~c~. ~;',. ;;co of.
~ fr~-n~;t" ~h,=,r~ m ~hli~' fr~h~i{' i.~ ~v~i-I~hle~Where oublic transit reesonablv could be-made a~ailable, the ~oolicant
~ho~.i-d-~l-emonstrate (hat eff(~-~s have been made to coordinate routes and tim&s with the Public transoortation ~ervice and
the.c ........................ {T. he-e~.,,,~,=,,~ ,,,u~ derhu.~[,~[~ [h~[ ~,, ............................................... le
For t~2. I think we already have the ability to require the maximum improvements for stormwater retention and BMP s by
making conditions to the SP. Anything more will need to be coordinated with Dave Hirschman which can't happen before
tonight.
I haven't really had the time to give this amendment more work. think if the Board wants to do more with it. Wayne and I
agree that we will need to have more time.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlonesville, Virginia 22902-4596
1804} 296-5823
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development ~/J~,
July 8, 1998
Resolution
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 7, 1998, by a vote of 3-0 with
one abstention, passed the following resolution:
That a request be made to the Virginia Department of Transportation that they (and their
"customers") submit to the County's special permit process with respect to the erection of
rowers on VDOT right-of-way within Albemarle County.
Mr. Loewenstein asked that staffbe sure this is passed on to the Board for their Wednesday, July
8th meeting and that the Board be reminded that there is precedent for this process in that the
University (another State agency) has agreed to follow the County's special permit process for
their projects.
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
VWC/jcf
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr
Ella Carey
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
804) 296-5823
June 24, 1998
Heidi Parker. Esq
Tremblay & Smith, LLP
105-109 East I-Iigh St
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZTA-98-04 Off-site Employee Parking for Existing Industrial Use
Dear Ms. Parker:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23, 1998, by a vote of 3-2, ii'
recommended approval of the zoning text amendment in Attachment C of the staff report subject to fire
following text changes: '~
Sectaon 5.1.3 - Chunge #4 to read. alternate transportation opportumttes have not elimmateit the
need for additional parking; and
a)
b)
"The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is not physically
physically desirable due to topograpldc constraints such as critical slopes and natural
drainage features. For this section the term physically desirable shall be deemed to ra[~,m
that for a specific, identifiable mason, the general public interest, as opposed to the
proprietary interest of the applicant, un-site parking is not physically desirable;"
"Applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a reasonable effort to make public
transportation available..."
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review tiffs pefi~ion and ref,~eive
public comment at their meeting on July 8, 1998. Any new or additional iaformation regarding your
application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your
scheduled hearing date.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
eonGqct me.
Sh~cerely,
Elaine K. Echols, AICP
Senior Plammr~
Cc: ~lla Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
G E Fanuc Automation North America
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
ELAINE K. ECHOLS, AICP
JUNE 23, 1998
JULY 8, 1998
ZTA 98-04(Offsite Employee Parking for Existing Industrial Use)
Orion and Description of Request: Ms. Heidi Parker, on behalf of G.E. Fanuc, has requested
that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow off-site parking for existing industrial uses by
special use permit. Ms. Parker's proposed amendment is provided in its entirety in Attachment
A.
The G.E. Fanuc proposed text amendment would provide for special use permits for off-site
parking for employees for existing industrial uses. The text amendment was similar to the
Michie Tavern amendment for off-site parking for historic structures. The G.E, Fanuc
amendment, however, does the folloWing things:
it limits off-site parking by special use permit to existing industrial uses only;
i~ reqmres that the parking lot and the use to which it relates share the same zoning
district;
it limits off-site parking lots to employees only; and
it reqnims contiguity between the parcel to be used for parking and the use m which it
relates, or if contiguity is not possible; the properties may be separated Only by a single
lane public or private road.
Until the Michie Tavern amendment, the Zoning Ordinance did not allow stand-alone or offsite
parking lots in any zoning district where the parking lot would be the only improvemem or use of
the property. With the Michie amendment, which was approved by the Board of Supervisors in
December of 1997, off-site parking by special use permit could be allowed for historic sites and
structures under very limited circumstances. (See Attachment B.)
In addition to the ZTA request. G.E. Fanuc also submitted a request to rezone 4 acres in the rural
areas for light industrial use. The applicant was hoping to accomplish a rezoning m conjunction
With the tex~ amendment so that G.E. Fanuc could apply for a special use permit to construct a
new parking lot on property they own across Dickerson Road from their manufacturing facility.
After review, staff determined that it could not support the rezoning request because Dickerson
Road is the development area boundary for the Piney Mountain Community and the property in
question is on the rural side of that boundary. G.E. Fanuc owns 40 acres on the north side of
Dickerson Road and the company did not want to commit to any plans for the remaining 36 acres
at this time. Staff advised the applicant that a Comprehensive Plan amendment should be
considered for any proposed area of industrial expansion on the 40 acres prior to requesting a
rezoning. The applicant responded that executives at G.E. Fanuc did not know at present what
future use they might need or want for the 40 acres. They indicated that they have an immediate
need for additional parking and that it was imperative that this new parking area be considered
for approval prior to the addition of personnel to be hired after the expansion which is currently
taking place.
Staff suggested to the applicant that a modified text amendment to allow for off-site employee
parking in the Rural Areas could be a more appropriate way to consider G.E. Fanuc's request.
As a result of the staff's suggestion, the applicant withdrew the rezomng request. The staff has
proposed modifications to the applicant's requested text amendment-which, if approved, would
allow the Planning Commission and the Board to consider G.E. Fanuc's request by special use
permit. The modified version of the applicant's request is provided in Attachment C.
Applicant's Justification for the Request: G.E. Fanuc is an existing industry on the edge of the
Piney Mountain Growth area in the northern part of Albemarle County. It has approximately
1115 employees in three shifts. An additional 150 employees are expected with an expansion
activity at the plant. A building addition has removed parking spaces, a portion of which will be
replaced at a different location. More parking for employees than can be accommodated on site
is needed, according to the applicant, and the industry has a choice of constructing in the lawn
area in front of the building or requesting a text amendment and special use permit to build in an
area across Dickerson Road that is not as visible to the public. The applicant believes that the
proposed text amendment and an approved special use permit will provide a reasonable, long-
term solution to parking needs of an existing major employer in the County. (See Attachments D
and E.)
Description of Staff Modifications: Staff has suggested that the opportunity for expansions of
employee parking for existing industries be available in the rural areas under very limited
circumstances rather than in any zoning district where the zoning designati°n is the same as the
designation of the parcel on which the industrial use being served is located. This modification
was recommended because the zoning ord'mance now only allows off-site parking in the rural
areas and only for historic structures and sites. For the applicant in particular, to provide an
opportunity to modify a parcel in the rural areas by special use permit seemed more advantageous
than to expand the development area boundaries, rezone a single parcel to unlimited LI use, and
then require a special use permit to accommodate a parking lot.
Additionally, the proposed zoning text amendment would require that an applicant demonstrate
that:
· on-site parking is not physically feasible or desirable due m
· topographic constraints such as critical slopes and natural drainage features
· wooded and buffer areas
· unusual configuration of the lot or remaining undeveloped area on the lot
entrance corridor and/or landscaping requirements
· stormwater management improvements
· the location and visibility of the site
· and the like
· the provision of off-site parking will not change the character of the area surrounding the
propei'ty and does not require substantial alteration of roads;
the applicant has made a good faith effort to make public transportation available and/or
to provide for alternate transportation opportunities and these efforts have not resulted in
a diminished need for vehicular parking,
the parcel for the proposed parking lot is either contiguous with the parcel on which the
industrial use being served is located or if not, the parcels are separated only by a public
or private road
the parking lot can be designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate significant visual
and environmental impacts on the surrounding rural area.
