HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-06-08
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
TENTATIVE
JUNE 8, 2005
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Consent Agenda (on next page).
6. SP-2004-041. Crickets Baked Goods and CaterinQ (Sian #33). Public hearing on a request to allow Home
Occupation Class B for catering business in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for Home
Occupations Class B. TM 105, P 46, contains 13.68 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 3047 Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53), E
of the intersec of Thomas Jefferson Pkway & Buck Island Rd (Rt 729). Scottsville Dist.
7. ZTA-2004-03. Monticello Historic District (MHD). Public hearing on an Ordinance to establish new zoning
district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses & structures associated w/Monticello by amending Sec 4.15.8,
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 & R-2 Zoning Districts; amending Sec 7, Establishment of Districts;
amending Sec 8.1, Intent; amending Sec 8.2, Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning
Regulations; amending Sec 8.3, Planned Development Defined; amending Sec 8.4, Where Permitted; & adding
Sec 11, Monticello Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment
to Sec 4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that Sec. The amendment to Sec 7 would add the MHD
as a district subject to that Sec & re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to Sec 8.1 would add the
MHD as a district subject to that Sec & revise the purposes of planned development districts. The amendment to
Sec 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a requirement of Secs 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ord could be
obtained, & revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Sec 8.3 would
revise the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the MHD from
certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Sec 8.4 would allow planned historic districts such as the MHD that
contain & pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in the Comprehensive _
Plan. The addition of Sec 11 & its subparts would establish the MHD as a zoning district, state its intent & purpose,
identify its status as a planned development district, & establish permitted uses & associated regulations
applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the
operation of Monticello as a historic house museum & historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research,
& administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; & agricultural, residential
uses, & other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district
regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan approved by the County &
otherwise be subject to Secs 4, 5, 8 & 32 of the Zoning Ord. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acs.
8. ZMA-2004-05. Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Sians #38.39&41 ). Public hearing on a request to rezone
approx 868 acs from RA to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZTA-2004-03), to allow uses
specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum & historic site, including visitor
facilities; educational, research & administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries;
concerts & agricultural, residential uses & other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the RA zoning
district. The properties proposed for rezoning are within the vicinity of Monticello, S of 1-64 & E of Rt 53, & are
identified more particularly as follows: TM 78, Ps 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; & TM 79, P 7A. (The Comp
Plan designates these lands as RA 4, & the general usage for RA 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the
character of the rural area, including agricultural & forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, & resource
protection. No density range is specified for RA 4. The density for new residential development authorized in the
MHD district would be 1 du/21 acs.) Scottsville Dist.
9. ZTA-2004-006. Historic Center and Community Center. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1,
Definitions; add Sec 5.1.42 Historical centers; & amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 12.2.2, By special
use permit, Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 14.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 15.2.2, By special use
permit, Sec 16.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 17.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 18.2.2, By special use permit, &
Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This Ord would amend
Sec 3.1, Definitions, by amending the definition of "community center" & by adding a definition of "historical
center"; add Sec 5.1.42, Historical centers, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites
for & the operation of historical centers including regulations concerning the size of new historical center structures
& the rehabilitation of, or construction on, historic structures used for historical centers, minimum side yards & rear
yards, requirements for site plans, items for display, primary & accessory uses, daily operations, special events &
festivals; & amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit (Rural Areas-RA), Sec 12.2.2, By special use permit (Village
Residential-VR), Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-1), Sec 14.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-2), Sec 15.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-4), Sec 16.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-6), Sec 17.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-10), Sec 18.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-15), & Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit (Planned Residential Development-PRD) to allow
historical centers, historical center special events, & historical center festivals within such zoning districts by
special use permit.
10. ZTA-2005-002. Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA). Public hearing on an Ordinance to update
references to maps designating the Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) & the AlA's Noise Impact Area &
Protection Area, & make other associated changes by amending Sec 30.2.1, Intent, 30.2.2, Application, & 30.2.3,
Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The review & update of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Master Plan has resulted in new maps that will establish revised boundaries of the AlA, the
Noise Impact Area & the Airport Protection Area.
11. ZMA-2005-004. Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA). Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter
18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, would amend the zoning map to change the boundaries of the Airport
Impact Area Overlay District (AlA), & the Noise Impact Area & Airport Protection Area within the AlA. The AlA
exists for the purpose of minimizing the creation of physical, visual, & other obstructions to the safe operations of
the airport facility & to minimize the adverse airport-related impact on persons & properties in the vicinity. The
amended boundaries of the AlA District & Noise Impact Area are based on new maps resulting from the update of
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Plan, affecting the following Ps within Albemarle County, identified by TM & P
number: TM 19, Ps 19, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E, 19F, 191, 19J, 19K, 19L, 19W, 19X, 20, 20B, 22D, 22E, 23A, 24, 25,
29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31B, 31D, 31E, 31E1, 32; TM 20, Ps 6A, 6A1, 6J, 6K, 6L, 6M, 6N, 6NN, 6Q, 6R, 6S, 6T, 6V,
6W,6X, 13A, 15C, 15C1, 16, 16E, 16E1, 16E3, 16E4, 16E6, 16P, 18, 18A, 19, 19B, 19B1, 19C,20,21,22;TM
21, Ps3D1, 3E, 5,11, 11A, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12C1, 12C3, 12D, 13C, 13C1, 13C2, 13C3, 13C4, 13E, 14C, 15,
15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, 15F, 15G, 16, 16A, 16C, 16D, 18, 18F, 18G; TM 31, Ps 1, 56; & TM 33, Ps 1,2, 2A, 4,
4A, 4B, 4C, 9, 9A, 10, 12, 12A, 12D, 12E, 21, 22B, 35A, 36, 37J & 37K. As a result of this proposed amendment to
the zoning map, some Ps, or portions thereof, will be placed within the AlA, some will remain in the AlA but with
the AlA's boundaries changing, & some will remain in the AlA but with no boundary change. The Comprehensive
Plan does not address the general usage & density of lands within the AlA, but are determined by the underlying
plan designation. The Zoning Ord provides that the general usage & density ranges of lands within the AlA are as
authorized by the underlying zoning district designation, except that buildings, structures, objects of natural growth
& uses may not penetrate the AlA's Airport Protection Area, generally only agricultural & open space uses are
allowed in the AlA's Safety Area, & buildings & structures within the AlA's Noise Impact Area must be designed &
constructed to meet acoustical performance standards.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1. Approval of Minutes: January 5, January 19(A), March 3(A), March 14(A), and March 16, 2005.
5.2 Adopt Resolution of Appropriations for Albemarle County Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006 and
Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
·
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FINAL
JUNE 8, 2005
6:00 P.M., MEETING ROOM 241
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1 . Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. Consent Agenda (on next page).
6. SP-2004-041. Crickets Baked Goods and Caterina (Sian #33). Public hearing on a request to allow Home
Occupation Class B for catering business in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord, which allows for Home
Occupations Class B. TM 105, P 46, contains 13.68 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 3047 Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53), E
of the intersec of Thomas Jefferson Pkway & Buck Island Rd (Rt 729). Scottsville Dist.
7. ZTA-2004-03. Monticello Historic District (MHD). Public hearing on an Ordinance to establish new zoning
district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses & structures associated w/Monticello by amending Sec 4.15.8,
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 & R-2 Zoning Districts; amending Sec 7, Establishment of Districts;
amending Sec 8.1, Intent; amending Sec 8.2, Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning
Regulations; amending Sec 8.3, Planned Development Defined; amending Sec 8.4, Where Permitted; & adding
Sec 11, Monticello Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment
to Sec 4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that Sec. The amendment to Sec 7 would add the MHD
as a district subject to that Sec & re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to Sec 8.1 would add the
MHD as a district subject to that Sec & revise the purposes of planned development districts. The amendment to
Sec 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a requirement of Secs 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ord could be
obtained, & revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Sec 8.3 would
revise the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the MHD from
certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Sec 8.4 would allow planned historic districts such as the MHD that
contain & pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in the Comprehensive
Plan. The addition of Sec 11 & its subparts would establish the MHD as a zoning district, state its intent & purpose,
identify its status as a planned development district, & establish permitted uses & associated regulations
applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the
operation of Monticello as a historic house museum & historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research,
& administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; & agricultural, residential
uses, & other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district
regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan approved by the County &
otherwise be subject to Secs 4,5,8 & 32 of the Zoning Ord. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acs.
8. ZMA-2004-05. Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Sians #38.39&41 ). Public hearing on a request to rezone
approx 868 acs from RA to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZTA-2004-03), to allow uses
specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum & historic site, including visitor
facilities; educational, research & administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries;
concerts & agricultural, residential uses & other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the RA zoning
district. The properties proposed for rezoning are within the vicinity of Monticello, S of 1-64 & E of Rt 53, & are
identified more particularly as follows: TM 78, Ps 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; & TM 79, P 7A. (The Comp
Plan designates these lands as RA 4, & the general usage for RA 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the
character of the rural area, including agricultural & forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, & resource
protection. No density range is specified for RA 4. The density for new residential development authorized in the
MHD district would be 1 du/21 acs.) Scottsville Dist.
9. ZT A-2004-006. Historic Center and Community Center. Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Sec 3.1,
Definitions; add Sec 5.1.42 Historical centers; & amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 12.2.2, By special
use permit, Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 14.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 15.2.2, By special use
permit, Sec 16.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 17.2.2, By special use permit, Sec 18.2.2, By special use permit, &
Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This Ord would amend
Sec 3.1, Definitions, by amending the definition of "community center" & by adding a definition of "historical
center"; add Sec 5.1.42, Historical centers, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites
for & the operation of historical centers including regulations concerning the size of new historical center structures
& the rehabilitation of, or construction on, historic structures used for historical centers, minimum side yards & rear
yards, requirements for site plans, items for display, primary & accessory uses, daily operations, special events &
festivals; & amend Sec 10.2.2, By special use permit (Rural Areas-RA), Sec 12.2.2, By special use permit (Village
Residential-VR), Sec 13.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-1), Sec 14.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-2), Sec 15.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-4), Sec 16.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-6), Sec 17.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-1 0), Sec 18.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-15), & Sec 19.3.2, By special use permit (Planned Residential Development-PRD) to allow
historical centers, historical center special events, & historical center festivals within such zoning districts by
special use permit.
10. ZTA-2005-002. Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA). Public hearing on an Ordinance to update
references to maps designating the Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) & the AlA's Noise Impact Area &
Protection Area, & make other associated changes by amending Sec 30.2.1, Intent, 30.2.2, Application, & 30.2.3,
Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The review & update of the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Airport Master Plan has resulted in new maps that will establish revised boundaries of the AlA, the
Noise Impact Area & the Airport Protection Area.
11. ZMA-2005-004. Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA). Public hearing on an Ordinance to amend Chapter
18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, would amend the zoning map to change the boundaries of the Airport
Impact Area Overlay District (AlA), & the Noise Impact Area & Airport Protection Area within the AlA. The AlA
exists for the purpose of minimizing the creation of physical, visual, & other obstructions to the safe operations of
the airport facility & to minimize the adverse airport-related impact on persons & properties in the vicinity. The
amended boundaries of the AlA District & Noise Impact Area are based on new maps resulting from the update of
the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Plan, affecting the following Ps within Albemarle County, identified by TM & P
number: TM 19, Ps 19, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E, 19F, 191, 19J, 19K, 19L, 19W, 19X, 20, 20B, 22D, 22E, 23A, 24, 25,
29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31B, 31D, 31E, 31E1, 32; TM 20, Ps 6A, 6A1, 6J, 6K, 6L, 6M, 6N, 6NN, 6Q, 6R, 6S, 6T, 6V,
6W,6X, 13A, 15C, 15C1, 16, 16E, 16E1, 16E3, 16E4, 16E6, 16P, 18, 18A, 19, 19B, 19B1, 19C,20,21,22;TM
21, Ps 3D1, 3E, 5, 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12C1, 12C3, 12D, 13C, 13C1, 13C2, 13C3, 13C4, 13E, 14C, 15,
15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, 15F, 15G, 16, 16A, 16C, 16D, 18, 18F, 18G; TM 31, Ps 1, 56; & TM 33, Ps 1,2, 2A, 4,
4A, 4B, 4C, 9, 9A, 10, 12, 12A, 12D, 12E, 21, 22B, 35A, 36, 37J & 37K. As a result of this proposed amendment to
the zoning map, some Ps, or portions thereof, will be placed within the AlA, some will remain in the AlA but with
the AlA's boundaries changing, & some will remain in the AlA but with no boundary change. The Comprehensive
Plan does not address the general usage & density of lands within the AlA, but are determined by the underlying
plan designation. The Zoning Ord provides that the general usage & density ranges of lands within the AlA are as
authorized by the underlying zoning district designation, except that buildings, structures, objects of natural growth
& uses may not penetrate the AlA's Airport Protection Area, generally only agricultural & open space uses are
allowed in the AlA's Safety Area, & buildings & structures within the AlA's Noise Impact Area must be designed &
constructed to meet acoustical performance standards.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
13. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
5.1. Approval of Minutes: January 5, January 19(A), March 3(A), March 14(A), and March 16, 2005.
5.2 Adopt Resolution of Appropriations for Albemarle County Operating and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006 and
Resolution of Official Intent for use of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meetina of June 8, 2005
June 10, 2005
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION ASSIGNMENT
1 . Call to Order.
· Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by the
Chairman, Mr. Rooker. All BOS members were
present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry
Davis, and Debi Moyers.
4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the
Agenda.
· Tom Loach commented on the recent award for
the Crozet Master Plan and the need to fund
infrastructure in Crozet.
· Bonnie Stevens, a resident of Cismont, spoke
about Route 20 South and the need to keep the
project on track in the Six Year Plan.
· Jeff Werner, from Piedmont Environmental
Council, commented on the lack of affordable
housinQ in Albemarle County.
5.2 Adopt Resolution of Appropriations for Albemarle Clerk: Forward copies of signed resolutions to
County Operating and Capital Budgets for FY Richard Wiggans, OMB, and School Division.
2005/2006 and Resolution of Official Intent for use (Attachments 1 and 2)
of VPSA Bond Proceeds.
· APPROVED, by a vote of 6:0, the attached
Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY
2005/2006 and the attached Resolution of
Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with
Proceeds of a BorrowinQ.
6. SP-2004-041 . Crickets Baked Goods and Catering Clerk: Set out conditions of approval.
(Sign #33). (Attachment 3)
· APPROVED SP-2004-041, by a vote of 6:0,
subject to the five conditions as recommended
by the PlanninQ Commission.