A conceptual or site plan showing how the parking lot would be constructed, how the parking lot
would be screened, and how environmental resources would be protected would be provided
with the special use permit application.
Staffhas recommended that references to "existing industrial uses" be changed to "industrial use
on industrially zoned property". Existing industrial uses may be nonconform'mg which this
amendment is not designed to address. Additionally, there are legal difficulties with having one
set of regulations where property is similarly zoned but has different regulations for existing and
proposed uses.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the text amendment which is
Attachment C.
Comprehensive Plan: The goals for rurat development in the Comprehensive Plan are (1)
preservation of agricultural and forestal activities; (2) protection of the water supply; (3)
limitation ofusesthat require major service delivery to the Rural Areas; and (4) conservation of
natural, scenic, and historic resources. The goals for economic development include (1)
rrminta'ming a strong and sustainable economy which will benefit County citizens and existing
businesses and providing diversified economic oppommities which is also supportive of the
County's Growth Management Policy and consistent with other Comprehensive Plan goals (2)
providing local bus'mess development opportunities.
Balancing rural development goals with economic development goals can be difficult and the
County must continually fmd ways to maintain the balance. On its face, this zoning text
amendment would appear to be in violation of the rural areas policies because it seems to
encourage encroachment of parking areas into the rural areas. In reality, though, the situations in
which parking in the rural areas would be requested are limited to those six industrial zones on
the develolxnem area borders and the few'industrially zoned tracts throughout the County that are
surrounded by Rural Areas. Many of these industrially zoned tracts support agricultural uses in
the County. An applicant would, have to demonstrate beyond question that there is no reasonable
alternative to requesting a parking expansion across the boundary. The parking lot would have to
be constructed in such a way as m retain the rural character of the surrounding area.
Relationship to Entrance Corridor Requirements: Any parking lot such as one proposed as a
3
result of this ZTA for a property in an entrance corridor would be reviewed by the Architecture
Review Board.
Relationship to Historic Structures and Sites: The proposed amendment would not diminish
the requirements previously established for off-site parking for historic structures and sites in the
rural areas.
Parking Requirements for Industrial.Uses: Questions have been raised regarding the adequacy
of the parking requirements for industrial uses in the County and whether or not any industry
should be able to provide additional parking for employees. The Zoning Ordinance requires one
space per 2 employees on the main shift plus one space per 500 square feet of floor area open to
the public for customer parking. This requirement does not take into account parking needs
during shift changes. It assumes half of all employees on the same shift carpool with another
employee. While carpooling is an important element in reducing automobile dependency, it is
difficult to mandate. Flex-time schedules for shift workers, such as occurs with G.E. Fanuc,
mean that many individUals will drive on their own. Therefore, staffwould assert that the
parking reqmrements for industrial uses are lower than what are i'ealistically required for the use.
STAFF COMMENT:
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district - The zoning text amendment would apply to the Rural Areas zoning district only. The
Rural Areas purpose and intent is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and activities, protect
the water supply, have limited service delivery, and conserve natural, scenic, and historic
resources. The proposed special use permit process would ensure that the instances in which off-
stte parking is allowed are very limited and how that parking would be allowed would be
restricted to ways in which the rural character of the surrounding area can be preserved.
Public need and _iustification for the change There may be instances in which a stand-alone
parking lot makes sense, especially in relation to an existing use. With the zoning text
amendment to allow off-site parking as a special use, any impact to thc surrounding area could be
controlled by the special use permit process. The special use permit process assesses the need for
thc parking lot, the appropriateness of the proposed location, proposed configuration of the
parking lot as wel~ as construction materials and landscaping.
Anticinated impact on public facilities and services
Water and Sewer - No impact would be expected.
Roads - Any impact on roads would be managed and controlled through the special use
permit process.
Stormwater management - Stormwater management is currently controlled through the
runoff control ordinances. Any additional stormwater problems could be mitigated
through the special use permit process.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources-The impact of a "by-
right" off-site parking lot on these resources could be negative or positive, depending
upon the characteristics of the parking lot. With the special use permit process, any
negative impact could be addressed.
Anticipated impact on other uses in the zoning district - Through the special use
permit process, other uses in the zoning district would be protected from negative impacts
of off-site parking in the rural areas. Further, itis expected that off-site parking requests
will be heavil? scrutinized and approved only when there is no reasonable alternative
available and the proposed use advances other goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY:
Staff has idemified the following factors which are favorable to this request:
Providing alternatives for industrial expansion which can have little or no impact to the
use oftbe rural areas is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
Requests for off-site parking can be scrutinized through the special use permit process.
The proposed ordinance ensures that any negative impacts to the rural areas can be
avoided.
Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request:
The request changes a longstanding requiremem that off-site parking lots are not allowed
as a singular use on an parcel of land in any zoning district, except for historic structures
and sites in the Rural Areas,
Off-site parking lots for industrial uses in the Rural Areas can be viewed as encroaching
on the Rural Areas which the Land Use Plan seeks to protect.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the text amendment as proposed by staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Proposed Text Amendment by Applicant
B - Existing Zoning Text Relating to Off-site Parking
C - Proposed Text Amendment by Staff
D- Applicant's Justification for Text Amendment
C:\WINDOWS\WP~ZMAkFANUCSR.ZTA
f~ ~ ~ ~ ~,c_~t~.~ . ATTACHMENT A
OFF-SITE EMPLOYEE PARKING FOR EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE
In order to provide the minimum parking required by Section 4.12 or to provide additional
parking, off-site employee parking for an existing industrial use may be authorized only when
(1) the provision of on-site parking is not feasible; (2) the proposed off-site parking is limited to
employee use; (3) the prowsion of off-site parking does not change the character of the area
surrounding the property on which the off-site parking is located, and does not require substantial
alteration to roads; (4) the zoning designation of the parcel on which the off-site parking is
located is identical to the zoning designation of the parcel on which the industrial use being
served is located; and (5) the parcel on which the off-site parking is located is either contiguous
with the parcel on which the industrial use being served is located, or if the two parcels are not
contiguous, the two subject parcels are separated only by a single lane public or private road.
To insure the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site employee parking
for an existing industrial use pursuant to Section 27.2.2 and 28.2.2 is consistent with this intern,
each applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
a. The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is not feasible.
Applicant shall demonstrate that public transportation is available to employees of the
existing industrial use, and if not, that applicant has made a good faith effort to make such
public transportation available.
The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate
significant visual impacts fi.om all public streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and
to reduce or eliminate other significant impacts to adjacent properties resulting from
vehicular noise, dust, artificial lighting, glare, runoff, degradation of water quality and
other similar disturbances.
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with its application for a special use permit.
The conceptual plan shall show the approximate location of the parking lot on the
property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its distance fi.om the off-site parking
to the industrial site, and shall identify how persons will be transported or will transport
themselves from the off-site parking to the historic structure or site. The conceptual plan
shall also show all features of the parking lot, which will insure that the parking lot will
not adversely change the character of or significantly impact the area surrounding the
property on which the parking lot is proposed, and will impact to the least extent
practicable the property on which the parking lot is proposed.
Visual and noise barriers 'such as earthen berms, the existing or planned terrain
and/or vegetative screening;
Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will minimize
noise, light pollution, dust, glare, and runoff and which will protect water-quality
and protect trees designated to be preserved;
A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light
structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor lights comply with section
4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such a manner
that all light emitted from the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly
from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane of the fixture; and
Changes proposed to the entrance and public road, including any necessary road-
widening, or grading and removal of trees to accommodate sight distance.