7. ZTA-2004-03. Monticello Historic District (MHD). Clerk: Forward signed copy of Ordinance to
· ADOPTED ZTA-2004-03, by a vote of 6:0, as County Attorney's Office, David Benish and
recommended by Planning Commission. Amelia McCulley.
(Attachment 4)
8. ZMA-2004-05. Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Attachment 5)
· APPROVED ZMA-2004-05, by a vote of 6:0, as
proffered and signed by the applicant dated
May 10, 2005.
9. ZTA-2004-06. Historic Center and Community Clerk: Forward signed copy of Ordinance to
Center. County Attorney's Office, David Benish and
· ADOPTED ZTA-2004-06, by a vote of 6:0, as Amelia McCulley.
recommended by PlanninQ Commission. (Attachment 6)
10. ZTA-2005-002. Airport Impact Overlay District Clerk: Forward signed copy of Ordinance to
(AlA). County Attorney's Office, David Benish and
· ADOPTED ZTA-2005-002, by a vote of 6:0, as Amelia McCulley.
recommended by PlanninQ Commission. (Attachment 7)
11. ZMA-2005-004. Airport Impact Area Overlay District
(AlA).
· APPROVED ZMA-2005-004, by a vote of 6:0.
12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
David Wyant:
· Said he has been receivinQ calls from Clerk: Schedule "Removal of Temporary
constituents regarding advertising signs Signs" under Transportation Matters on July 6m
throughout the County both in the right of way agenda.
and private property. After some discussion, it
was recommended that the issue be discussed
with Jim Utterback on July 6th.
· Asked the status of the Business Development
Coordinator position. Mr. Graham said the
position has been filled and the person will be
starting next Monday, June 13th. Her name is
Susan Stimart and he will be bringing her to the
July 6th meeting to introduce her to the Board.
· Asked if the topic streamlining, which was
discussed on June 1 st, will be coming back to
the Board. Mr. Graham said they hope to bring
back some information in August.
Sally Thomas:
· Commented on Jeff Werner's statements under
matters from the public.
· In a recent VML Newsletter they listed a
website, www.schoolmatters.com which she
found very informative. Said you can compare
Albemarle County schools.
· Pictures of Albemarle County are on the back
of the Faces & Places brochure from Virginia
Transit Association.
Dennis Rooker:
· Handed out a letter he received from a citizen
who lives on Garth Road in reference to
Foxfield Spring Steeplechase. His main
concern is the alcohol related problems. He
would like this brought to the attention of Chief
Miller. Also mentioned the substantial amount
of off-site parking and the fact that residents are
charging fees for the parking on their property.
Mr. Davis said he does not think that is a
permitted use.
· Said the Places 29 meeting held several weeks
ago was well attended. In addition, the
Planning Academy had 75-80 people in
attendance. Said staff did a good job at both
events and they are off to a very good start.
Ken Boyd:
· Discussed the action taken by the Board on
February 2,2005, regarding Briarwood. The Mark Graham: Proceed as directed.
final motion does not reflect the intended
action. He asked if the Board could amend or
clarify the motion tonight. After some
discussion, it was determined that the applicant
will have to make an application to amend the
Application Plan. Mr. Tucker said staff will try
to review the amended application as quickly as
possible. Mr. Graham said he would
encourage the applicant to limit this to simply
the setbacks and separations, no other
changes to the plan. Mr. Tucker stated staff
should write the note that needs to be on the
application plan to help the applicant.
2
Adjourn.
. The meetin
/djm
Attachment 1 - Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 2005/2006
Attachment 2 - Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing
Attachment 3 - SP-2004-041. Conditions of Approval
Attachment 4 - ZTA-2004-03. Monticello Historic District (MHD) - [Ordinance No. 05-18 (5)]
Attachment 5 - ZMA 2004-05 Proffer Statement
Attachment 6 - ZTA-2004-06. Historic Center and Community Center - [Ordinance No. 05-18 (7)]
Attachment 7 - ZTA-2005-002. Airport Impact Overlay District (AlA) - [Ordinance No. 05-18 (6)]
3
ATTACHMENT 1
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2006
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2006; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with
this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS
$137,000
Refunds and Abatements
$137,000
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
$9,315,938
1 Board of Supervisors
2 County Attorney
3 County Executive
4 Department of Finance
5 Department of Human Resources
6 Department of Information Technology
7 Voter Registration/ Elections
$442,486
$643,000
$1,298,806
$3,606,800
$956,543
$1,985,089
$383,214
$9,315,938
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
$3,108,863
1 Circuit Court
2 Clerk of the Circuit Court
3 Commonwealth's Attorney
4 General District Court
5 Juvenile Court
6 Magistrate
7 Sheriffs Office
$85,273
$635,000
$711,772
$16,100
$55,045
$5,150
$1,600.523
$3,108,863
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY
$21,912,850
1 Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department
2 Department of Police
3 Emergency Communications Center
4 Fire/Rescue Credit
5 Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville)
6 Forest Fire Extinguishment
7 Thomas Jefferson EMS Council
8 Volunteer Fire Departments
$3,917,958
$9,984,652
$1,550,927
$45,000
$600,565
$14,000
$20,667
$801,501
4
.
9 Volunteer Rescue Squads $372,792
10 Inspections $1,073,895
11 Community Attention Home $49,155
12 Juvenile Court Assessment Center - Community
Attention
13 Juvenile Detention Center $855,099
14 Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) $131,913
15 Regional Jail Authority $2,346,844
16 SPCA Contract $147.882
$21,912,850
Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES / PUBLIC WORKS $3,468,005
General Services / Public Works $3.468.005
$3,468,005
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES $14,342,991
1 AIDS Support Group $4,200
2 Boys and Girls Club $12,000
3 BRMC - Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,150
4 Charlottesville - Albemarle Legal Aid Society $34,117
(CALAS)
5 Charlottesville Free Clinic $8,017
6 Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) $90,132
7 Commission on Children & Families (CCF) $199,661
8 Computers4Kids $8,887
9 FOCUS - Teensight $27,568
10 Health Department $809,455
11 Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) $211,228
12 JAUNT $555,663
13 Madison House $8,467
14 Music Resource Center $5,638
15 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) $22,060
16 Region Ten Community Services $453,213
17 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $23,781
18 Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $76,320
19 SOCA $3,000
20 Department of Social Services $8,580,733
21 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $678,638
22 United Way -Child Care $99,515
23 Bright Stars Transfer $470,138
24 Family Support Transfer $165,795
25 Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $1 ,789.615
$14,342,991
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE $5,286,679
1 Department of Parks & Recreation $2,107,107
2 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library $2,527,089
3 African American Festival $3,000
4 Ash-Lawn Highland $8,699
5 Lewis and Clark Festival $3,500
6 Literacy Volunteers $20,188
7 Municipal Band $16,000
8 Piedmont Council of the Arts $11,071
9 Virginia Discovery Museum $11,008
10 Virginia Festival of the Book $10,800
11 Virginia Film Festival $11,201
5
12 Visitors Bureau
13 WHTJ Public Television
14 WVPT Public Television
15 Albemarle County Fair
16 Darden Towe Park Transfer
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
2 Charlottesville Transit Service
3 Department of Community Development
4 Housing Office
5 Monticello Area Community Action Agency
(MACAA)
6 Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
7 Planning District Commission (T JPDC)
8 Soil and Water Conservation
9 VPI Extension Service
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund - Recurring
2 Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund - One-Time
3 Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund
4 Transfer to Storm water Fund
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Revenue Sharing Agreement
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
1 Transfer to General Government Debt Service
2 Transfer to School Division Debt Service
3 Transfer to School Fund - Recurring
4 Transfer to School Fund - One Time
5 Vehicle Replacement Fund
6 Board Contingency Reserve
7 Salary Contingency
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources - Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$387,138
$4,336
$4,336
$10,000
$151,206
$5,286,679
$6,894,518
$419,274
$265,972
$4,848,725
$782,494
$168,892
$48,361
$94,357
$82,156
$184,287
$6,894,518
$7,804,581
$6,160,399
$859,596
$334,586
$450.000
$7,804,581
$9,742,748
$9,742,748
$94,585,354
$1,929,082
$11,013,888
$80,861,241
$119,951
$289,115
$132,077
$240,000
$94,585,354
$146,285,394
$3,649,034
$22,296,310
$4.368.789
$176,599,527
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
6
$176,599,527
$176,599,527
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for
SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
1 Administration, Attendance & Health
2 Facilities Construction/ Modification
3 Facilities Operation/ Maintenance
4 Instruction
5 Pupil Transportation Services
6 Other Uses of Funds
$8,099,423
$68,600
$12,096,060
$94,521,399
$8,167,644
$3.332.861
$126,285,987
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer - Ongoing)
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer - One Time)
Revenue from Other Local Sources
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over,
Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$126,285,987
$80,861,241
$119,951
$647,703
$2,722,206
$39,541,683
$2.393.203
$126,285,987
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
$126,285,987
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES
1 Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias
2 Summer Feeding
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
7
$3,628,400
$300.000
$3,928,400
$3,928,400
$2,971,400
$53,000
$904.000
$3,928,400
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
Special Ed Pre-School Program
$68,940
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
$68,940
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Pa~g~phThÆe: MclNTIRETRUSTFUND
Payment to County Schools
$10,000
Total MciNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust
$10,000
Total MciNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
1 C. B. I. P. Severe
2 E. D. Program
$869,825
$752.058
$1,621,883
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
$1,621,883
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1 Adult Education
2 Carl Perkins
3 Chapter I
4 Drug Free Schools
5 Migrant Education
$114,050
$163,003
$1,160,750
$51 ,756
$86,000
8
$3,928,400
$68,940
$68,940
$10,000
$10,000
$1,621,883
$1,621,883
6 Title 1/
7 English Literacy/Civics
8 Economically Dislocated Workers
9 Title III
10 Title V
11 Bright Stars
12 Reading First
13 Refugee Grant
14 Families in Crisis
$401,282
$47,458
$20,000
$79,685
$47,254
$36,362
$100,000
$7,000
$12.000
$2,326,600
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$21,550
$33,500
$2.271.550
$2,326,600
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
Community Education
$1,422,389
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
$1,422,389
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL
Summer School $557,683
$2,326,600
$2,326,600
$1,422,389
$1,422,389
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $557,683
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$234,243
$165,440
$8,000
$150.000
$557,683
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
9
$557,683
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
School Bus Replacement
$1,100,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$1,100,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND
AIMR Summer Rental
$446,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental)
$446,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
Vehicle Maintenance
$542,500
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (charges)
$542,500
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND
General Adult Education
$12,500
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$4,000
10
$1,100,000
$1,100,000
$446,000
$446,000
$542,500
$542,500
$12,500
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$8.500
$12,500
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30,2006:
$12,500
Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND
Drivers Safety Fund
$246,870
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$246,870
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$195,979
$50.891
$246,870
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$246,870
Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND
Open Doors Fund $99,700
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $99,700
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)
$98,500
$1.200
$99,700
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$99,700
Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS
1 Special Education SLIVER Grant
2 Special Education Jail Program
3 Algebra Readiness
4 Individualized Student Alternative Education
5 Teacher Mentor Program
$21,142
$114,945
$46,838
$23,576
$8,354
$214,855
Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$214,855
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$214,855
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$214,855
11
Paragraph Fifteen: JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION
Jefferson Regional Destination Imagination
$11,002
Total JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,002
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Registration Fees
Revenue from Local Sources
$3,020
$7.982
$11,002
Total JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,002
Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
Computer Equipment Replacement Fund
$550,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$550,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School $550,000
Fund)
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006: $550,000
Paragraph Seventeen: BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND
Building Services Contingency Fund
$100,000
Total BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$100,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$100,000
Total BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$100,000
Paragraph Eighteen: FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND
Fuel Contingency Fund
$100,000
Total FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$100,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$100,000
12
Total FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
GRAND TOTAL - OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
$100,000
$13,359,322
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER
PROGRAM purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND
Comprehensive Services Act Program
Expenditures
$6,163,127
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$6,163,127
$1,789,615
$890,000
$3.483.512
$6,163,127
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
Bright Stars Program
$6,163,127
$702,699
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
MJ Child Health Grant
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$702,699
$470,138
$23,000
$5,000
$204.561
$702,699
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND
Family Support Program
13
$702,699
$740,431
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$165,795
$125,000
$449.636
$740,431
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND
Darden Towe Memorial Park
$260,345
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Other Local Sources
$151,206
$109.139
$260,345
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Five: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND
E-911 Operations and Debt Service (Transfer to
General Fund)
$1,147,000
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources
$1,147,000
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Six: VISITOR CENTER FUND
Debt Service
$67,734
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$67,734
14
$740,431
$740,431
$260,345
$260,345
$1,147,000
$1,147,000
$67,734
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Seven: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND
Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund
$67,734
$30,000
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$30,000
$30,000
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Eight: TOURISM FUND
1 Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund)
2 Tourism Projects (Transfer to General Government
Capital Improvements Fund)
TOTAL TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
$30,000
$443,492
$445,000
$888,492
$888,492
Revenue from Local Sources $888,492
Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $888,492
Paragraph Nine: UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND
United Way Day Care Fund
$603,567
TOTAL UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
City of Charlottesville
United Way Matching Funds
Admin Fee - United Way
Revenue from the Federal Government (HHs Pass
Thru Grant)
$603,567
$99,515
$120,766
$78,000
$27,021
$278.265
$603,567
Total UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
15
$603,567
Paragraph Ten: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND
Criminal Justice Grant Programs
$608,650
TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
$608,650
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Eleven: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND
Victim-Witness Program
$83,051
TOTAL VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
$83,051
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Twelve: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND
Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding
$9,500
TOTAL METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant)
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT
year ending June 30, 2006:
$7,600
$950
$950
$9,500
FUND resources available for fiscal
Paragraph Thirteen: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to
General Fund)
2 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
$312,837
$2,736.062
$3,048,899
TOTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
16
$608,650
$608,650
$83,051
$83,051
$9,500
$9,500
$3,048,899
Revenue from the Federal Government
$3,048,899
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$3,048,899
Paragraph Fourteen: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
Vehicle Replacement
$756,950
TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$756,950
To be provided as follows:
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund
$756,950
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$756,950
GRAND TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$15,110,445
SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for
the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: COURTS
$535,000
1 Levy Building Renovation
2 Court Square Renovations
3 Court Square Sallyport
4 Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects
5 J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$25,000
$20,000
$350,000
$125,000
$15.000
$535,000
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
$4,049,000
Station 11 - Monticello Fire Station Fiber
Connection
2 Station 12 - Northside Fire Station
3 Pan tops Fire Station
4 VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement
5 Station 8 - Seminole Trail and CARS Station
6 Police Patrol Video Cameras
7 Police Mobile Data Computers
8 SPCA - New County Animal Shelter
$161,000
$880,000
$842,000
$1,893,000
$20,000
$23,000
$180,000
$50.000
$4,049,000
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS
$2,470,000
1 County Facilities - Maintenance/Replacement
2 Ivy Landfill Remediation
$650,000
$640,000
17
3 COB Mcintire Renovations
$1,180,000
$2,4 70,000
Paragraph Four: COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
$3,086,000
1 Neighborhood Implementation Plan Program
2 Revenue Sharing Road Program
3 Sidewalk Construction Program
4 Transportation Improvement Program - Local
5 Roadway Landscaping Program
PVCC - Site Work for Science Building
$217,000
$1,000,000
$641 ,000
$1,200,000
$28,000
$3,086,000
$40,000
$40,000
$367,000
$57,000
$33,000
$25,000
$36,000
$83,000
$57,000
$76.000
$367,000
$424,000
$424,000
$1,195,000
$220,000
$450,000
$425,000
$100,000
$1,195,000
Paragraph Five: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
1 Scottsville Community Center Improvements
2 Paramount Theater
3 Greenway Program
4 River and Lake Access Improvements
5 Patricia Byrom Forest Preserve Park
6 Park Enhancements
7 Parks - Maintenance/Replacement
Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES
New Crozet Library
Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
1 County Technology Upgrade - GIS System
2 County IT - Business Key Systems Upgrade
3 County Computer Upgrade
4 CityView Internet Access
Paragraph Nine: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
$1,000,000
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Program
$1,000,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$13,166,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tourism Fund
Transfer)
Revenues from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer)
CIP Fund Balance/Reserve
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
Loan Proceeds
Interest Income
$445,000
$7,019,995
$878,005
$30,000
$4,643,000
$150.000
$13,166,000
18
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$13,166,000
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
$9,383,000
2 Henley Addition/Renovation
3 Murray High School Renovations
4 ADA Structural Changes
5 Monticello HS Auditorium
6 Monticello HS Auxiliary Gym
7 Administrative Technology
8 Instructional Technology
9 Maintenance/Replacement Projects
10 State Technology Grant
11 Vehicle Maintenance Facility - Emergency
Generator
12 Jouett-Greer Site Reconfiguration
$1,000,000
$149,000
$50,000
$800,000
$1,999,000
$70,000
$450,000
$3,800,000
$700,000
$165,000
$200.000
$9,383,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$9,383,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer)
Proffers
Interest Earned
State Construction Funds
State Technology Grant
VPSA Bonds
$334,586
$265,414
$100,000
$197,000
$700,000
$7.786.000
$9,383,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$9,383,000
SECTION VII: sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
STORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: sTORMWATER PROJECTS
Stormwater Control Program
$450,000
Total sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$450,000
19
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Total sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
$450,000
$450,000
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for
the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
1 Debt Service Payments - School Division
2 Debt Service Payments - PREP
$11,013,887
$246.358
$11,260,245
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
$11,260,245
$11,013,887
$246.358
$11,260,245
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,260,245
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt
Service Payment
2 Lease/Purchase Software
3 Debt Service Payments - General Government
4 Bond Issuance Cost
$826,556
$41,314
$1,375,704
$10,000
$2,253,574
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
$2,253,574
$283,178
$1.970.396
$2,253,574
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for
20
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$2,253,574
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2006
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V
Section VI
Section VII
Section VIII
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Other Special Revenue Funds
General Government Capital Improvements
Fund
School Division Capital Improvements Fund
Storm water Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to Special Revenue Funds
General Fund to Capital Improvements Funds
General Fund to Debt Service Funds
Special Revenue Funds to General Fund
Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvements Funds
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds
School Fund to Special Revenue Funds
School Fund to General Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds to School Fund
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$367,868,100
$176,599,527
$126,285,987
$13,359,322
$15,110,445
$13,166,000
$9,383,000
$450,000
$13.513.819
$367,868,100
($111,715,981)
($81,384,575)
($3,434,169)
($7,804,581 )
($12,984,284 )
($1,903,329)
($475,000)
($2,117,743)
($1,038,000)
($150,300)
($424,000)
($111,715,981)
$256,152,119
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to transfer
monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums equal to, but not
in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by this appropriation
resolution.