The off-street parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply to
off-site parking for a historic structure or site, except as expressly provided otherwise
therein.
Historic s~ruc~ure or site: Any sEruc~ure or sl~e l!sted on the National
Register of Hlstorlc Places or the Virginl8 Landmarks Reg~sser. Added
12-10-97
Hog Farm: A p!ase where hogs are kept and raised pr!mar!iy for sale
Home Garden: .~ aculvzuy accessory eo residential usage of a properuy
!nvoivlng the cultivation of flowers vegetables fruit and or other
olants primarily for the ronsumpu!on or en]oy~enz of the Fesidents of such
property, but expressly excluding the keepLng of livestcck and Dr poultr~
Added 12-2-87
~ome for Developmentally Disabled Persons: A build~ng or ~roup of
buildings containing ute 1 or more dwelling units lesigned and or used
for housing mentally retarded or otherwise developmentally dlsabled
persons not related ky blood or marrIage.
~ome Occupation. Class A: An occupa%lon ronducted zm ~ flwelling uniE for
profit in connecuzon with which no person other than members Df the family
residing on the premises 1s engaged in such occupation.
Home Occupation, Class B: An occupaemon conducted ~n a dwelling unit,
with or without =he use of one or more accessory smrucuures for profit,
in co~necElon with which there are employed hOC more than ~wo {2 persons
other than members Df the family residing on tko premises, which persons
may be in addition so such family members.
Hospital: A building or ~roup Df buildings designed, used or intended to
be used for the care o~ the sick. aged or infirmed including the care of
mental drug~addiction or ~lcoholic cases. This terminology shall
include but non be limited so, sanitariums, nursing homes and convales-
Hotel: A building conuaznlng slx (6) or more guest rooms intended or
designed ~o be used Dr which are used rented or hired Due ~o be occupied
or which are occupied for sleepzng purposes by guescs.
Indoor Athletic Facility: A building or suruceure ~n which are conducted
recreational therapeuelc or athletic activities, whether or not under
instruction s~ch as bu~ not limited to: ~ennls and other coure games.
swimming, aerobics, and weightlifting but excluding such uses ~s: bowling
alley, billiard hall bingo, m~na/ure ~olf. amusement cen5er and dance
halls. Added 9-15-93
Inoperative Motor Vehicle: Any motor vehicle trailer or semztrai!er, as
such are defined !n Vzrginxs Code Section 46.1-1 which is not zn
opera, lng conditiont or which for a period of sixty (60} flays or longer
has been partially or =otally disassembled by the removal of ~ires and
wheels the englne, or other essential pares required for the Dperauion of
the vehicle or on which there are displayed neither valid license plates
nor a valid inspece~on decal. Added 6-10-87
-15- (Supp. ~85, 12-10-97
4.12,3
4.12.3.2
Amended
5-14-89
Amended
12-!0-97
4.12.3.4
Amended
6-14-89
4.!2.4
LOCATION OF p~qKING
For the purpose of determining mznlmum yard requirements of the various zoning
districts the norm '~off-streem par-:!ng space" shall be Seemed no include parking
space cr stall nogesher with adjacent aisle and turnaround Amended 6-14-89
Dff-street parking spaces shall be cr~vlded Dn the same lot wzth the use ~o
which in ls appurmenanu excepu as herein after provided
Where {ractical difficulties prevent locatiDn as required zn secuzon 4.12.3.2
sr where the public safety or uhe public convenlence would be bet5er served by
the location zhereof other mhax on she same lot the commzsszon may authorize
such alteunauzve location of required parking space as will adequately serve the
public znseres£ provided that such space shall be located on land zn the same
ownership as that of the land on which zs located uhe use ~o which such space zs
ap~ur£enan5 or Ln the case of ~ooperacive provzs~on Df parking space ~n the
ow?.ershLp of au least one of the parmzczpanms mn the combination. In the rural
areas iistrict the board of supervisors may Lssue a special use permLu [c allsw
off-site parking for ~ historic szrucmure or szne pursuanm mc sections 5.1.38 and
10.2.2.46
Whether off-street parking zs provided on the same lot or no~ the following
shall apply:
For resmdenuial uses where parking ~s provided in bays, no parking space
shall be iocamed further ~han one hundred (100 feet from the enmrance of
the dwelling such space serves.
For nonresidentzal uses no parking space shall be located further than
five hundred 500 feet from the ennrance of the use such space serves.
Dmstances zn (a) and {k above may be increased mn such cases where the
commission shall ietermine that the public lnmeres£ or ionvenlence would
be equally or better served by such increased !istamce: that the allowance
of a greamer distance would sou be $ deparmure from sound engineering and
design pracmmce and that the allowance of ~ greaser distance would nee
otherwmse be conmrary mo the purpose and mn~enc of this ordinan2e:
provided that in no case shall the maxmmum distance from the enerance of
a dwelling unmm ~nd its appurzenanm parking space exceed mwo hundred 200)
feet.
The tistance limitations established in this section shall sou apply
off-site parking for a historic snrucnure or site authorize~ by secnions
5.1.38 and i0.2.2.46. ~Added 12-!0-97
Parking space re?/ired under the provisions of ~his ordinance may be provided
cooperatively for mwo or more uses in a development or for swo or more individual
uses, subjecm mo arrangemenms that will assure the permanenu ~vaiiability of such
space ~s such arrangemenes are approved by the commmssion.
The amounn of such combined space shall be equal ~o the sum of the amounns
required for the separane uses; ~rovided. that the commission may reduce the
amounu Df space required for a church or for a mee~mng place Df a c~vic.
fraternal or similar organlza~lon or other uses under the provlslon~ Df a
~ombined parking area by reason of different hours Df normal acE!vlLy than those
Df Dther uses participamlng mn the comJDination.
-34- Supp. ~85 12-10-97
4.12.5
4.12.5.1
AVAILABILITY
required off-snreeu parking Dr loading area shall he used for the sale.
re~alr dismantling or servlczng of any vehicle equlpmenu materials or
su~plibs. Dr obstructed mn any other fashion unless specifically approved by th
commission. This ~rovlslon shall non be applicable co s!ngle-family dwell
Where off-street parking and loading spaces are required by these regulations.
no owr. er or occupanu of any land ur building shall discontinue change Dr
dispense with such facilities without establishing alternative facilities
complying equally winh the requirements of these regulatIons.
-34.1- (Sup~. ~85 12-10-97
Added
!2-10-97
OFF-SITE PARKING FOR HISTORIC STRUCTrJRES OR SITES
In order Lo provide the mlnzmum parking required by section 4.12 Dr uo
provide additional parking, off-slte parking for ~ historic strucLure or
slue may be authorized only when I she provision Df on-slue parking
~
would substane!allv degrade or detract 5rom the historic character and
selling Df the histor!c sLrucsure or sl£e Lc be served- (2 the level of
use of the properly Dn which the historic sLrucrure or slue is located
which necessitates the provision of off-slue parking will non degrade or
~etract from the lnuegrlny of the historic szrucnure or slue cr adversely
Ihange the uharacter of the surrounding area: and 3 the provisIon of
off-site parking does non change the character of the area surrounding the
property on which the off-site parking !a proposed and ~oes not requlre
substantial alteration no roads. To ensure that the revlew of each
application for a special use permit for off-site parking for a historlc
9Lrucuure or slue pursuan5 to section 10.2.2.46 is ronslsmenu wmth this
znuenu each applicant shall com~ly with the following requirements:
Ihe applicant shall demonstrate that on-site parking cannoL be
provided without substantially degrading or detracting from the
historic sLrucLure or SilO.
The parking lot shall be located designed and constructed to reduce
or eliminate significant visual impacts from all public sLreees
prlvane roads and adlacene properules and 50 reduce or eliminate
other s~gnificant ~mpacus 50 ad?acenu properE~es resulting from
vehicular no.se lust. artificial lighting, glare, runoff degrada-
u~on of water quality and Dther similar disturbances.
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan with ins application
for a special use permzn. The conceptual plan shall show the
approxzmate location of the parking lot on the properny !us
dimensions ins access ~o a public smree5 its distance from the
historic snrucnure or szse and shall identify how persons will be
uransported or will nransporL themselves from the off-slue parking
Lo the historic serucuure or szue. ~he conceptual plan shall also
show all features of the parking lot which will ensure that the
parking lot will non degrade or detract from the historic snrucmure
or szme no be served by the parking lot. will non adversely change
the character of or smgnificantly zmpacu the area surrounding the
propercy Dn which the parking lot ls proposed and will impacn mo
the least extenn pracuicable the properny on which the parking lot
zs proposed. The features which shall be show~ on the conceptual
plan, and which may be required as a condition Df approval Df a
special use permlm, include:
Visual and nozse barriers such as earthen berms the ex!suing
or planned merrazn and/or vegetative screening;
Proposed construction elemenns which shall include e!emenLs
which will m~nimlze noise, light pollution dust glare and
runoff and which will prouece water quality and prouec~ trees
designated Lo be preserved;
A llghtzng plan which identifies the location and deszgn of
all outdoor light structures and fixtures demonstrates than
all outdoor lights comply with secnzon 4,12.6.4 and demon-/
stratos that all outdoor lights will be shielded ~n such a~/
manner that all l!ght emitted from the fixture ezther
directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture ms
pro3ected below the horizontal plane of the fixture
Changes proposed to the ennrance and public road including
any necessary ford-widening, or grading and removal of trees
no accommodate sight distance.
The off-street parking and loading requirements ~e~ forth zn sectLon
4.12 shall apply no off-site parking for a historzc structure or
slue excepu as expressly provided otherwise therezn.
-69.11-
(Supp. #85, 12-10-97
10.3
38. Exploratory drilling. Added 2-10-82
59. Kydroelect'ric power generanlon reference 5.1.26
Added 4-28-82
Added 7-6-83
41 Convent Monastery reference 5.1.29 . Added 1-1-87
42. Temporary evenns sponsored by local nonprofit organlza~lons
which are related no. and suppornzve of the RA rural areas
district reference 5.1.27 Added 12-2-87
Agricultural Museum reference 5.1.3( Added 12 2-87
Theatre outdoor drama. Added 6-10-92
Farm sales reference 5.1.35) . Added 10-11-95
Off-site parking for historic snrucuures or sites
5.1.38 Added !2-10-97
43.
44.
45.
48.
APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT
reference
The following provisions shall apply no any parcel of record at
p.m.; the menuh day of December, 1980 reference 6.5
Amended 11-8-89
-91.1- {Supp. %85, 12-10-97
ATTACHMENT C
Proposed Zoning Text Amendment for Off-site Employee Parking in the
Rural Areas for Existing Industrial Uses
Proposal made by G.E. Fanuc on 4/1/98
Existing text in Zoning Ordinance
Modifications to proposal by staff on 6/16/98
Section 4. ]2.3.3
(existing text)
Section 5.1.3
Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section
4. ]2.3.2 or where the public safety or the public convenience would be
better served by the location thereqf other than on the same lot. the
commission may authorize such alternative location of required parking
space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such
space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land
on which is located the use to which such space is appurtenant or. in the
case of cooperative provision of parking space, in the ownership of at
least one of the participants in the combination. In the rural areas
district, the board of supervisors may issue a special use permit po allow
off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections 5.1.38
and 10. 2.2. 46 or industrial use on industrially zoned property pursuant
to sections 5.1.3_ and 10.2.2.46,
OFF-SITE EMPLOYEE PARKING FOR ......... INDUSTRIAL USE
In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or'to
provide additional parking, off-site employee parking may be authorized
only when (1) the provision of on-site parking is not physically feasible or
physically desirable (2) the proposed off-site parking is limited to
employee use; (3) the provision of off-site parking does not change the
character of the area surrounding the property on which the off-site
parking is located, and does not require substantial alteration to roads,'~4-)
~n ............ ~ ................... (4) alternate transportation
opportunities are not available;and (5) the parcel on which the off-site
parking is located is either contiguous with the parcel on which the
industrial use being served is located, or if the two parcels are not
contiguous, the two subject parcels are separated only by a public or
private road. To insure that the review of each application for a special
use permit for off-site employee parking ~s consistent with this intent, each
applicant shall comply with the following requirements:
The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site parking is
nor physically feasible or physically desirable due to topographic
constraints such us critical slopes and natural drainage features;
wooded and buffer areas; unusual configuration of the lot or
remaining undeveloped area on the lot; entrance corridor and/or
landscaping requirements; stormwater management
improvements; the location and visibility of the site; and other
physical features of the properO~.
Applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a good faith effort
to make public transportation is available to employees of the
........ ~ strial use .......... , ..... t~}, ................ ~,~'~
provide for alternate transportation opportunities and that these
efforts have not resulted in a diminished need for vehicular
parking.
The parking lot shall be located, designed and constructed to
reduce or eliminate significant visual impacts from all public
streets, private roads and adjacent properties, and to reduce or
eliminate other significant impacts to adjacem properties resulting
from vehicular noise, dust. artificial lighting, glare, runoff,
degradation of water quality and other similar disturbances.
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan or site plan with4~s
his application for a special use permit. The ¢c~nccpt-aal plan shall
show the approximate location of the parking lot on the property,
its dimensions, its access to a public street, its distance from the
off-site parking to the industrial site, and shall identify how
persons will be transported or will transport themselves from the
off-site parking to the ,~tc~iSc ~t,-act-arc c,r ~itc building or use.
The eoneepm~ plan shall also show all features of the parking lot.
which will insure that the parking lot will not adversely change the
character of or significantly impact the area surrounding the
property on which the parking lot is proposed, and will impact the
· least extent practicable the property on which the parking lot is
proposed. The followingfeatures shall be shown on the site plan
or conceptual plan shall include the following items and may be
established us a condition of approval of a special use permit:
Visual or noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existing
or planned terrain and/or vegetative screening;
Proposed construction elements, which shall include
elements which will minimize noise, light pollution, dust,
glare, and runoff and which will protect water quality and
protect trees designated to be preserved;
SeCtion 10.2.2
46
A lighting plan which identifies the location and design of
all outdoor light structures and fixtures, demonstrates that
all outdoor lights comply with section 4.12.6.4 and
demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded in such
a manner that all light emitted from the fixture, either
directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is
projected below' the horizontal plane of the fixture; and
Changes proposed to the entrance and public road,
including any necessary road-widening, or grading and
removal of trees to accommodate sight distance.
The off-site parking and loading requiremems set forth in section
4.12 shall apply to off-site parking for an industrial use in an
industrial district hi~tc,~¢ ~-.'.crar¢ c,r ~tc except as expressly
provided otherwise therein.
Off-site parking for historic structures or sites and industrial uses
in accordance with section 5.1.3_.
A.LA.. C.$.L
CADD MAPfAGER
A.LA.