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII are
appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in connection
with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Richard Wiggans) and Clerk to
the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as authorized signatories for all bank
accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared to be
maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the appropriations
payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the event the aggregate
21
revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the appropriations are made are
sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise. the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such proportion as
the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to the total amount of
revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors included or not
included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as submitted to the Board of
Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors
without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first obtained, nor may any of these agencies or
boards make expenditures which will exceed a specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any purpose
may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct control of the Board of
Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided, however, no requisition for items
exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall be required; and provided further that no
requisition for contractual services involving the issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be
required, but such contract shall be approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency,
or individual, the County Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing
Agent shall be responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by
the contracting department, bureau, agency or individual
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts, said
contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures prescribed in the
Albemarle County PurchasinQ Manual shall not be considered obliqations of the County.
and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of such obliQations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County
departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the board of Supervisors to any of their officers
and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of their personal
automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate as that established by
the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change from time to time to maintain like
rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations prescribed
or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution shall be
and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
22
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and five.
23
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Borrower"), intends to
acquire, construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own
funds to pay expenditures related to the Project (the "Expenditures") prior to incurring indebtedness and
to receive reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or
both;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the "Bonds") or to
incur other debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed
$12,429,000.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower
for Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior
to the date of this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse
the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a)
of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles
(determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the
Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a
party that is not related to or an agent of the Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any
obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation
by the Borrower that evidences the Borrower's use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an
Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the
Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which
the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower recognizes that exceptions are available for certain "preliminary
expenditures," costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by "small issuers" (based on
the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and expenditures for construction of at least five
years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the "official intent"
within the meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
**********
24
Exhibit A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2005/06
Schools
1. Henley Addition
2. Murray High School Renovations
3. ADA Structural Changes
4. Monticello Auditorium
5. Monticello Gym
6. School Maintenance Projects
7. Vehicle Maintenance Generator
8. Jouett-Greer Site ReconfiQuration
Schools Subtotal
General Fund
1. Fire Apparatus
2. Transportation
3. Business Systems
General Fund Subtotal
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE
25
Amount
$1,000,000
$149,000
$50,000
$800,000
$1,999,000
$3,423,000
$165,000
$200,000
$7,786,000
Amount
$1,893,000
$1,700,000
$1 ,050,000
$4,643,000
$12,429,000
ATTACHMENT 3
SP-2004-041. Crickets Baked Goods and Caterina (Sian #33). Public hearing on a request
to allow Home Occupation Class B for catering business in accord w/Sec 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ord,
which allows for Home Occupations Class B. TM 105, P 46, contains 13.68 acs. Znd RA. Loc at 3047
Thomas Jefferson Pkway (Rt 53), E of the intersec of Thomas Jefferson Pkway & Buck Island Rd (Rt
729). Scottsville Dist.
1. No business sign shall be permitted;
2. The aggregate area of the use, including both the home office and the garage kitchen may not
exceed five hundred (500) square feet;
3. No employees shall be permitted other than members of family residing in the dwelling on
premises;
4. No customer visits to the site shall be permitted; and
5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance and any necessary Health Department
approvals prior to use of the garage kitchen for this home occupation.
26
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND
ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of
Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.8
Sec. 7
Sec. 8.1
Sec. 8.2
Sec. 8.3
Sec. 8.4
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Establishment of districts
Intent
Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Planned development defined
Where permitted
By Adding:
Sec. 11.1
Sec. 11.2
Sec. 11.3
Sec. 11.3.1
Sec. 11.3.2
Sec. 11.4
Intent and purpose, where permitted
Status as a planned development district
Permitted uses
By right
By special use permit
Regulation of development
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the
sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is
required within the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and
Residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts (Amended 6-8-05):
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback
(Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 10 feet
as authorized bv zonina administrator aqqreQated
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, 24 square feet,
per lot with 100 or more feet of
continuous street frontage, plus 1 per aggregated; if more
Freestanding lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres and than 1 sign, no single 10 feet 1 0 feet
has more than 1 approved entrance on sign shall exceed 12
its frontaae square feet
24 square feet,
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet 5 feet
entrance
10 feet, if
freestanding sign; 20
Temporary 1 per street 24 square feet feet, if wall sign, but 1 0 feet
frontage per establishment not to exceed the
top of the fascia or
mansard
40 square feet,
As calculated pursuant to section aggregated in the RA Same as that
Wall 4.15.20 zoning district; 20 20 feet applicable to
square feet, structure
aQqreqated, in other
27
I I I zoning districts
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference - Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 7 Establishment of districts
For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into
the following districts:
Commercial District - C-1
Commercial Office - CO
Entrance Corridor - EC (Added 10-3-90)
Heavy Industry - HI
Highway Commercial - HC
Light Industry - LI
Monticello Historic District - MHD (Added 6-8-05)
Neighborhood Model - NMD
Overlay Districts:
Airport Impact Area - AlA
Flood Hazard - FH
Natural Resource Extraction - NR
Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92)
Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC
Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC
Planned Residential Development - PRD
Planned Unit Development - PUD
Residential - R-1
Residential - R-2
Residential - R-4
Residential - R-6
Residential - R-10
Residential - R-15
Rural Areas - RA
Village Residential - VR
(§ 7.0,12-10-80; § 7, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.1 Intent
The planned development districts are the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Planned Residential
Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD), Planned
Development - Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC), and
Planned Development - Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts. Each of these districts is distinct in
purpose; however, all are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement
the various goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development
approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the
comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of conventional districts. In addition, these
regulations are intended to promote: economical and efficient land use through unified development;
improved levels of amenities; appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative design; and a
better environment than generally realized through conventional district regulations. In view of the
substantial public advantages of planned development, these regulations are intended to encourage the
planned development approach in areas appropriate in terms of location and character.
Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of
residents or visitors; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding lands, neighborhoods and
28
the adjacent rural areas; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between
origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing,
commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity
or by adequate street networks so as to promote these objectives.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned
development districts.
An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned
development district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned
development design principles and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and
purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances. If the applicant
requests such a waiver or modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its
request in writing as part of the application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would
not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested
modification, that the public purposes of the original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent
degree by the modification. Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a
procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any request for such a waiver or modification shall be
reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Nothing in this section prohibits an owner within
a planned development from requesting a waiver or modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5 and
32 at any time, under the procedures and requirements established therefor. In addition to making the
findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in sections 4, 5, and 32, such a waiver or
modification may be granted only if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and purposes of the
planned development district under the particular circumstances, and satisfies all other applicable
requirements of section 8.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is
under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general
accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other
than a planned historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas,
facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are
appropriate.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.4 Where permitted
A planned development district may be established in any development area identified in the
comprehensive plan, and in any rural area identified in the comprehensive plan if the district is a planned
historic district containing a historic site and the purposes of the district include the restoration,
preservation, conservation and enhancement of the historic site, provided that its location is suitable for
the character of the proposed uses and structures.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Section 11
Monticello Historic District, MHD
Sec. 11.1
Intent and purpose, where permitted
29
The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as "MHD") is to
create a planned historic district:
To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research and
business activities related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at
Monticello;
To promote the preservation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas Jefferson
and contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition of:
the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of
Albemarle County;
Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of
Albemarle County, the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion on
the World Heritage List administered by the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscape features, and their subsequent
interpretive use, shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.2 Status as a planned development district
The MHD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, and
shall not be construed to be an agricultural zoning district or a district in which agricultural, horticultural or
forestal uses are dominant.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the MHD, subject to the regulations in this section and
section 8 of this chapter, the approved application plan, and any accepted proffers:
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
1. Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site
as follows:
a. Interpretative, educational and research uses such as tours; interpretive signs,
walking paths, displays and exhibits; classes, workshops, lectures, programs and
demonstrations; field schools and history-related day camps; and archaeological
laboratories.
b. Administrative and support activities including visitor ticketing and shuttle bus
operations, maintenance operations, equipment storage, vehicle maintenance
30
and refueling, security and general administration, and related support spaces
and offices.
c. Visitor amenities including: parking lots; travelways; public restrooms; food and
drink preparation and vending; picnic areas; walking paths and pedestrian
bridges.
d. Display and sale of products related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Other uses not expressly delineated in subsection 1 (a) through (d) authorized by
the zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and other
appropriate officials; provided that the use shall be consistent with the express
purpose and intent of the MHD, similar to the uses delineated in this subsection
in character, locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact,
and traffic generation.
2. Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance
of Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of
July, Thomas Jefferson's Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential
inaugural events, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural
products, including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products,
including wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the
premises (reference 5.1.19).
4. Establishment and changes to structures shown on the approved application plan:
a. Modification, improvement, expansion, or demolition of "modern structures"
existing on the effective date of this section 11.
b. Modification, improvement, re-creation, or restoration (including expansion) of
"historic or interpretive structures."
c. Establishment of "new primary structures or features" identified as such on the
approved application plan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same.
7. Side-by-side duplexes; provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings
are located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements
for detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other
two-family dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
8. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
9. Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
10. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including
poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local
service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage
collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central
water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the
Code of Albemarle and all other applicable laws.
31
11. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and
storage buildings.
12. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
13. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools,
offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or
federal agencies (reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk
lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
14. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
15. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14).
16. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3.
17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
18. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6):
a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to place
a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural
employee.
b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can
be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning
administrator shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of
this ordinance and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which
he may determine necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of
the aforementioned uses.
19. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25).
20. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000)
cubic yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on anyone parcel of record on the
adoption date of this provision (reference 5.1.28).
21. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.03).
22. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision
plat.
23. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. Farm sales (reference Section 5.1.35).
2. Private helistop (reference Section 5.1.01).
3. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants.
4. Flood control dams or impoundments.
32
5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general
public, not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1 (2).
6. Home occupations Class B.
7. Boat landings and canoe livery.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.4
Regulation of development
In order to protect the county's historic resources and the rural character of surrounding lands, all
uses and structures shall be subject to an approved application plan, and to sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of this
chapter, including such regulations as may be waived or modified pursuant to section 8.2. In addition:
a. Density. Density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty-one (21) acres and the
minimum lot size shall be twenty-one (21) acres.
b. Structure height. The maximum structure height established in the standards for
development required by section 8.5.1 (d)(11) of this chapter shall not exceed forty-five
(45) feet.
c. Yards. The minimum yards established in the standards for development required by
section 8.5.1 (d)(11) of this chapter shall not be less than the minimum yards provided in
section 21.7, except as otherwise provided on the application plan.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
33
ATTACHMENT 5
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
ZMA 04-05
PROFFER STATEMENT
The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 04-05 and thus to this proffer
statement: tax map parcels 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, 78-28A, 78-28B, 78-29, and 79-7 A (the "Property").