June 12, 1998
RECEIVED
JUN 1 5 199R
Planning Dept.
Ms. Elaine Echols
Albemarle County Planning Department
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: GE Fanuc - Parking
Dear Ms. Echols,
We have investigated the possibilities available for providing additional on-site parking at
the GE Fanuc facility. This was done to alleviate current parking shortages and to
accommodate anticipated new employees who are to be hired as a result of present and
future facility expansion?.
The attached drawings show study areas of the GE Fanuc site (contiguous areas) with
numbering notations of possible expansion for parking. We will relate our comments to
these noted areas.
~ This area has a drainage ditch in a deep ravine that handles water fi.om
the detention pond as well as a watershed fi.om both sides. For these reasons this
area is considered to b~ unacceptable for any expansion of parking.
~r-e, al2k While some additional on-site parking is feasible in this are, it would
negatively impact the attractive, park-like appearance of GE Fanuc's property as
viewed from Route 29 and Austin Drive and would not satisfy GE Fanuc's parking
needs.
&r.e~(3~ This area which is immediately adjacent and parallel to Route 29 is part
of the park-tike appearance of the site. It acts as a buffer between 29 north and the
GE Fanuc buildings. This area is a far too remote from the manufacturing building
where most of the needed additional parking is to be required and should not be
considered for parking..
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Dale C. Hamilton
We attach herewith a "topo" of Area (1) noted on the overall accompanying site
plarL We do not have a "topo" of Site (5) 'asit (the general area) was purchased
after the general "topo" of the general site.
cc: Riobert Swantz, G E Fanuc Automation N.A., Inc.
&re, a_(t)2 Not only is them a detention pond in this area, bra it is a focal point in
the park-like landscaping design of the property, and additional parking in this area
would be visible from Rotae 29. Parking in this area would be unacceptable.
3xe_a_tS~ A newly constructed parking lot has been added to the Technology
Building area next to this area. This area is quite heavily wooded and is also
considerably lower than the adjacent parking lot and road. It acts asa great buffer
from both the power company sub-station with it's unattractive appearance and
also buffers from Routes 29 & 606. It would not only be costly to develop this
area for parking, but would lose all of the trees to accommodate filling of the gully
to bring it up to an acceptable level. This area is also at a great distance to the
manufacturing plant where the bulk of added personnel will requ'~m parking.
&r_ea-ff2X Owned by GE Fanuc, this area is the right-of-way for the power
company's high tension feeder lines to the sub-station. This is unsuitable for
parking for other masons also (low lands, storm drainage area for a large portion
of adjacent lands.)
/kread.2)DLike Area (5) and (6), this area is unsuitable for additional on-site
parking beeause the area is considerably lower than the adjacent parking lot, acts
as a buffer between Rotae 29 and the GE Fanuc facility, is located a significant
distance from the manufacturing facility, and would require employees to cross a
high tension power line easement to get to the GE Fanuc facility. Furthermore, this
area fronts Route 29, and any parking would be vis~te from that entrance
corridor.
~ (Parcel 13-Al The area most feasible and des'umble for added parking is
this site. If it could be rezoned or allowed by whatever other process to be used for
GE Fanuc parking, it would accommodate over 200 additional parking spaces.
This would take care of the foreseeable future parking needs of GE Fanuc. It is
immediately adjacent to the manufacturing build'rog site and is within reasonable
distance to walk fi-om parking area to the entrance into the manufacturing and
engineering buildings, This site appears to be quite adaptable for nse'as a parking
area. We strongly recommend that serious consideration be given to approval of
the site for GE Fanuc parking.
(2Mlla_9_): GE Fanuc has reluctantly made plans and received bids for an extension
of parking at the Tech Center to provide parking (limited) to offset the parking lost
by the new 24,000 sq. ff. expansion into an existing parking area. This will
necessitate cutting down many mature trees in an area that the Owner had wanted
to keep as an open space area. This is only a temporary relief to the parking
problem and will not be enough by any means to satisfy the growth parking needs
of GE Fanuc.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Dale C. Hamilton
PoS.
We attach herewith a "topo" of Area ( 1 ) noted on the overall accompanying site
platt We do not have a "topo" of Site (5) as it (the general area) was purchased
after the general "topo" of the general site.
cc: Riobert Swantz, G E Fanuc Automation N.A., Inc.
./
/,Y' ...
Draft: June 30, '1998
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING 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 20, Zoning, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding New:
Section 5.1.39. Off-site employee parking for industrial use.
By Amending:
Section 4.12.3.3.
Section 10.2.2.
(Untitled)
By special use permit.
CHAPTER 20. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.12.3.3. (Untitled)
Where practical difficulties prevent location as required in section 4.12.3.2 or where the
public safety or the public convenience would be better served by the location thereof
other than on the same lot, the commission may authorize such alternative location of
required parking space as will adequately serve the public interest, provided that such
space shall be located on land in the same ownership as that of the land on which is
located the use to which such space ~s appurtenant or. in the case of cooperative
provision of parking space, in the ownership of at least one of the participants in the
combination. In the rural areas district, the board of supervisors may issue a special
use permit to allow off-site parking for a historic structure or site pursuant to sections
5.1.38 and 10.2.2.46 or off-site employee parking for an industrial use pursuant to
sections 5.1.39 and 10.2.2.46.
Sec. 5.'1.39. _Off-site emnlovee oarkin for industrial use.
In order to provide the minimum parking required by section 4.12 or to provide
additional parkina, off-site employee parking may be authorized only when: (1) the
provision of on-site parkina is not physically feasible or. when considerinq the qeneral
public interest, as opposed to the private interest of the applicant, is not physically
desirable: ('2~ the proposed off-site parkinq is limited to employee use; (3) the provision
of Off-site parkina does not chanqe the character of the area surroundinq the property
Draft: June 30, 1998
on which the off-site oarkina is located, and does not reouire substantial alteration to
roads; ('4) alternate transportation opportunities have not eliminated the need for
additional parking: and (5) the parcel on which the off-site parking is located is either
conticluous with the parcel on which the industrial use beino served is located, or if the
two parcels are not contiquous, they are separated only by a public street or a private
road.
:-ro insure that the review of each application for a special use permit for off-site
employee parkinq is consistent with this intent, each applicant shall comply with the
followinq requirements:
The applicant shall demonstrate that additional on-site oarkina is not Dhysicallv
feasible or phvsically desirable due to topoqraphic constraints such as critical
slopes and natural drainage features: wooded and buffer areas: unusual
confiquration of the lot or remain~n(~ undevelooed area on the lot: entrance
corridor and/or landscapinq requirements; stormwater manaqement
~mprovements; the location and visibilitv of the site: and other phvsical features
of the property.
The applicant shall demonstrate that he has made a reasonable effort to make
public transportation available to employees of the industrial use. and/or to
provide for alternate transportation ooportunities, and that these efforts have not
resulted in a diminished need for vehicular parkinq.
The parkinq lot shall be located, designed and constructed to reduce or eliminate
siqnificant visual impacts from all Dublic streets, private roads and adiacent
properties, and to reduce or eliminate other sionificant impacts to adjacent
properties resultinq from vehicular noise, dust, artificial liqhtinq, qlare, runoff,
deqradation of water quality and other similar disturbances.
d
The applicant shall submit a conceptual plan or a site plan with his application for
a special use permit. The plan shall show the approximate location of the
oarkinq lot on the property, its dimensions, its access to a public street, its
distance from the off-site parkinq to the industrial site, and shall identify how
persons will be transported or will transport themselveS from the off-site parkinq
to the buitdino or use. The plan shall also show all features of the parkinq lot
which will insure that the parkinq lot will not adversely chanqe the character of, or
siqnificantlv impact the area surrounding the property on which the parkinq lot is
proposed, and will impact to the least extent practicable the property on which
the ~)arkine lot is ~)ropose . The features which shall be shown on the
conceptual plan or site plan, and which may be required as a condition of
aoproval ora special use permit, include but are not limited to~
Draft: June 30, 1998
Visual or noise barriers such as earthen berms, the existinq or planned
terraJ n and/or vegetative screening;
Proposed construction elements, which shall include elements which will
minimize noise, lioht pollution, dust, alare, and runoff and which will
protect water cluality and protect trees desiqnated to be preserved;
Aliqhtinq plan which identifies the location and design of all outdoor light
structures and fixtures, demonstrates that all outdoor liahts compI.v with
section 4.12.6.4 and demonstrates that all outdoor lights will be shielded
in such a manner that all liqht emitted from the fixture, either directly from
the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal
plane of the fixture: and
Chancles proposed to the entrance and public road, including any
necessary road-wideninq, or qrading and removal of trees to
accommodate siqht distance.
The off-site parking and loading requirements set forth in section 4.12 shall apply
to the off-site parking subject to this section, except as expressly provided
otherwise therein.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2. By special use permit.
46.
Off-site parking for historic structures or sites (reference 5.1.38) or off-site_
employee parkincl for an industrial use in an industrial zoninq district ('reference
5.1.39'[.
ZTA 98-04
Marcia Joseph
July s, 998
I urge you to deny this request. Not because I wish to thwart the expansion of the GE Fanuc facility on
Route 29N, but because of the ramifications this has with the Rural Area zoning district.
The staff report indicates that GE Fanuc first submitted a rezonlng request for 4 acres out of a 40 acre
parcel and zoning text amendment to change the zoning designation of the 4 acres from RA to LI, and to
change the text to allow parking on a contiguous or property separated only by a single lane public or
private road. If the applicant also requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment th/s would be a reasonable
method to follow~ It deals spec'ffieally with the property, and does not spill over into other properties.
Staffsays that they can not support a Comprehensive Plan amendment, yet they can support placing
parking on this parcel. They also say that GE Fanuc does not have plans for the remaining 36 acres Of
course it would be an ideal planning situation if GE published theh- 25 year plan for the property, but plans
for this property may n~ot have been decided on the corporate level at this time. It does not make sense to
punish them for not having plans for the entire 40 acre parcel.
The staff report goes on m say that the applicant must demonstrate that off site parking is not feasible or
desirable due to many subjective factors. For instance, how does staffand the applicant decide the s/ze of
the critical Mope area before if is considered non feasible? How well defined is the natural drainage
Feature. how deep, wide and long is it? How much wooded or buffer areas can be eliminated a percemnge
of the site, or ½ acre? Does it count as a wooded area if the area is composed of sc-mb trees covered in
kudzu? How do 1 determine if the lot is ofuunsual configuration ? They are all subjective measures
leaving staff and the applicant in a quandary in determining what course to take. [ realize that the staff is
interprenng these measures as they write the text amendments, but this has to be text that can be interpreted
by others fairly and consistently with concrete requiremems. The review proposed is much too complex
and certainly defeats the county goal of becoming a welt oiled machine in reviewing and approving plans.
The county has standards for parking areas by right in zoning districts if the allowed use on the property
requires parking.
Staff informs us that the Comprehensive Plan states goals for rural development these do not include
parking for light industrial use. They inject the concept that the goals for economic development include
maintaining a strong and sustainable economy.., and to provide local business development opportunities.
The goals are admirable, but there is no connection in the staff's recommended course of action. The
ex/sting land uses throughout the county have been designated for the public good. and if circumstances
change on a parcel or in a particular area, then our elected officials can choose to change the designated use
by rezoning the parcel.
I'bis seemingly innocuous text amendment does not adhere to the intent of the rural areas. If you decide to
approve this text amendment, please consider changing the intent of the rural areas zoning district also.
The intent should be amended to include defining it's role in serving as a holding zone for future
development~
If you decide to deny rids request, I urge you to place the Comp Plan amendment on a fast track to allow
the applicant to make up for lost time.
To: Members, Board of Supervisors
From: Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cler~Ow-
Subject: Reading List for July 8, 1998
Date: July 7, 1998
July 3, 1996
December I I(N), 1996
August 6, 1997
February 18, 1998
pages 1-25 (Item #8) - Ms: Humphris
pages 25 (Item #8) - end - Ms. Thomas
Mr. Bowerman
pages 1-17 (Item #8)- Ms. Humphris
pages i7 (Item #8) - end - Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Martin
/~WC
DISCUSSION
The Honorable Shirley J. Ybarra,
Secretary of Transportation
and the
Charlottesville Albemarle MPO
June 30, 1998
pleased to be here
thank you for the time
Mefidith Richard, Charlotte Humphris, Don Wells, Satyendra Huja,/wayne
Cilimberg from technical committee Nancy O'Brien,Harmah Twaddell
SHARED STATE/LOCAL
CONCERN
TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON
ROUTE 29 THROUGH THE
THOMAS JEFFERSON PLANNING
DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY
NORTH OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
Stated in the MPO TIP (state and
local for many years)
EIS (Sverdrup Study), late
1980's
CATS (back to original CATS
begun in 1970's)
Route 29 Corridor Study
2
WHO IS THE CUSTOMER?
Local Government?
Citizens of the Area Housing the
Road?
Interstate Commerce and Travel?
Local Traffic?
Local government, the state, and
the MPO share a set of
customers. This customer base,
as well as their relative
importance, is essential in
understanding decisions made
regarding transportation in the
Commonwealth and how that
effects the localities
TIMELINE
~ / 1995 ~ ~ 1998-99
! 1996-98
Pre- 1991
The process has been a problem. We're looking for ways to avoid continuation of
this problem.
Pre- 1991: Lawsuit pending, many different ideas on solutions to Route 29 traffic
problems, City and County working on water quality management to extend life
of reservoir, (more on that later).
1990-92: A coming together CTB (2) resolutions, Three Party Agreement, MPO
endorsement All giving up something for sake of a unified agreement. (ALL
ADDRESSED 1N MORE DETAIL ON NEXT SLIDE)
Early 1990s: Progress on sequence started: Widening of Route 29 started
1995: When design of interchanges appeared as widely destructive, City withdrew
approval of Hydraulic Interchange; CTB deletes Greenbrier and Rio locations with
no local participation in decision, contrary to logic (Sverdrup), violating previous
assurances.
1996-1998: MPO efforts to bring parties back to original agreement through TIP
resolutions.
1998 forward: A hoped for move back m cooperation.
4
THREE PARTY AGREEMENT
Sequencing S et Forth
· Widen Route 29 North
· Construct Meadowcreek Parkway
· Construct grade separated interchanges
· Construct North Grounds connector
· Construct Alternative 10
CTB resolution 11/90, based on Sverdrup study's findings.
CTB resolution included widening, reserving ROW for
interchanges, restricting local development at interchange
areas, acquiring ROW under advanced acquisition policy,
developing North Grounds connector with additional mass
transit, recommending Alternative 10 corridor to help localities
preserve route, noting that reserving Alternative 10 would
assist county with its no-growth management policies in the
watershed.
CTB included construction of interchanges as traffic continues
to increase and economic conditions allow, continuing ROW
purchase for Alternative 10
Signed by Charlottesville Albemarle, University 12/91, 2/92
Endorsed by MPO 1/92 MPO approval of Alternative 10 was
predicated on sequencing.