The Applicant and Owner of the Property is the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors acts to
rezone the Property to Monticello Historic District as requested, the Owner shall develop the Property in
accord with the following proffers pursuant to Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, and pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions
are voluntarily proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable
relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 04-05 is denied these proffers shall
immediately be null and void and of no further force and effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the application plan shown on sheets AP-1 through AP-4, each
dated February 28,2005, of the plans entitled "Monticello, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., Albemarle
County, Virginia, Zoning Map Amendment Application Plan, ZMA 04-05, February 28, 2005," which
sheets are attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Application Plan") and also to the terms of Section 8.5.5.3 of
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance as in effect on the date of this Proffer Statement, a copy of which
Section 8.5.5.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
1. The Owner will convey easements on certain portions of the Property and on tax map parcel
78-31A for incorporation of such easement areas into the Rivanna River Greenway Trail
Park, on the terms and conditions contained herein:
a. The Foundation shall convey easements to the County encumbering the portions of
tax map parcels 78-28B and 79-7A (collectively, the "Shadwell Quarter Farm") and 78-31A
(the "Lego Quarter Farm") that are contiguous to the Rivanna River and consist of the real
property defined in the Federal Emergency Management Agency national flood insurance
maps as land within the 1 OO-year flood plain on the north side of the Rivanna River
(individually, the "Shadwell Easement Area," and the "Lego Easement Area," and collectively,
the "Easement Areas") for the extension of the County's Greenway Trail Park within the
Easement Areas.
b. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be conveyed after an easement or
land dedication is conveyed to the County for the County's Greenway Trail Park by the
owners of tax map parcel 78-33D for the extension of the greenway trail through that parcel,
upon the request of the County and as soon thereafter as the Foundation can reasonably
cause an easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of easement in a form reasonably
agreeable to the Foundation and the County, and complete any other administrative matters
associated with such easement.
c. The easement on the Lego Quarter Farm will be conveyed within six months after
request by the County, or as soon thereafter as the Foundation can reasonably cause an
easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of easement in a form reasonably agreeable
to the Foundation and the County, and complete any other administrative matters associated
with such easement.
d. The easements would be subject to the terms of existing encumbrances and
easements of record, including, but not limited to, the Deed of Easement conveyed to the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources ("DHR") of record in the Clerk's Office of the
Albemarle County Circuit Court in Deed Book 1970, page 412, and the Deed of Easement
34
conveyed to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") of record in the aforesaid Clerk's
Office in Deed Book 2894, page 76, each as applicable.
e. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be previously approved in writing
by DHR and/or VOF, as applicable, with regard to any portion of the Shadwell Easement
Area which is subject to the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR or the Deed of
Easement from the Foundation to VOF.
f. The Foundation may expressly reserve the following: (i) a right of access for ingress
and egress to and from the Easement Areas from other parcels the Foundation owns for the
benefit of the Foundation; (ii) an easement for drainage from any of the Foundation's
storm water control facilities through the Easement Areas; (iii) for riparian rights in the
Rivanna River for the benefit of the Foundation; (iv) the right to physically restrict access by
the public to other portions of the Shadwell Quarter Farm and the Lego Quarter Farm, or any
other parcels the Foundation owns, as may be necessary or appropriate in the Foundation's
discretion to protect any historical artifacts or features on such parcels; and (v) for crossings
of the greenway trail and use of the Easement Areas outside of the greenway trail for other
purposes reasonably stipulated by the Foundation, including but not limited to interpretation
of historically significant areas that may be present within the Easement Areas.
g. The Foundation may expressly reserve in the Shadwell Quarter Farm deed of
easement a right of access for the benefit of the County through the Shadwell Quarter Farm
in an area reasonably agreeable to the Foundation, for access to and from the Shadwell
Easement Area for greenway trail maintenance and for emergency purposes, provided that
no activities inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR shall be
carried out within the Shadwell Easement Area.
h. The Foundation shall not be responsible for the construction, operation, maintenance,
expense or policing of the Easement Areas as portions of the County's Greenway Trail Park.
i. Upon the approval of ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, employees, agents and
independent contractors of the County shall have reasonable access to the Easement Areas
for purposes of planning the greenway trail, provided that no earth shall be disturbed, nor any
vegetation cleared within the Easement Areas without the prior consent of the Foundation,
and provided further that no activities inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the
Foundation to DHR shall be carried out within the Shadwell Easement Area.
j. The County shall notify the Foundation at least six (6) months prior to disturbing any
land within the Easement Areas. Upon such notice, the Foundation will either cause a Phase
I archeological study to be conducted at its expense within the Easement Area proposed for
disturbance if the Foundation deems such a study necessary, or it will authorize the County
to move forward with such planned land disturbance.
k. The trail surface shall be not more than 10 feet wide within a clear zone (12 feet wide
and 8 feet high), shall be unpaved and shall utilize only natural materials. The trail will be a
"Class B" trail pursuant to County standards.
I. The precise location of the trail within the Easement Areas will be mutually agreed
upon by the Foundation and the County.
m. Any construction, grading or other disturbance by the County within the Shadwell
Easement Area must be approved in advance in writing by DHR with regard to any portion of
the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of Easement from the Foundation
to DHR.
n. The Foundation will be responsible for the administrative costs of drafting the deeds
of easement, the easement plats, any surveys of the Easement Areas, and recordation costs.
35
o. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail within the Lego
Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's conveyance of the easement thereon, and
completed such trail within 22 years of the conveyance, upon request by the Foundation, the
County shall release all of its interest in the easement, at no expense to the Foundation,
unless the Foundation and the County shall agree to another permissible use by the County
for the Easement Area.
p. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail within the
Shadwell Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's conveyance of the easement
thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years of such conveyance, upon request by the
Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the easement, at no expense to the
Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall agree to another permissible use by
the County for the Easement Area.
q. If the County terminates the Greenway trail program, upon request by the
Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the easements, at no expense to the
Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall agree to another permissible use by
the County for the Easement Areas.
r. When negotiating the deeds of easement pursuant to this paragraph 1 of this proffer
statement, the County and the Owner may mutually agree to modify the terms and conditions
hereof.
2. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the proposed Monticello Visitors Center as shown
on the Application Plan, the Owner shall make improvements to the existing Monticello exit
onto Route 53 as necessary to provide for the turning movement of a "BUS-45" vehicle onto
Route 53 without crossing the opposing lane of traffic, to the reasonable satisfaction of the
Albemarle County Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
WITNESS the following signature:
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Daniel P. Jordan, President
*****
Exhibit A
Application Plan
*****
Exhibit B
Section 8.5.5.3 of the Zoning Ordinance in Effect on the date of this Proffer Statement
36
ATTACHMENT 6
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(7)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of
the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 10.2.2
Sec. 12.2.2
Sec. 13.2.2
Sec. 14.2.2
Sec. 15.2.2
Sec. 16.2.2
Sec. 17.2.2
Sec. 18.2.2
Sec. 19.3.2
Definitions
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1 .42
Historical centers
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the administration and enforcement of this chapter:
Community center: A place, structure, area or facility used for cultural, educational and/or recreational
activities, which is open to the public and intended to serve the local community. A community center is
different from a neighborhood center, which is a use that is typically accessory to a residential
development.
Historical center. One or more buildings, structures or facilities designed and/or used for educational
and/or interpretative activities related to natural, cultural, or agricultural history which are open to the
public and located at or adjacent to a historic resource. For purposes of this definition, a "historic
resource" is a district, site, building or structure with architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural
remains present, which possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and
association, and which is associated with one or more of the following historical or cultural themes: (i)
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national history; (ii)
the lives of persons significant in local, state or national history; (iii) the embodiment of distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that
possess high artistic values; or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; or (iv) yielding information important to prehistory or history.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.0 Supplementary Regulations
37
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers.
Each historical center shall be subject to the following:
a. New historical center structures. Newly constructed structures for historical centers shall
be limited to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in size, aggregate, including
interpretative space and accessory uses within such structures.
b. Rehabilitation or construction on historic structures or sites to be used for historical center
structure. The rehabilitation of historic structures and sites to be used for historical
centers shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources (DHR) as demonstrated by a letter to the county. The design and siting of
any proposed accessory uses and visitor amenities at a historic structure or site shall
also be approved by DHR.
c. Minimum side and rear yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
minimum side yard and rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet; provided that there shall be no
minimum side yard or rear yard if the side or rear lot lines are shared with another lot that
is part of the historical center; and further provided that greater side yards or rear yards
may be required by the site plan agent if deemed necessary because of site-specific
conditions, and that lesser side yards and rear yards may be allowed to facilitate the
rehabilitation or reuse of a historic structure or site.
d. Site plan. A site plan is required for a historical center. In addition to any requirement of
section 32: (i) the site plan agent may impose additional reasonable standards of
development as conditions of final site plan approval; (ii) the owner shall submit
photographic documentation of existing site conditions with the preliminary site plan;
and (iii) the site plan agent may require the applicant to submit a Phase 1 archaeological
survey of the areas of the site proposed for the historical center use prior to final site plan
approval.
e. Items for display. Items for display shall be related to the significance of the historic
resource to be interpreted and shall relate to past or present people, places, things, or
events in the county.
f. Primary uses. The educational and interpretative activities that are permitted primary
uses include, but are not limited to, passive display, active demonstration including tours,
public participation in activities, educational classes, and research.
g. Accessory uses. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of a historical
center structure may be devoted to uses other than the educational and interpretive
activities provided in subsection (f). A floor plan shall be submitted with the special use
permit application to ensure that this requirement is met. Accessory uses may include,
but are not limited to, administrative offices and shops and facilities such as gift shops,
book stores, and accessory food sales such as luncheonettes, snack bars, or
refreshment stands.
h. Operations. The operation of each historical center shall be subject to the following: (i)
daily tours of a historical center shall be permitted; (ii) the normal hours that the historical
center is open to the public shall be limited to daylight hours only, dawn until dusk; and
(iii) an outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited at all times.
i. Special events. Special events are authorized by special use permit only, either as part
of the special use permit authorizing the historical center or by a separate special use
permit.
1. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a historical
center on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or
reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150)
38
persons; special events are limited to events conducted for the purpose of
promoting the mission of the historical center.
2. In addition to all other special use permit application requirements in section
31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the special events.
3. The special use permit: (i) shall identify the number of approved special events
per year, which number shall not exceed twelve (12); (ii) may authorize specific
special events, classes of special events, or a combination thereof; and (iii) may
include reasonable conditions relative to the special events as authorized under
section 31.2.4.3.
j. Festivals. Festivals are authorized by special use permit only, either as part of the
special use permit authorizing the historical center or by a separate special use permit.
1. For the purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at an historical
center for up to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public
and conducted for the purpose of promoting the mission of the historical center.
2. In addition to any other special use permit application requirements in section
31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the festivals.
3. The special use permit: (i) shall identify the number of approved festivals per
year, which number shall not exceed four (4); (ii) may authorize specific festivals,
classes of festivals, or a combination thereof; and (iii) may include reasonable
conditions relative to the festivals as authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
4. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance prior to conducting a
festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to
attend. A single zoning compliance clearance may be obtained for one (1) or
more such festivals as provided herein:
a. The owner shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the
zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the
zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the
county police department, the county department of fire and rescue, and
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
b. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized
by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of
operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to
be used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival;
c. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are
satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the
offices identified in subsection 5.1.42U)(4)(a), the zoning administrator
shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more festivals. The
zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the owner's
compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions
of the approved special use permit, the approved site plan, and all
conditions imposed by the zoning compliance clearance; and
d. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance
clearance for two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the application submitted by
the owner includes the required information for each festival to be
covered by the zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator
determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and
size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of
39
conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed with
the zoning compliance clearance.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
49. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 12.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 13.2.2
By special use permit
13. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 14.2.2
By special use permit
15. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 15.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 16.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 17.2.2
By special use permit
19. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 18.2.2
By special use permit
19. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 19.3.2
By special use permit
40
11. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
41
ATTACHMENT 7
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 30.2.1
Sec. 30.2.2
Sec. 30.2.3
Intent
Application
Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec.30.2.1 Intent
The airport impact area ("AlA") overlay district is created in recognition of: airport related hazards which
may endanger lives and property; obstructions which effectively reduce air space required for take-off,
landing and maneuvering of aircraft, thereby reducing the utility of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
and the public investment therein; and noise from aircraft operations which may adversely affect the
health of persons and the peaceful use and enjoyment of property. It is the intent of this overlay district to
minimize the creation of physical, visual and other obstructions to the safe operations of the airport facility
and to minimize adverse airport-related impacts on persons and properties in the vicinity. The AlA overlay
district shall consist of the airport protection area, runway protection zone ("RPZ") and the AlA noise
impact area.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
Sec. 30.2.2 Application
The AlA overlay district is hereby created and designated generally on the zoning map and specifically on
the Airport Airspace Drawing-Part 77, as amended, and on the Existing Noise Contours Map (2002), of
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan, as amended ("Airport Airspace Drawing-Part 77" and
"Existing Noise Contours Map (2003)", respectively). Copies of these documents shall be available in the
office of the zoning administrator.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
Sec. 30.2.3 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 30.2:
(1) AlA noise impact area. The term "AlA noise impact area" means all land within the 65 DNL
contour as delineated on the Existing Noise Contours Map (2003).
(2) Airport protection area. The term "airport protection area" means the imaginary conical,
horizontal, transitional and approach surfaces as delineated and/or described on the Airport Airspace
Drawing-Part 77.
(3) Primary surface. The term "primary surface" means a surface longitudinally centered on a
runway. The primary surface for Runway 3-21 extends two hundred (200) feet beyond each end and is
42
r
one thousand (1,000) feet wide. The elevation of the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the
nearest point on the runway centerline.
(4) Runway protection zone. The term "runway protection zone" means an area at ground level
underlying a portion of the FAR Part 77 imaginary runway approach surface and extending to a point on
the ground where the elevation of the approach surface reaches fifty (50) feet above the runway end
elevation. The runway protection zone is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway
centerline, with dimensions for a particular runway end defined by the type of aircraft and approach
visibility minimum associated with that runway end. The runway protection zone typically begins two
hundred (200) feet beyond the end of the runway area usable for takeoff and landing, and extends from
the ends of the primary surface. At the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, the dimensions of the runway
protection zone for Runway 3 are one thousand (1,000) feet (inner width), one thousand seven hundred
fifty (1,750) feet (outer width) and two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet (length); the dimensions of the
runway protection zone for Runway 21 are one thousand (1,000) feet (inner width), one thousand five
hundred ten (1,510) feet (outer width) and one thousand seven hundred (1,700) feet (length).