Re-endorsed CTB 1992 + Sec. Milliken's promise.
PRINCIPLE ISSUES FOR
DISCUSSION
· The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
· The local traffic problem on Route 29
· Timing and sequencing of projects
The new road system will change the character of the area. What affect wilt
this have on the region's major competitiveness strength, the attractiveness of
the area?
Agreements made in the early 1990's have not progressed quite as planned.
The Community is left with these three major areas of concern as a result.
Related concerns include noise abatement and the effects of decisions external
to the immediate area such as the studies of the entire Route 29 Corridor,
planes 1, 2 and 3.
6
Protecting the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is
1. A major reason for communities' insisting on the
sequencing
2. The major public water supply for approximately
80,000 persons, providing more than 50% of the public
water supply.
3. Delicate: almost died in late 1960's; local intervention
slowed eutrohication, siltation still highest: 13mg/yr lost
capacity, water users pay for watershed management
position, laws, to protect the water supply; Ches.Bay
provisions; Albemarle downszoned watershed
4. Can be supplemented, but not replaced by new reservoir
5. Additional sources are 5-10 years in the future
6. Loss of productivity would cripple the RSWA system.
THE SOUTH FORK
RIVANNA RESERVOIR
What will be done to protect the South
- Rivarma Reservoir during and after
construction?
Spills or Accidents
Erosion and Sediment Control
Normal Runoff
Nutrient Loading
1. RSWA prefers no new activities which create risk to supply.
2. No comprehensive assessment of the possible public health impacts has been
planned.
3. Spills are the greatest threat; no known guarantee against occurrences.
4. Spills carry low probability, but high recovery cost.
Shutting down water supply requires additional storage capacity, plus treatm~m~
plant modification to treat a spill
New water supply needed quickly
No known feasible alternatives
5. No local Haz Mat teams. Who would pay for the Richmond or Harrisonburg
teams? Would the 2-3 hour delay be too long?
4. Even use of BMPs is not sufficient to protect from siltation. Under normal
rainfall scenarios, the best result is 65% removal, leaving 35% entering the
Reservoir; who pays under the best of circumstances? What about in heavy rain
periods, such as we are experiencing this year?
6. Cumulative effects of daily long term chronic normal runoff containing
nutrients and heavy metals is unknown.
7. Nutrient loading of the Commonwealth's streams and rivers is a major statewide
concern and is the focus of most EPA grant monies received fi.om the federal
government.
8
THE SOUTH FORK RIVANNA
RESERVOIR
Responsibility
Impacts
Accountability
Costs
1. Note that VDOT has also stated goal of causing no adverse impact on the
Reservoir.
2. We have yet to see a design that will overcome risks posed by location.
3; Discussion to date reveal short term responsibility on VDOT's part if worst
case becomes reality. (can't unbuild the road; can't create instant reservoir)
4. Who pays for the cost for siltation, estimated at 35% of runoff, more, in
periods of heavy rain?
5. The unmeasured implications far exceed the community's ability to assume
responsibility for replacing the water supply.
5. Appears the community is to shoulder costs to convenience non-local traffic
flow, sacrificing the economic needs of this area to the needs of other areas.
6. Insufficient public dialog between experts and decision makers at all levels
has exacerbated concern level and generated distrust or lack of confidence among
parties.
9
So, we desire to protect the
Rivanna Reservoir as long as
possible. Plus, we want the
solution to our traffic problem to
have a lo_ogical connection to the
problem itself.
10
EXISTING
ROUTE 29 TRAFFIC
Will the area continue to experience the same
problems from the Route 29 traffic?
Congestion is local
LOS is "F"
Solution is local
Local government has taken action
Access Management
The next two slides will address the local nature of
the problem and the remaining LOS and why we
feel the reservoir is endangered, $$ spent and yet no
solution to our traffic problems.
Congestion is local, so we have:
1. Decreased headways on the Charlottesville
Transit System
2. Built parallel roads to Route 29: Hillsdale and
Berkmar
3. Established 6 Park and Ride lots
4. Supported RideShare
5. Placed a demand-response commuter bus on
Route 29 through JAUNT
11
LEVELS OF SERVICE
Route 29 - 2010
Base Case (widening) alone: F
Alt 7 alone (Meadow Creek Parkway
to Rio Road): F
Alt 10 alone: F
Base Case + Rt29 Interchanges alone: B
Base Case+Rt29 Interchanges+Alt l 0: A
Source: FEIS: Summary of Traffic Impacts (Figure S-2)
Base case - upgrading Route 29 to 6 lanes, plus
continuous right-turnlanes
Alternative 7 Meadowcreek Parkway Phase 1; new
intersection design at Parkway and 250 By-Pass -;
diamond interchange at CATEC
Alternative 10 - Western By-Pass, diamond ramps at
Barracks Road, diamond interchange at Hydraulic Road,
to north of Rio Hills Shopping Center.
Subsequent changes to Alternative 10 eliminated the
Barracks and Hydrauhc interchanges, moved northern
terminus further north.
12
LOCAL AND THROUGH
TRAFFIC
Slide clearly shows
congestion on Route 29 to
be a local problem
Sverdrup EIS
Top row
city
4 miles out of
13
LOCAL ANDTHRUTRUCKS
~}2 22
~hyd ~n fork
Truck traffic as pct of total traffic 7%
Fhru track traffic pct of total traffic 1.6%
Thru track traffic pct of total thru traffic 16%
thru traffic pet of total traffic 9.9%
Local truck traffic pct o£ total truck traffic78%
9%
3%
16%
19%
66%
14
ALTERNATIVE 10
What will Alternative 10 contribute to the solution?
Remove 10% of the total corridor (Airport Rd. - Route
250 By-Pass) traffic; 1.6% of through traffic which is
trucks
Lingering Environmental Concerns
Noise abatement remains unresolved for residents
Affect the beauty of the area
Identified as the area's most competitive advantage
Through-traffic is not a major component
of the total traffic contributing to traffic
problems, most is local.
Is the expense of the By-Pass justifiable?
Cite cost per car- approx. $7,500 per day
We are concerned with what the
community sees and lives with, not what
people see from the road.
15
SEQUENCING & STATUS UPDATE
Route 29 widening
Meadowcreek
Parkway
Interchanges
North Grounds
Connector with transit
Alternative 10, the
Western By-Pass
First two phases complete; third
under design
Phase 1 funded, scheduled, under
design. Funding for Phase 2 remains
a problem
One deleted by City; remaining
two deleted by CTB
Under design
Under design, construction lands
scheduled 2003; TIP resolution
requests remm to sequencing;
Albemarle BOS withdrew support,
1997
16
DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES:
General
· Better understanding of the MPO concerns
and positions
· Responses to specific issues and questions
raised
· A more cooperative, coordinated approach
to respecting community desires and
concerns, while meeting state transportation
needs.
I7
DESIRED MEETiNG OUTCOMES:
South Fork Rivanna Reservoir
· Cooperatively developed process/procedures,
prevention/mitigation clearly articulated in writing
· Responsibility and accountability charted for both
near term and future costs.
· Quality Control assurances
· VDOT sharing in cost of additional water
treatment and additional storage required
· Assessment of public health impacts on public
water supply
· VDOT purchase land to maintain zero increase in
siltation and runoff.
Community, VDOT, local officials work together to
develop mutually agreeable documents clearly spelling out
who does what, when, etc.