(5) Safety area. The term "safety area" means the airport primary surface and the runway protection
zone at each end of the runway as shown on the Airport Lay-Out Plan.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
43
Date:
REGEIVEG> AT BOS MEETING
IP·{()~
4-
mil
eil!!!lJ:¡lI
..
. .
PIEDMONT ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
Agenda Item tI:
Clerk's Initials:
Promoting and protecting the Piedmont's rural economy, natural resources, history and beauty
Statement to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Home Ownership Month
June 8, 2005
Good evening, I am Jeff Werner of the Piedmont Environmental Council.
It's Home Ownership Month and the accusations continue to fly as to who is to blame for the lack of
affordable housing. This community must engage in an honest and critical analysis of the affordable
housing problem.
It has been suggested that County staff is under instruction to delay project approvals. In some circles, it
is argued that rural preservation is the culprit. Since only 10% of the Rural Area is in conservation
easement, this argument suggests that fault lies with those landowners who prefer agriculture to
subdivision.
Here are a few thoughts to consider.
1. The PEC agrees that there should be a streamlined review for projects in the Growth Area. However,
we have seen no evidence that the review process is the culprit in housing affordabiIity.
2. There is an affordable housing problem in Albemarle.
3. The Neighborhood Model was adopted in 2001 and new regulations are still being developed.
Affordable housing has long been an issue. The Neighborhood Model is not at fault.
4. We hear that more growth is needed to obtain affordable housing. In Loudoun, in the decade between
1990 and 2000, that county issued an average of 3,400 residential building permits each year. In 2000,
Loudoun residents elected a new Board and some claim this Board ushered in a period of "zero growth."
This is fiction. In 2000, Loudoun already had a backlog of over 50,000 approved housing sites. And,
during these 4-years of "zero growth," Loudoun issued over 23,000 building permits-almost 6,000 per
year.
According to the Census, in 1990, approximately 8,000 Loudoun County households were
"unaffordable."* In 2000, the number exceeded 12,000. Unbridled growth has not brought affordable
housing to Loudoun.
5. Data suggests that Albemarle's Growth Area is being developed at lower densities than zoning allows.
If you combine GIenmore, Mill Creek South, Redfields, Dunlora, and Forest Lakes North, the total is
2,751-acres. That's about 12% of the entire Growth Area. With 2,606 lots, the total net density is less than
1 unit per acre. The zoning on this land would have allowed at least 3-6 dwelling units per acre which
would have allowed 8,000 to 17,000 units. If the development community really wants to build more
housing, why are projects being built to less than 30% of the minimum density allowed?
Albemarle
410 East Water Street
Clarke
30 East Main Street
BerryviUe, VA 22611
540-955-9000
55-9010
Loudoun
802 Children's Center Rd. S.w.
Leesburg, VA 20175
703-669-4990
Fax 703-669-2213
Orange
130 W. Main St., Ste. 206
P.O. Box 266
Orange, VA 22960
540-672-0141
Fax 540-672-6265
Rappahannock
12717 Lee Highway
Washington, VA 22747
540-987 -9441
Fax 540-987-9443
~
Albemarle County
Residential Building Permits
YEAR RA GA Total
1983 357 706 1,063
1984 378 347 725
1985 391 323 714
1986 393 344 737
1987 427 227 654
1988 395 278 673
1989 347 962 1,309
1990 335 469 804
1991 242 372 614
1992 264 602 866
1993 268 537 805
1994 239 700 939
1995 253 343 596
1996 231 604 835
1997 272 633 905
1998 286 588 874
1999 336 434 770
2000 281 369 650
2001 253 622 875
2002 316 1 ,404 1,720
2003 298 781 1,079
2004 281 318 599
Total 6,843 11,963 18,806
Annual Average 311 544 855
Source: Albemarle County Devélopment Activity reports
I
.
Building Permit Data
Duplex Structures Structures All
Single Structure with 3-4 with 5+ Structure
Number of
Family Units s Units Units Types
Number of Number Number of Number of Number of Demolitions
Units of Units Units Units Units
2005 (J,F & M) Loudoun 1,179 0 0 97 1,276
2004 Loudoun 9,831 0 0 1.]65 10,996
2003 Loudoun 5.678 0 0 ],092 6,770
2002 Loudoun 4,659 0 0 ],449 6,]08
200] Loudoun 3,436 0 0 ],3]7 4.753
2000 Loudoun 5,]3] 0 0 ],]69 6.300
1999 Loudoun County (4 4.757 0 0 ],3]4 6,07]
]998 Loudoun 4,047 8 4 ],374 5,433
1997 Loudoun (4]) 3.264 0 0 418 3,682
1996 Loudoun 2,720 0 4 369 3,093
]995 Loudoun 2,450 ]22 0 230 2,802
1994 Loudoun 3,046 2 0 763 3,811
]993 Loudoun 2.773 0 4 241 3,0]8 0
1992 Loudoun 2,309 0 0 115 2,424 0
]991 Loudoun 1.0]6 2 0 84 1,102 3
]990 Loudoun 828 0 0 ].293 2,]21 ] 1
Total 57,124 134 12 12,490 69,760 14
Loudoun County
All DUs
1990 2.]2]
1991 1,102
1992 2,424
1993 3.0]8
]994 3,811
1995 2.802
1996 3,093
1997 3.682
1998 5,433
1999 6,071
2000 6,300 Era of "Zero
2001 4,753
2002 \ 6,108 Growth"
2003 6,770 , ,
2004 10,996
2005 (J.F & M) ].276
69,760
Sources:
http://www.coopercenter.orgldemographiCS/B UILDING%20PERMITS/2005Permits. php
http://www .coopercenter.orgldemographics/B UILDING%20PERMITS/
http;//www.coopercenter.orgldemographics/B UlLDING%20PERMITS/ Annua]Permits.php
http://www.coopercenter.orgldemographics/B UlLDING%20PERMITS/
http;//www.coopercenter.orgleCOnlVASTAT/Housing.php
.
,.. ~
.
Albemarle County
Location
29
5th St Extended
Ashcroft
Avon St
Avon St
Crozet
Crozet
Crozet
Crozet
Crozet
Crozet
Crozet
East Rio Rd
East Rio Rd
Fontaine and 29
Glenmore
Hollymead
IIOllvmeaQ
~I Hollymea(
draulic R(
" "'Ne~vri::~
Near Uva
North Pointe
Northfield
Pan tops
Pan tops
Pantops
Pantops
Pantops
Pan tops
Pen Park
Piney Mt
/.-
Growth Area
2004 & 2005 projects including HMTC, Alb
Place and Rìvann~ Village
" Project
Albemªrle Place
Oak Hill Section 3
Lake Ridge/Ashcroft West
A vonP1ifk (SDP)
A yon Pari< (ZMA)
Cross,Property
Haden Killd~~! Village
,-Old Trail
Parksi~ViIlage
,-Shift1~t Farms
StiIlfrÌed Lane
Wickll~m Pond
Glenwö<'kl Station
Treesdale Park
Fontaine Avenue T.oWnhouses
Rivanna Village (2002 CPA had r,~68 Dus»
. HolIytnead TC
Larry and B~ Wood
Pipe Ridge
gþl~)fi~n Road
UniversitKi Village
Dickerson R.d A(1.Housing
. r
PóÞ1ar Glen
Noí!th Pointe
Bending Branch
A veÌnòre Ph II
·':Cascadia
FontanaPhase 4B
Fontaná~ase 4C
Jefferson Heights Cottages~Phase 3
Parkview LowlMod.Income
~e¡ vedere
V{oodbriar
Westha~ Phase 3
¡ Totals
-
.¡
-
'.~
,~
'.
~
Lots/DU's
600
14
128
44
91
45
Ì3
.I ,650
24
4;3
21
97
36
99
61
495
1,350
2
¡ .......; 17
¡ T~ 30
48
200
26.
893
10
92
375
29
24
"~ 4
.'
I.
"to··
.T
¡
,-
...
..
.'
~ ;~
)..
-
-'Z.
.;. ~
't:......
."
.
"
....
i.
F
"
¡
:,
"..
"
.'
.;-
-'
.
90
661
4
9
7,325
Acreage
62.0
7.6
253.7
10.0
8.5
7.5
6.7
257.4
2.8
25.8
6.5
20.5
2.6
6.6
12.6
78.0
174.0
0.8
6.3
2.4
1.6
22.0
6.7
269.0
9.1
2.9
71.0
13.9
17.0
0.8
. 4.3
243.7
119.7
2.0
1,736
Project #
CPA - 2001-0004
SUB-2004-00 152
SUB 2005-00091 & 93
SDP-2004-0oo77
ZMA - 2004-004'
ZMA-2005-oo005
SUB-2004-0021
ZMA -2004-024
SDP-2003-080
SUB-2004-00042
ZMA-03-12
ZMA-2004-017
ZMA-2004-016
ZMA-2004-022
ZMA-2004-oo2
ZMA-2001-008
X
SUB-2005-000 18
ZMA - 2004-006
SDP-2oo5-00025
. SDP-2oo3-oo086
?
SDP-2004-0oo76
ZMA-2000-009
SUB-2004-00097
SDP-2004-117
ZMA-2002-004
SUB-2005-oo123
ZMA-2004-018
ZMA-2oo4-oo9
SDP-2004-001
ZMA-2004-oo007
SUB- 2004-0027Ô
SUB-2005-00146
ÂJuno:) apumaqlV
-
MEMORANDUM
January 5, 2005
pages 20(begin Item #20) - end -Ms. Thomas /
January 19A, 2005
Mr. Rooker
March 3A, 2005
Mr. Rooker
March 14A, 2005
Ms. Thomas I
March 16A, 2005
Mr. Dorrier
NOTE: PLEASE REMEMBER TO PULL YOUR MINUTES IF YOU HAVE NOT
READ THEM.
/ewc
D
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2005/2006 Resolution of Appropriations
AGENDA DATE:
June 7, 2005
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Approval of the Resolution of
Appropriations for the Albemarle County Operating
and Capital Budgets for FY 2005/2006
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Davis, Breeden
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED B~
BACKGROUND:
The County's FY 2005/2006 Operating and Capital Budgets were adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 20, 2005,
for a total estimated amount of $255,874,537. The attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending
on June 30, 2006 provides the authority from the Board of Supervisors for the County to spend those funds, effective July
1, 2005.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
This Resolution is a comprehensive Resolution which appropriates the total County budget, including both operating and
capital funds in a single resolution, and includes many of the initial Special Revenue Fund appropriations that in the past
were not included in the operating appropriation resolution.
Since April, adjustments have been made to the adopted budget numbers as updated information became available.
These adjustments have resulted in a revised net total appropriation amount in this resolution of $256,152,119, an increase
of $277,582. The change is due to revised revenue estimates in the School Fund, revised estimates of federal funding for
the Family Support Program, and changes to interfund transfer amounts.
General Fund
There are no changes to the General Fund Budget adopted in April.
$176,599,527
School Fund $126,285,987
The School Fund increases by $387,593 over the amount adopted in April. This is due to increases of $371,952 in
revenues from fund balance, carry-over, and transfers, $15,179 in state revenue, and $462 in local school revenue.
School self-sustainina Funds $13,359,322
The School Self-Sustaining Funds are reduced by $99,985. This is due to a decrease in the schools transfer to the fuel
contingency fund of $100,000 and an increase of $15 in the preschool special education fund.
Special Revenue Funds $15,110,445
The Special Revenue Funds are reduced by $160,026. This is due to a decrease in federal funds for the Family Support
program of $110,026 and a decrease in the school transfer to the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) Fund of $50,000.
General Government Capital Improvements Fund $13,166,000
There are no changes to the General Government Capital Improvements Fund Budget adopted in April.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2005/2006 Resolution of Appropriations
June 8, 2005
Page 2
School Division Capital Improvements Fund
There are no changes to the School Division Capital Improvements Fund Budget adopted in April.
$9,383,000
stormwater Capital Improvements Fund
There are no changes to the Stormwater Captiallmprovements Fund Budget adopted in April.
$450,000
Debt Service Fund
There are no changes to the Debt Service Fund Budget adopted in April.
$13,513,819
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the attached Annual Resolution of Appropriations for FY 2005/2006 that allocates a total of
$256,152,119 to the various General Government and School Division operating, capital improvement, and debt service
accounts for expenditure in the FY 2005/2006. Also recommended for approval is the attached Resolution of Official Intent
to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a Borrowing.
ATTACHMENTS
Appropriation Resolution
Resolution of Official Intent to Reimburse Expenditures with Proceeds of a BorrowinQ
05.068
ANNUAL RESOLUTION OF APPROPRIATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2006
A RESOLUTION making appropriations of sums of money for all necessary
expenditures of the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2006; to prescribe the provisions with respect to the items of appropriation and their payment;
and to repeal all previous appropriation ordinances or resolutions that are inconsistent with
this resolution to the extent of such inconsistency.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of the COUNTY OF
ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA:
SECTION I - GENERAL GOVERNMENT
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
GENERAL FUND to be apportioned as follows for the purposes herein specified for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: TAX REFUNDS, ABATEMENTS, & OTHER REFUNDS
$137,000
Refunds and Abatements
$137,000
Paragraph Two: GENERAL MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT
$9,315,938
1 Board of Supervisors
2 County Attorney
3 County Executive
4 Department of Finance
5 Department of Human Resources
6 Department of Information Technology
7 Voter Registration/ Elections
$442,486
$643,000
$1,298,806
$3,606,800
$956,543
$1,985,089
$383.214
$9,315,938
Paragraph Three: JUDICIAL
$3,108,863
1 Circuit Court
2 Clerk of the Circuit Court
3 Commonwealth's Attorney
4 General District Court
5 Juvenile Court
6 Magistrate
7 Sheriff's Office
$85,273
$635,000
$711,772
$16,100
$55,045
$5,150
$1,600.523
$3,108,863
Paragraph Four: PUBLIC SAFETY
$21,912,850
1 Albemarle County Fire/Rescue Department
2 Department of Police
3 Emergency Communications Center
4 Fire/Rescue Credit
5 Fire Department Contract (City of Charlottesville)
6 Forest Fire Extinguishment
7 Thomas Jefferson EMS Council
$3,917,958
$9,984,652
$1,550,927
$45,000
$600,565
$14,000
$20,667
8 Volunteer Fire Departments $801,501
9 Volunteer Rescue Squads $372,792
10 Inspections $1,073,895
11 Community Attention Home $49,155
12 Juvenile Court Assessment Center - Community
Attention
13 Juvenile Detention Center $855,099
14 Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) $131,913
15 Regional Jail Authority $2,346,844
16 SPCA Contract $147.882
$21,912,850
Paragraph Five: GENERAL SERVICES I PUBLIC WORKS $3,468,005
General Services / Public Works $3.468.005
$3,468,005
Paragraph Six: HUMAN SERVICES $14,342,991
1 AIDS Support Group $4,200
2 Boys and Girls Club $12,000
3 BRMC - Latino Lay Health Promoter $5,150
4 Charlottesville - Albemarle Legal Aid Society $34,117
(CALAS)
5 Charlottesville Free Clinic $8,017
6 Children, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) $90,132
7 Commission on Children & Families (CCF) $199,661
8 Computers4Kids $8,887
9 FOCUS - Teensight $27,568
10 Health Department $809,455
11 Jefferson Area Board on Aging (JABA) $211,228
12 JAUNT $555,663
13 Madison House $8,467
14 Music Resource Center $5,638
15 Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC) $22,060
16 Region Ten Community Services $453,213
17 Sexual Assault Resource Agency (SARA) $23,781
18 Shelter for Help in Emergency (SHE) $76,320
19 SOCA $3,000
20 Department of Social Services $8,580,733
21 Tax Relief for Elderly/Disabled $678,638
22 United Way -Child Care $99,515
23 Bright Stars Transfer $470,138
24 Family Support Transfer $165,795
25 Comprehensive Services Act Transfer $1.789.615
$14,342,991
Paragraph Seven: PARKS, RECREATION AND CULTURE $5,286,679
1 Department of Parks & Recreation $2,107,107
2 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library $2,527,089
3 African American Festival $3,000
4 Ash-Lawn Highland $8,699
5 Lewis and Clark Festival $3,500
6 Literacy Volunteers $20,188
7 Municipal Band $16,000
8 Piedmont Council of the Arts
9 Virginia Discovery Museum
10 Virginia Festival of the Book
11 Virginia Film Festival
12 Visitors Bureau
13 WHTJ Public Television
14 WVPT Public Television
15 Albemarle County Fair
16 Darden Towe Park Transfer
Paragraph Eight: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP)
2 Charlottesville Transit Service
3 Department of Community Development
4 Housing Office
5 Monticello Area Community Action Agency
(MACAA)
6 Piedmont Housing Alliance (PHA)
7 Planning District Commission (T JPDC)
8 Soil and Water Conservation
9 VPI Extension Service
Paragraph Nine: CAPITAL OUTLAYS
Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund - Recurring
2 Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund - One-Time
3 Transfer to Schools Capital Improvements Fund
4 Transfer to Stormwater Fund
Paragraph Ten: REVENUE SHARING AGREEMENT
Revenue Sharing Agreement
Paragraph Eleven: OTHER USES OF FUNDS
1 Transfer to General Government Debt Service
2 Transfer to School Division Debt Service
3 Transfer to School Fund - Recurring
4 Transfer to School Fund - One Time
5 Vehicle Replacement Fund
6 Board Contingency Reserve
7 Salary Contingency
Total GENERAL FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$11,071
$11,008
$10,800
$11,201
$387,138
$4,336
$4,336
$10,000
$151 ,206
$5,286,679
$6,894,518
$419,274
$265,972
$4,848,725
$782,494
$168,892
$48,361
$94,357
$82,156
$184,287
$6,894,518
$7,804,581
$6,160,399
$859,596
$334,586
$450.000
$7,804,581
$9,742,748
$9,742,748
$94,585,354
$1,929,082
$11,013,888
$80,861,241
$119,951
$289,115
$132,077
$240.000
$94,585,354
$146,285,394
$176,599,527
Revenue from Local Sources - Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$3,649,034
$22,296,310
$4.368.789
$176,599,527
Total GENERAL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$176,599,527
SECTION II: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for
SCHOOL purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: REGULAR SCHOOL FUND
1 Administration, Attendance & Health
2 Facilities Construction/ Modification
3 Facilities Operation/ Maintenance
4 Instruction
5 Pupil Transportation Services
6 Other Uses of Funds
$8,099,423
$68,600
$12,096,060
$94,521,399
$8,167,644
$3.332.861
$126,285,987
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer - Ongoing)
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer - One Time)
Revenue from Other Local Sources
Revenue from School Fund Balance, Carry-Over,
Transfers
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
$126,285,987
$80,861,241
$119,951
$647,703
$2,722,206
$39,541,683
$2.393.203
$126,285,987
Total REGULAR SCHOOL FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$126,285,987
SECTION III: OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for the
purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: FOOD SERVICES
1 Maintenance/ Operation of School Cafeterias
2 Summer Feeding
$3,628,400
$300.000
$3,928,400
Total FOOD SERVICES appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
Revenue from the Federal Government
Total FOOD SERVICES resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Two: PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND
Special Ed Pre-School Program
$2,971,400
$53,000
$904.000
$3,928,400
$68,940
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
$68,940
Total PRE-SCHOOL SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Three: MciNTIRE TRUST FUND
Payment to County Schools
$10,000
Total MciNTIRE TRUST FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Investments Per Trust
$10,000
Total MciNTIRE TRUST FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Four: PREP PROGRAM
1 C. B. I. P. Severe
2 E. D. Program
Total PREP PROGRAM appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
$869,825
$752.058
$1,621,883
$3,928,400
$3,928,400
$68,940
$68,940
$10,000
$10,000
$1,621,883
Revenue from Tuition and Fees
$1,621,883
Total PREP PROGRAM resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Five: FEDERAL PROGRAMS
1 Adult Education
2 Carl Perkins
3 Chapter I
4 Drug Free Schools
5 Migrant Education
6 Title II
7 English Literacy/Civics
8 Economically Dislocated Workers
9 Title III
10 Title V
11 Bright Stars
12 Reading First
13 Refugee Grant
14 Families in Crisis
$114,050
$163,003
$1,160,750
$51,756
$86,000
$401 ,282
$47,458
$20,000
$79,685
$47,254
$36,362
$100,000
$7,000
$12.000
$2,326,600
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$21,550
$33,500
$2.271.550
$2,326,600
Total FEDERAL PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Six: COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND
Community Education
$1,422,389
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
$1,422,389
Total COMMUNITY EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Seven: SUMMER SCHOOL
$1,621,883
$2,326,600
$2,326,600
$1,422,389
$1,422,389
Summer School $557,683
Total SUMMER SCHOOL appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $557,683
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources - Tuition
Miscellaneous Revenues
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$234,243
$165,440
$8,000
$150,000
$557,683
Total SUMMER SCHOOL resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$557,683
Paragraph Eight: SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT
School Bus Replacement
$1,100,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$1,100,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$1,100,000
Total SCHOOL BUS REPLACEMENT resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$1,100,000
Paragraph Nine: AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND
AIMR Summer Rental
$446,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$446,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (rental)
$446,000
Total AIMR SUMMER RENTAL FUND resources available for fiscal ending
June 30, 2006:
$446,000
Paragraph Ten: INTERNAL SERVICE - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND
Vehicle Maintenance
$542,500
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$542,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (charges)
$542,500
Total INTERNAL SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$542,500
Paragraph Eleven: GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND
General Adult Education
$12,500
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$12,500
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$4,000
$8,500
$12,500
Total GENERAL ADULT EDUCATION FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$12,500
Paragraph Twelve: DRIVERS SAFETY FUND
Drivers Safety Fund
$246,870
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$246,870
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$195,979
$50,891
$246,870
Total DRIVERS SAFETY FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$246,870
Paragraph Thirteen: OPEN DOORS FUND
Open Doors Fund $99,700
Total OPEN DOORS FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $99,700
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Tuition
Revenue from Local Sources (Advertisements)
$98,500
$1.200
$99,700
Total OPEN DOORS FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$99,700
Paragraph Fourteen: STATE PROGRAMS
1 Special Education SLIVER Grant
2 Special Education Jail Program
3 Algebra Readiness
4 Individualized Student Alternative Education
5 Teacher Mentor Program
$21,142
$114,945
$46,838
$23,576
$8.354
$214,855
Total STATE PROGRAMS appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$214,855
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$214,855
Total STATE PROGRAMS resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$214,855
Paragraph Fifteen: JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION
Jefferson Regional Destination Imagination
$11,002
Total JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,002
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Registration Fees
Revenue from Local Sources
$3,020
$7.982
$11,002
Total JEFFERSON REGIONAL DESTINATION IMAGINATION resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,002
Paragraph Sixteen: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
Computer Equipment Replacement Fund
$550,000
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$550,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School $550,000
Fund)
Total COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006: $550,000
Paragraph Seventeen: BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND
Building Services Contingency Fund
$100,000
Total BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$100,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$100,000
Total BUILDING SERVICES CONTINGENCY FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$100,000
Paragraph Eighteen: FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND
Fuel Contingency Fund
$100,000
Total FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$100,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
$100,000
Total FUEL CONTINGENCY FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
GRAND TOTAL-OTHER SCHOOL FUNDS
$100,000
$13,359,322
SECTION IV: OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for OTHER
PROGRAM purposes herein specified to be apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT FUND
Comprehensive Services Act Program
Expenditures
$6,163,127
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$6,163,127
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$1,789,615
$890,000
$3.483.512
$6,163,127
Total COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT resources available for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Two: BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND
Bright Stars Program
$702,699
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND appropriations for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from School
Fund)
MJ Child Health Grant
Revenue from the Commonwealth
$470,138
$23,000
$5,000
$204.561
$702,699
Total BRIGHT STARS 4 YEAR OLD PROGRAM FUND resources available
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Three: FAMILY SUPPORT FUND
Family Support Program
$740,431
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND appropriations for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (School Fund)
Revenue from the Federal Government
$165,795
$125,000
$449,636
$740,431
Total FAMILY SUPPORT FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Four: TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND
Darden Towe Memorial Park
$260,345
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND appropriations for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund)
Other Local Sources
$151,206
$109,139
$260,345
$6,163,127
$702,699
$702,699
$740,431
$740,431
$260,345
Total TOWE MEMORIAL PARK FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Five: E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND
E-911 Operations and Debt Service (Transfer to
General Fund)
$1,147,000
TOTAL E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue From Local Sources
$1,147,000
Total E-911 SERVICE CHARGE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Six: VISITOR CENTER FUND
Debt Service
$67,734
TOTAL VISITOR CENTER FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$67,734
Total VISITOR CENTER FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Seven: COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND
Transfer to General Government Capital
Improvements Fund
$30,000
TOTAL COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
$30,000
Total COURTHOUSE MAINTENANCE FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Eight: TOURISM FUND
1 Tourism Enhancement (Transfer to General Fund)
2 Tourism Projects (Transfer to General Government
$443,492
$445.000
$260,345
$1,147,000
$1,147,000
$67,734
$67,734
$30,000
$30,000
Capital Improvements Fund)
$888,492
TOTAL TOURISM FUND appropriations for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006:
$888,492
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources $888,492
Total TOURISM FUND resources available for fiscal year ending
June 30, 2006: $888,492
Paragraph Nine: UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND
United Way Day Care Fund
$603,567
TOTAL UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$603,567
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
City of Charlottesville
United Way Matching Funds
Admin Fee - United Way
Revenue from the Federal Government (HHs Pass
Thru Grant)
$99,515
$120,766
$78,000
$27,021
$278,265
$603,567
Total UNITED WAY DAY CARE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$603,567
Paragraph Ten: CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND
Criminal Justice Grant Programs
$608,650
TOTAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$608,650
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
$608,650
Total CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROGRAMS FUND resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$608,650
Paragraph Eleven: VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND
Victim-Witness Program
$83,051
TOTAL VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$83,051
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
$83,051
Total VICTIM-WITNESS GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Twelve: METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND
Metropolitan Planning Organization Funding
$9,500
TOTAL METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
$7,600
$950
$950
$9,500
Total METRO PLANNING GRANT FUND resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
Revenue from the Federal Government (Grant)
Revenue from the Commonwealth (Grant)
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund
Paragraph Thirteen: HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (Transfer to
General Fund)
2 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
$312,837
$2,736,062
$3,048,899
TOTAL HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from the Federal Government
$3,048,899
Total HOUSING ASSISTANCE FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph Fourteen: VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND
Vehicle Replacement
$756,950
TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Local Funds - Transfer from the General Fund
$756,950
Total VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND resources available for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
$83,051
$9,500
$9,500
$3,048,899
$3,048,899
$756,950
$756,950
GRAND TOTAL - SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
$15,110,445
SECTION V - GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND to be apportioned as follows for
the purposes herein specified for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: COURTS
$535,000
1 Levy Building Renovation
2 Court Square Renovations
3 Court Square Sallyport
4 Court Square Maintenance/Replacement Projects
5 J&D Court Maintenance/Replacement Projects
$25,000
$20,000
$350,000
$125,000
$15.000
$535,000
Paragraph Two: PUBLIC SAFETY
$4,049,000
Station 11 - Monticello Fire Station Fiber
Connection
2 Station 12 - Northside Fire Station
3 Pantops Fire Station
4 VFD Fire & EMS Apparatus Replacement
5 Station 8 - Seminole Trail and CARS Station
6 Police Patrol Video Cameras
7 Police Mobile Data Computers
8 SPCA - New County Animal Shelter
$161,000
$880,000
$842,000
$1,893,000
$20,000
$23,000
$180,000
$50.000
$4,049,000
Paragraph Three: PUBLIC WORKS
$2,470,000
1 County Facilities - Maintenance/Replacement
2 Ivy Landfill Remediation
3 COB Mcintire Renovations
$650,000
$640,000
$1.180.000
$2,470,000
Paragraph Four: COMMUNITY/NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
$3,086,000
1 Neighborhood Implementation Plan Program
2 Revenue Sharing Road Program
3 Sidewalk Construction Program
4 Transportation Improvement Program - Local
5 Roadway Landscaping Program
$217,000