VDOT attendance at public meeting to be held by MPO
with water experts and decision-makers and community
Guided tour of By-Pass route
RW&SA suggests: in a manner similar to the wetlands
replacement requirements, VDOT would purchase an
amount of land whose runoff would equal the additional
runoff from the 35% of additional runoff expected to reach
the Reservoir.
18
DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES:
Route 29 Traffic Congestion
· Re-examination of two grade separated
interchanges in CATS
· Meadowcreek Parkway design and
funding issues addressed
· Clarification of the local effect of
recommendations and decisions in the
North and South 29 Corridor Studies
Meadowcreek Parkway Meeting
Design and funding issues at Route 29
Interchange/Meadowcreek Parkway, Phase 2.
Funding of Phase 2
Design of intersection of Route 250 and Parkway
VDOT purchase undevelopable land and donate to the
public as replacement for parkway lost.
If Route 29 Corridor becomes l'rmited access, an estimated
19,000 additional vehicles are projected for our community
-- the effects are a major concern, especially the number of
trucks in that traffic.
[9
DESIRED MEETING OUTCOMES:
TIMING AND SEQUENCING
Mutual Agreement on a
TIP based upon the 1996-
1997 MPO TIP
Resolution
Read from Resolution of CTB 8/97, pg 8
MPO will consider inclusion of construction funds upon completion of the
"base case", the Corridor Study with local impact considered; completion of
design, cost estimates; and completion of a cooperative process between the
MPO and VDOT on scheduling and inclusion in the TIP of projects identified
in previous resolutions and agreements.
20
David J. Wood, Jr.
4 Tennis Road
Charlottesville. Virginia 22901
(804) 293-7807
June 29, [998
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 MeInfire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Albemarle County Planning and Developmem Department
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Albemarle County Zoning Department
401 Melntire Road
Charlottesville, Va. 22901
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen;
Re: Mountain Top Ordinance
I was at the meeting of the Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, June t7~., and I
understand that the Mountain Top Ordinance has been postponed for further consideration, I
would tike to express to you two thoughts that I think would improve the ordinance.
I believe that Mrs. Scala stated at the meeting and she has explained to me that it is the
intent of the ordinance that the provisions of the ordinance extend no further than the boundaries
of the Mountain Overlay District as defined on the map referred to in Section 30.8.2 of the
ordinance. Section 3.0 defined a ridge area as that area within 100 vertical feet of the ridge line
or peak If the ridge line or peak is less than 100 feet above the controlling elevation of the
County the definition of ridge area contained in Section 3.0 would extend the ridge area beyond
the boundaries of the Mountain Overlay District. I understand that lifts is not the intent of the
ordinance, and I believe that the matter could be clarified by inserting at the end of the definition
of Ridge Area in Section 3.0 the following provision: "provided that no land outside of the
boundaries of the Mountain Overlay District as described on the Map referred to in Section 30.8,2
of the ordinance shall be controlled by the terms of the Ordinance".
As you know I am the owner of Clark Mountain in the Ivy District. This property has
from 1 ½ to 2 acres extending 14 feet above the controlling elevation (800 fe~) in the area. I
cannot believe that it is the intent of the ordinance to control such a small parcel. Suppose the
area was 1 square foot, or 100 square feet, or 1000 square feet it would seem to be unreasonable
to undertake to include it in the ordinance. It would seem that there should be a minium acreage
provision, such as five or ten acres, included in the ordinance.
Clark Mountain has a beautiful stand of timber on top of the mountain The County has
grahted to me a permit to grade the top 14 feet off'of the top of the mountain so that the
mountain would not be included in the ordinance. I don't want to cut all of those beautiful trees
down, and I know that you don't want me to. Therefore I would respectfully request that you
amend the ordinance to include a minium acreage prowsion to eliminate small parcels like mine
that are barely included in the ordinance.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours very truly
David J. Wo d~,~J~
Loudoun County, Virginia
BOARaD OF SUPERVISORS
Board of Supervisors
1 Harrison Street, S.E., 5th Floor, P.O. Box 7000, Leesburg, VA 20177-7000
703/777-0204 · Metro: 703/478-8415
May 20, 1998
The Honorable Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Chairman of the Albemarle County
Board of Superwsors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
Dear Chairman Marshall:
I am writing to personally invite you and your colleagues ro attend a forum on financing
growth to be held June 19 at Mary Washington College in Fredericksburg. A formal
invitation was sent earlier to your County Executive. This unique forum will provide an
opportunity to meet with other local political leaders from across Virginia to discuss
tools we have and will need to better manage and finance our growing localities.
It is within localities like Loud0un County and your jurisdiction that the majority of new
jobs will be created during the next decade in the Commonwealth. While we will see
many dynamic opportunities, we are also seeing many challenges associated with -this
growth. With the high growth jurisdictions combined, we have over 300.000 residential
units already zoned. Our localities will be building 60 new schools over the next five-
year period with a combined school debt surpassing $1 billion over that same period.
In Loudoun County we are well aware of these challenges. Loudoun will be building l0
of those 60 schools and has about 50,000 of those 300.000 residential units. Last year we
issued about 3,800 building permits alone and are witnessing the population increasing at
a rate of 6% a year. However, our student population is increasing at a rate of 10%
annually.
Eleanore C: Towe
Blue Ridge District
As the Board of Supervisors' Land Use Committee Chairman, I am working hard with
my colleagues to minimize the impact of this growth, but have felt somewhat frustrated
from two angles. The first is figuring our how to manage and finance this growth without
making this county unaffordable for its lower and fixed income residents or jeopardizing
its agricultural resources and quality of life we now enjoy. The second is the difficulty of
getting the tools from Richmond that could help us to effectively deal with growth and its
associated costs.
: ..... Dale Polen Myer~._Chairman . .: . . -,
Helen Ai'Ma~tlm ' 'Joafl ~. R6kus : Scott K. York
Catoctin District Leesburg District Sterling District
David O. McWatters Lawrence S. Beerman. II Jim Burton Steve Whitener
Broad Run Distzlct DuIles District Me~cer Disirict Sugarland Run District
Upon returning from a trip to Chesterfield County, meeting with some of its local
officials in August of '97 about this subject, the need to get representatives from the
various localities together that have similar concerns seemed critical. I believed this
would be a way to learn from each other and explore all the options open to us under
Virginia law. With direction given to our County Administrator Kirby Bowers to put
together a forum for us, the idea continued ro grow. Now. many months later, we have
27 localities interested, a date and place to meet.
The Virginia Innovation Group and an inter-jurisdictional Planning Committee
have put together what will prove to be an excellent agenda for us. For the morning
session we will be discussing plaiming powers with an afternoon session on financing
tools. The final session will be a time for us to discuss further the direction we would
l'rke to take, if any, as a group. The highlight of this conference will be our luncheon
keynote speaker. Dr. Robert Templin. Dr. Templin is President of the Virginia Center
for Innovative Technology and will speak to us on Virginia's economy. Also, you are
invited to stay and join me at a reception following the forum.
Hopefully two things will come from this historic meeting; first, that we will leave this
forum better informed having learned from each other what we're doing, or what we
wish we could do, in our various localities to deal with growth. This is what at minimum
I have set out to accomplish, but I hop6 it won't end there. I hope that we'll be able to
form a network of localities working together to tackle the challenges associated with
growth.
As one who knows and appreciates how valuable your time is and that of your
colleagues, I hope you will schedule the day for this event. It is designed for you and the
other local decision-makers. I look forward to seeing you on June 19 and should you or
any of your colleagues have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call at (703) 777-
0204.
Sincerely yours,
Land Use Committee Chairman
Loudoun County Board of Supervisors
SKY: jk
2