$1,000,000
$641,000
$1,200,000
$28.000
$3,086,000
Paragraph Five: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
$40,000
PVCC - Site Work for Science Building
$40,000
Paragraph Six: PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
1 Scottsville Community Center Improvements
2 Paramount Theater
3 Greenway Program
4 River and Lake Access Improvements
5 Patricia Byrom Forest Preserve Park
6 Park Enhancements
7 Parks - Maintenance/Replacement
$57,000
$33,000
$25,000
$36,000
$83,000
$57,000
$76.000
$367,000
Paragraph Seven: LIBRARIES
New Crozet Library
$424,000
Paragraph Eight: TECHNOLOGY AND GIS
1 County Technology Upgrade - GIS System
2 County IT - Business Key Systems Upgrade
3 County Computer Upgrade
4 CityView Internet Access
$220,000
$450,000
$425,000
$100.000
$1,195,000
Paragraph Nine: ACQUISITION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE)
Program
$1,000,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Tourism Fund
Transfer)
Revenues from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer)
CIP Fund Balance/Reserve
Courthouse Maintenance Funds
Loan Proceeds
Interest Income
$445,000
$7,019,995
$878,005
$30,000
$4,643,000
$150,000
$13,166,000
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
resources available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
SECTION VI: SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
$367,000
$424,000
$1,195,000
$1,000,000
$13,166,000
$13,166,000
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: EDUCATION (SCHOOL DIVISION)
$9,383,000
2 Henley Addition/Renovation
3 Murray High School Renovations
4 ADA Structural Changes
5 Monticello HS Auditorium
6 Monticello HS Auxiliary Gym
7 Administrative Technology
8 Instructional Technology
9 Maintenance/Replacement Projects
10 State Technology Grant
11 Vehicle Maintenance Facility - Emergency
Generator
12 Jouett-Greer Site Reconfiguration
$1,000,000
$149,000
$50,000
$800,000
$1,999,000
$70,000
$450,000
$3,800,000
$700,000
$165,000
$200.000
$9,383,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$9,383,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (General Fund
Transfer)
Proffers
Interest Earned
State Construction Funds
State Technology Grant
VPSA Bonds
$334,586
$265,414
$100,000
$197,000
$700,000
$7,786.000
$9,383,000
Total SCHOOL DIVISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$9,383,000
SECTION VII: sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated from the
sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND for the purposes herein specified to be
apportioned as follows for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: sTORMWATER PROJECTS
Stormwater Control Program
$450,000
Total sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND appropriations for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$450,000
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
$450,000
Total sTORMWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND resources
available for fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$450,000
SECTION VIII: DEBT SERVICE
That the following sums of money be and the same hereby are appropriated for
the function of DEBT SERVICE to be apportioned as follows from the GENERAL
GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND and the SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
Paragraph One: SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE FUND
1 Debt Service Payments - School Division
2 Debt Service Payments - PREP
$11,013,887
$246,358
$11,260,245
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal year
ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
Revenue from Local Sources (PREP Fees)
$11,260,245
$11,013,887
$246.358
$11,260,245
Total SCHOOL DIVISION DEBT SERVICE resources available for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
$11,260,245
Paragraph Two: GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE FUND
Emergency Services Radio System Lease/Debt
Service Payment
2 Lease/Purchase Software
3 Debt Service Payments - General Government
4 Bond Issuance Cost
$826,556
$41,314
$1,375,704
$10,000
$2,253,574
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE appropriations for fiscal
year ending June 30, 2006:
To be provided as follows:
Revenue from Local Sources
Revenue from Local Sources (Transfer from General
Fund)
$2,253,574
$283,178
$1.970,396
$2,253,574
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT DEBT SERVICE resources available for
fiscal year ending June 30, 2006:
$2,253,574
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS MENTIONED IN
SECTIONS I - VIII OF THIS RESOLUTION
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING June 30, 2006
RECAPITULATION:
Appropriations:
Section I
Section II
Section III
Section IV
Section V
Section VI
Section VII
Section VIII
General Fund
School Fund
Other School Funds
Other Special Revenue Funds
General Government Capital Improvements
Fund
School Division Capital Improvements Fund
Storm water Capital Improvements Fund
Debt Service
Less Inter-Fund Transfers
General Fund to School Fund
General Fund to Special Revenue Funds
General Fund to Capital Improvements Funds
General Fund to Debt Service Funds
Special Revenue Funds to General Fund
Special Revenue Funds to Capital Improvements Funds
School Fund to Self-Sustaining Funds
School Fund to Special Revenue Funds
School Fund to General Fund
Self-Sustaining Funds to School Fund
GRAND TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS
$367,868,100
$176,599,527
$126,285,987
$13,359,322
$15,110,445
$13,166,000
$9,383,000
$450,000
$13,513,819
$367,868,100
($111,715,981)
($81,384,575)
($3,434,169)
($7,804,581 )
($12,984,284)
($1,903,329)
($475,000)
($2,117,743)
($1,038,000)
($150,300)
($424,000)
($111,715,981)
$256,152,119
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to
transfer monies from one fund to another, from time to time as monies become available, sums
equal to, but not in excess of, the appropriations made to these funds for the period covered by
this appropriation resolution.
SECTION IX
All of the monies appropriated as shown by the contained items in Sections I through VIII
are appropriated upon the provisos, terms, conditions, and provisions herein before set forth in
connection with said terms and those set forth in this section. The Director of Finance (Richard
Wiggans) and Clerk to the Board of Supervisors (Ella W. Carey) are hereby designated as
authorized signatories for all bank accounts.
Paragraph One
Subject to the qualifications in this resolution contained, all appropriations are declared
to be maximum, conditional and proportionate appropriations - the purpose being to make the
appropriations payable in full in the amount named herein if necessary and then only in the
event the aggregate revenues collected and available during the fiscal year for which the
appropriations are made are sufficient to pay all of the appropriations in full.
Otherwise, the said appropriations shall be deemed to be payable in such
proportion as the total sum of all realized revenue of the respective funds is to
the total amount of revenue estimated to be available in the said fiscal year by
the Board of Supervisors.
Paragraph Two
All revenue received by any agency under the control of the Board of Supervisors
included or not included in its estimate of revenue for the financing of the fund budget as
submitted to the Board of Supervisors may not be expended by the said agency under the
control of the Board of Supervisors without the consent of the Board of Supervisors being first
obtained, nor may any of these agencies or boards make expenditures which will exceed a
specific item of an appropriation.
Paragraph Three
No obligations for goods, materials, supplies, equipment or contractual services for any
purpose may be incurred by any department, bureau, agency, or individual under the direct
control of the Board of Supervisors except by requisition to the purchasing agent; provided,
however, no requisition for items exempted by the Albemarle County Purchasing Manual shall
be required; and provided further that no requisition for contractual services involving the
issuance of a contract on a competitive bid basis shall be required, but such contract shall be
approved by the head of the contracting department, bureau, agency, or individual, the County
Attorney and the Purchasing Agent or Director of Finance. The Purchasing Agent shall be
responsible for securing such competitive bids on the basis of specifications furnished by the
contracting department, bureau, agency or individual
In the event of the failure for any reason of approval herein required for such contracts,
said contract shall be awarded through appropriate action of the Board of Supervisors.
Any obliqations incurred contrary to the purchasinq procedures prescribed in the
Albemarle County Purchasinq Manual shall not be considered obliqations of the
County, and the Director of Finance shall not issue any warrants in payment of
such obliqations.
Paragraph Four
Allowances out of any of the appropriations made in this resolution by any or all County
departments, bureaus, or agencies under the control of the board of Supervisors to any of their
officers and employees for expense on account of the use of such officers and employees of
their personal automobiles in the discharge of their official duties shall be paid at the same rate
as that established by the State of Virginia for its employees and shall be subject to change
from time to time to maintain like rates.
Paragraph Five
All travel expense accounts shall be submitted on forms and according to regulations
prescribed or approved by the Director of Finance.
Paragraph Six
All resolutions and parts of resolutions inconsistent with the provisions of this resolution
shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
Paragraph Seven
This resolution shall become effective on July first, two thousand and five.
* * * * * * * * * *
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero,
as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on June 8 05.
isors
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye Nay
1..
1..
1..
1..
y
1..
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE
EXPENDITURES WITH PROCEEDS OF A BORROWING
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Borrower"), intends to acquire,
construct and equip the items and projects set forth in Exhibit A hereto (collectively, the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, plans for the Project have advanced and the Borrower expects to advance its own funds to
pay expenditures related to the Project (the "Expenditures") prior to incurring indebtedness and to receive
reimbursement for such Expenditures from proceeds of tax-exempt bonds or taxable debt, or both;
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY:
1. The Borrower intends to utilize the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds (the "Bonds") or to incur other
debt, to pay the costs of the Project in an amount not currently expected to exceed $12,429,000.
2. The Borrower intends that the proceeds of the Bonds be used to reimburse the Borrower for
Expenditures with respect to the Project made on or after the date that is no more than 60 days prior to the date of
this Resolution. The Borrower reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with
the proceeds of the Bonds or other debt.
3. Each Expenditure was or will be, unless otherwise approved by bond counsel, either (a) of a type
properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as
of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not
customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the
Borrower so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any
amount to or for the benefit of the Borrower.
4. The Borrower intends to make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the
Borrower that evidences the Borrower's use of proceeds of the Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than
18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the Project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The Borrower
recognizes that exceptions are available for certain "preliminary expenditures," costs of issuance, certain de
minimis amounts, expenditures by "small issuers" (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure)
and expenditures for construction of at least five years.
5. The Borrower intends that the adoption of this resolution confirms the "official intent" within the
meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2 promulgated under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
**********
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular
meeting held on June 8, 2005.
Nay
~ja tv a~~
Clerk, oard of County SUpeniIS0t;
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye
y
y
y
y
y
y
Exhibit A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
BONDED PROJECTS
FY 2005/06
Schools
1. Henley Addition
2. Murray High School Renovations
3. ADA Structural Changes
4. Monticello Auditorium
5. Monticello Gym
6. School Maintenance Projects
7. Vehicle Maintenance Generator
8. Jouett-Greer Site ReconfiQuration
Schools Subtotal
General Fund
1. Fire Apparatus
2. Transportation
3. Business Systems
General Fund Subtotal
TOTAL DEBT ISSUE
Amount
$1,000,000
$149,000
$50,000
$800,000
$1,999,000
$3,423,000
$165,000
$200.000
$7,786,000
Amount
$1,893,000
$1,700,000
$1.050.000
$4,643,000
$12,429,000
·
·
·
F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5823
Fax (434) 972-4126
April 12, 2005
Rodez L. and Patricia R. Anderson
3047 Thomas Jefferson Parkway
Charlottesville, V A 22902
RE: SP 2004-00041 Cricket's Baked Goods - Tax Map 105, Parcel 46
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2005, unanimously recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions as recommended in the staff report and
amended by the Commission:
1. No business sign shall be permitted.
2. The aggregate area of the use, including both the home office and the garage kitchen may not exceed
500 square feet.
3. No employees shall be permitted other than members offamily residing in the dwelling on premises.
4. No customer visits to the site shall be permitted.
5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance and any necessary Health Department
approvals prior to use of the garage kitchen for this home occupation.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on June 8, 2005. 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 at (434) 296-5832 ext. 3439, or by email at rragsdale@albemarle.org.
Sincerely,
r1ê2twlt;~cM
Rebecca Ragsdale
Planner
Planning Division
Cc:
Ella Carey
Steve Allshouse
Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
·
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Rebecca Ragsdale
April 5, 2005
June 8, 2005
SP 2004-041 Cricket's Baked Goods & Caterina
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is requesting approval of a special use permit for a
Home Occupation, Class B to allow for a small catering business. The applicant
currently prepares baked goods in the kitchen of the residence on the property and sells
the items at Charlottesville City Market. The applicant would like to offer additional food
items and catering, moving food preparation for the business into an accessory
structure. (Attachments B & C) The kitchen would be operated in half of an existing
garage building, which is 384 square feet in size total and detached from the applicant's
residence. The kitchen would be located in one side of the garage building and would be
less than 200 square feet in size. The applicant would have no employees. There would
be no customer visits to the property and no business signs are proposed.
Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow a Home Occupation Class B for a
Catering business in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning Ordinance, which
allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is described as Tax Map 105,
Parcel 46, contains 13.68 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Area and EC Entrance
Corridor. The proposal is located at 3047 Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53), east of
the intersection of Thomas Jefferson Parkway and Buck Island Road (Route 729), in the
Scottsville Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural
Area.
·
Character of the Area: The site is located along Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway)
and structures on the property front Route 53, facing eastward. Wooded properties
adjoin the property on the front and rear, including a 200 acre property across Route 53
and a 51-acre property to the rear/west of the site. Residential properties adjoin the
sides of the site, with an 11-acre parcel to the north and approximately 8 2-3 acre lots in
Green Heights to the south.
Plannina and Zonina Historv: The residence on the property was constructed in 1975
and there has been no subdivision of the property since that time. The applicant
obtained a zoning clearance for a home occupation A for a home bakery in November
2000.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site and surrounding
areas as being located in the Rural Areas. The Rural Areas Plan of the Comprehensive
Plan offers guidance to how home occupations should be reviewed in the Rural Areas.
Specifically, the plan indicates home occupations should be limited to a scale and
intensity that will not diminish the character or quality of life in the Rural Areas,
encourage suburban development patterns or density, or significantly impact natural or
cultural resources. This catering request is of a scale and intensity that would not be
counter to this Rural Area policy.
·
Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson Parkway) is identified as an Entrance Corridor in the
Comprehensive Plan and a portion of the applicant's property is in the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. The Design Planner's comments indicate that should the applicant
propose any changes to the building or site visible from Route 53, then Architectural
SP 2004-041
Cricket's Baked Goods & Catering
March 29, 2005
1
Review Board review and approval will be necessary. The garage building is not yisible
from Route 53 and is set nearly 500 feet from the road so no impacts to scenic
resources are anticipated. The Historic Preservation Planner has indicated that historic
resources in the area of the project site but no impacts to historic resources are
anticipated.
Staff Comment: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
The Board of Suoervisors hereby reserves unto itself the riaht to issue all soecial
use oermits oermitted hereunder. Soecial use oermits for uses as orovided in this
ordinance may be issued uoon a findina bv the Board of Suoervisors that such
use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent orooertv.
This proposal would not result in a significant increase in vehicular traffic beyond that
which would be considered normal traffic for the residence. The applicant would not
have customers visiting the site and would not receive deliveries or ship using heavy
trucks. The applicant has indicated she will obtain supplies and deliver food items in her
personal vehicle.
that the character of the district will not be chanaed thereby.
The garage building is typical of accessory structures found on residential properties in
the Rural Areas. It is the opinion of staff that this home occupation would not result in
any increased levels of activity on the site that would be inconsistent with the character
of the area.
and that such use will be in harmony with the ouroose and intent of this
ordinance.
Staff has reviewed the purpose and intent as contained in Chapter 18, Sections 1.4, 1.5,
and 1.6 of the Albemarle Zoning Ordinance. In the opinion of staff, the proposed use
would not conflict with the purpose and intent as described in the Zoning Ordinance.
with the uses oermitted bv riaht in the district.
This use would not prevent by-right use of the adjacent properties.
and with the oubHc health. safety and aeneral welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through
the special use permit process, which assures that uses approved by special use permit
are appropriate in the location requested.
One safety issue has been identified by the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), which initially recommended:
. Entrance needs to be improved to meet the Minimum Standards for Entrances to State
Highways (30' Commercial Entrance with 25' Radii).
. Sight Distance requirements need to be met (Minimum 610' required).
SP 2004-041
Cricket's Baked Goods & Catering
March 29, 2005
2
.
VDOT has indicated, after further information was provided after these review comments
were received, that if traffic is limited to residential only and that this is conditioned and
monitored by the special use permit, then these requirements would not be necessary.
The reviewing engineer staff has indicated that it would be difficult for the applicant to
meet the requested VDOT recommendations given constraints of Route 53 and the
applicant's driveway. If there are no additional trips beyond normal residential traffic, the
engineer has indicated that they could support the special use permit request. The
applicant has indicated that there would be no employees or customers visiting the site.
Section 5.2.2.1 (d) requires that no traffic be generated beyond what would normally be
expected from a residence. The Rural Area plan offers some guidance on this issue. It
recommends, in order to minimize the impacts of such uses as home occupations in the
RA, that requirements such as parking lots, curb and gutter, and commercial entrances
be avoided.
The Health Department has regulations that address two aspects of this request, the
water supply and sewer system capacity for this catering business and also the food
establishment permit for the catering kitchen. Engineer prepared documents regarding
the well and septic on the property were submitted to the Health Department and have
been approved. The Health Department is still in the process of reviewing the food
establishment permit.
with additional reaulations Drovided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
.
Home occupation permits are governed by Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Attachment E). The proposed request, as submitted, complies with all provisions of this
section of the Zoning Ordinance. Should the applicant need to expand the garage
kitchen for any reason, the maximum size permitted that would comply with Section
5.2.2.1 (a) is 290 square feet in size, which is 25 percent of the square footage of the
primary dwelling. To allow the applicant flexibility and to avoid a new special use permit
should the applicant wish to make minor modifications to the garage kitchen, a condition
of approval (#2) addressing this has been recommended.
Summary:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. There would be no additional traffic generated from this proposal than what
would be considered normal residential traffic.
2. There would be no impacts on surrounding neighbors.
Unfavorable factors identified:
1. Existing conditions at the applicant's driveway onto Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson
Parkway) do not meet VDOT's commercial entrance standards.
.
SP 2004-041
Cricket's Baked Goods & Catering
March 29, 2005
3
Staff Recommendation:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP
2004-041, subject to the following conditions:
1. No business sign shall be permitted.
2. The aggregate area of the use, including both the home office and the garage
kitchen, cannot exceed 25% of the dwelling at any time. The current limitation is 290
square feet for the garage kitchen
3. No employees shall be permitted other than members of family residing in the
dwelling on premises.
4. No customer visits to the site shall be permitted.
5. The applicant shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance and any necessary Health
Department approvals prior to use of the garage kitchen for this home occupation.
6. The applicant shall obtain any necessary approval from the United States
Department of Agriculture for sale of food items.
Attachments:
A - Special Use Permit Application
B - Aerial view of the property
C - Photo of Garage Building
D - Location Map
E - Section 5.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
SP 2004-041
Cricket's Baked Goods & Catering
March 29, 2005
4
.
~::ICEUmYtf--G Lf / TMP ~ 0 5 0 D_ cD 0 - 00_ O_4h
~g. . '7 5 M.g~t.rial Dirt""" 5& sum .4C
']- 2re,-ð '"":V/
D \ -kKJ,5
Application for Special Use Permit t-JqJ:1
00
ATTACHMENT A
Please See the List at the bottom of page 4 for the Appropriate Fee
(staff will assist you with this item)
Project Name (how should we refer to this application?): (~ ¡I" ì c-K.,¿f ~ 13t....W C-cod ...........( ~04' '-I'~
Proposed Use: 'Bttl: i ~ ~ C.J-<h"~
..-
Zoning Ordinance Section number requested: lO. ~ . '2-. 3 ~
*Existing Use: ~o.rt:L:SL' t'-...Å
* Zoning District: RA
(*staff will assist you with this item)
wt>..-í:. r()C.~
Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit (if a portion it must be delineated on a plat): 13
Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit?
Are you submitting a preliminary site plan with this application?
DYES
DYES
DNO
DNO
Contact Person (Who should we call/write concerning this project?): ~ ~j ~ '2,.. 4- 1=>o-~ ¡'(> i'C_ A-~~rs()_
Address 3D'-lï 'T\.-.c~s. ~r-<v"- "PtwY_City CL.(-'"r(O·~SU1'a~ State c1. Zip d-d-'f~
Daytime Phone <!:I3.!1J .J.-1 to - d- L( 0 f Fax # E-mail A.j"NSt'~ J..( f @ f\~.-c" Co/'Y1..
. OwnerofRecordKôJ~,- +- '"Pk..e.·e- f\."'-.!<.fL-7çc-...--
Address 3ût{. 7 -n-.o)~<:.. ..1'-"tð""...r;.IJ- ~fity eC·......(o4-,.:o'!;'(/: ((-<. State Ù.e< < Zip;J-d-<1 0.;)
Daytime Phone (V3't) ;)-1 (; - d-V 0<6 Fax # E-mail
Applicant (Who is the Contact person representing? Who is requesting the rezoning?): Kð.Å~ 'L -t ?tLb-l el &- A..1>i2.rS G~
Address 3Dt.f7 "Tl~<;. ~êf6'~-<¡;"-"- ~r- City C.L.JoB..."SlJ/'{(.... State VA- Zip d;)-q~
Daytime Phone (<.{ji() j..'1¿;" - :J-i.{ 0'( Fax # E-mail
Tax map and parcel:
Physical Street Address (if assigned):
Location of property (landmarks, intersections, or other): :=R+. S-'3.
13l.<-~~ Tç[ev-J
Does the owner of this property own (or have any ownership interest in) any abutting property? If yes, please list those tax map and parcel numbers
Y\D
OFFICE U
Fee amount $
;~ReceiPt ;;3l'lh By:
D Special Use Permits:
ZMAs & Proffers:
.
D Variances:
o Letter of Authorization
4> olv
Concurrent review of Site Development Plan? DYES D NO
County of Albemarle Department of Building Code & Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126
12/1/02 Page I of 4 c;
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance states that, "The board of supervisors hereby
reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use pennits pennitted hereunder. Special use pennits for
uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use
will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be
changed thereby and that such use will be in hannony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, with
the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5.0 ofthis
ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare."
The items that follow will be reviewed by the staff in their analysis of your request. Please complete this
fonn and provide additional information which will assist the County in its review of you request. If you
need assistance filling out these items, staff is available.
What is the Comprehensive Plan designation for this property? 'KI\- ~~
How will the proposed special use affect adjacent property? tI)\Q." t....L~ tt::-J- '~
o..á-lCLe~-.,J rY-o~{r 11\¡ II hD"~ -b~ ~d~ ~+~. \h~V'"~ t<.h'l\
Þ4!- ~b (.t.J¡ I;Vìri +...~~k ,; ¡<Þ,,,Jy r~J&-Y- Co-r +r~ë L ~ .
How will the proposed special use affect the character of the district(s) surrounding the property?
W-.L do r-v*- S~ ~ ct.v-¡ ~6.t f+ -ft, it:-~ ~L€LY-t'<e.~u---
~ ~ d; .-b.-; "J~ S '<.r ro ~ð ~ 1>""\"'" -+{. I\..-.~ w, l(
~"'- \'\0 '00~~""'- V'-\^-Å o~lr lìvv,-,'+,,-i Cu..S+DI""-":>'-- +rUÓ{~ ,.
y-u... I' J:.
How is the use in harmony with ¡he pUIP. se and intent of the Z Ding Ordinance~
k"L. -\ Í/-v'--Å 1.0 l ~ \ 0 b.tL (~.J.--t'Y' r {¡ ~ \ "'- U<-o
~ V'-k-:.ILJ ¡ Tk'<2-f~ w¿l\ "'0+ 1p~ (0V'-'1
A-ll t QO J to' {( b ~
~~(¡c:
dt.,l;¡)oi?r.
'$~<U' ~'-'>-
(9r\....
~
\~á ~
How is the use in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
What additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of the Zoning Ordinance apply to this use?
How will this use promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community?
12/1/02 Page 2 of 4
{¡J
·
all
or
·
a
consent to
to
must
to
must
or
correct to
·
^
12/1102
30f4
~
M::I
Õ
CJl
J,.
~
M::I
'"
8
œ..
I:J:J
o
¡::
o
p.,
po
..,
;¡;-
m
B
.
.
.
c
~
D
\:I
.
.
.
D
C'
E
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
ANDPA~GSTRUCTURES
A site plan shall be required for each parking lot and parking structure, unless the requirement is
waived as provided in section 32.2.2.
03-18(1),2-5-03)
HOME
CLEARANCE OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REQUIRED
as herein
administrator.
administrator shall refer
Transportation for approval of entrance facilities and
adequacy of parking for such use. No
occupation, Class except after compliance with
occupation shall be established
a to establish a
REGULATIONS GOVERNING HOME
The following regulations shall
any home
a. Such occupatiQn may
both,
shall be used in
of the
five
permitted
b. There shall
visible
Class
chapter.
garage,
be
of the
c. shall be nO
with
barber shops;
on the
home
in
d. No geuerated by such home occupation in greater volumes than
normally be expected in a residential neighborhood, and any need for parking generated
the conduct of such home occupation shall be met off the street;
e. All home occupations shall comply with performance standards set forth in section 4.14;
f. Tourist lodging, nursing homes, nursery 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 the
applicant to sign an affidavit stating his clear understanding of and intent to abide by the foregoing
regulations.
18-5-22.6
Zoning Supplement #30, ] Oc] 3-04
.
§
5.2.3
REVOCATION
of
this section.
.
18-5-22.7
Zoning
10-13-04
.
.
.
...
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 5, 2005 Minutes
SP-2004-041 Cricket's Baked Goods and Catering and
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice-
Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for
University of Virginia and Calvin Morris were absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Stephen Waller,
Senior Planner; Juandiago Wade, Transportation Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner; and Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
SP 2004-041 Cricket's Baked Goods and Catering: Request for a special use permit to allow a Home
Occupation Class B for a Catering business in accordance with Section 10.2.2.31 of the Zoning
Ordinance, which allows for Home Occupations Class B. The property is described as Tax Map 105,
Parcel 46, contains 13.68 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Area and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay. The
proposal is located at 3047 Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53), east of the intersection of Thomas
Jefferson Parkway and Buck Island Road (Route 729), in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property Rural Area. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. She passed out an update to the staff report to provide some
corrections. There was a misunderstanding between staff and the applicant as to what portion of the
accessory structure, which was called the garage building that they wanted to use for the catering
kitchen. Staff has noted which pages have changed, which she will go over as she goes over the staff
report.
The property is located on Route 53, Thomas Jefferson Parkway, past Monticello a good ways near Buck
Island. It is a 13 acre property that currently has a residence and garage building. The applicant
currently bakes in the kitchen of the residence and sales the items such places like City Market. But, she
would like to expand the food items that she sales and also would be offering catered items. It is a 13
acre property and the structures sit up on a hill off of the road. It is a fairly wooded area off Route 53. As
far as the history of the property, the house was constructed in 1975. There is a little area called Green
Heights to the south of the property where there are a few houses, which are through the woods from this
property.
The Comprehensive Plan does have language in it that now relates to home occupation that they are to
be of a scale and intensity appropriate for the rural areas. In this case there will only be one other
employee. There may be other members of the household that reside there. They have conditioned the
request that there shall be not employees or customers coming to the property. One of the other reasons
for the conditions regarding customers and employees relates to some of the review comments that staff
initially received from VDOT regarding the need for a commercial entrance and that it did not meet the
site distance requirements and the width was not adequate for a commercial entrance. But in further
conversations with VDOT they were comfortable with not requiring those upgrades to the entrance if it
was conditioned so that there was no greater vehicle traffic. It is also a requirement of Section 5. The
applicant does not plan on having any deliveries, any special trucks to bring the food items or supplies.
They would just use their personal vehicle and make their deliveries when they are out and about in
general is the plan. As far as the structure requested for the home occupation, staff provided a picture of
it and also an overview aerial of the property where it is located. It is not near any other residences. But
what the applicant would like to do is that one-half of the building is already finished and has a sink and
the other one-half is not finished and has some farm equipment. The applicant would like the possibility
of using the whole building for the kitchen. On the tax records that building is 384 square feet in size and
the dwelling is about 1,170 square feet. There is the regulation for home occupations that there will not
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005 1
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
.
.
.
\.
says it cannot be more than 25 percent of the floor area, but in no event shall it exceed 1,500 square feet.
She pointed out that she was confused.
Mr. Kamptner stated that any regulation in Section 5.0 can be modified.
Ms. Ragsdale pointed out that square footage is with an approved modification.
Mr. Rieley stated that the maximum area was 1,500 square feet. He stated that condition 6 appears to
have nothing to do with the land use of this property, but relates to the sales off-site.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that condition 6 originated with the Zoning Department. Zoning made the comment
that led her to believe that Zoning looks for this when these types of zoning clearances come in.
Mr. Rieley stated that it seems that if the activity was consistent with the activity level then why was it any
of their business where the items are sold.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he did not think it had anything to do with the special use permit because if that
was required by law, then that is required by law. He pointed out that if that was not true then he would
prefer to leave that condition out.
Mr. Craddock pointed out that was his question in if they have to have USDA approval to sell something
to City Market.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant if they would like to address the Commission on this application.
Rodez Anderson stated that he and his wife, Patricia Anderson, were present to speak for the application.
He pointed out that they just came to answer any questions.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he had any problems with the recommended conditions.
Mr. Anderson stated that they did not. He asked if condition 5 meant that after everything was done that
someone had to approve it before they moved in. He asked if that was basically what that says.
Mr. Edgerton stated that was correct.
Mr. Rieley asked if he anticipates a situation in which he might need to expand the 385 square feet.
Mr. Anderson stated that he did not anticipate any expansion beyond what they could see right now. He
pointed out that the garage was not going to get any bigger.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were other members of the public present that would like to address the
Commission on this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back
before the Commission.
Ms. Higgins asked if the home office had been included in the square footage.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that the applicant had indicated that there was no designated space. Since the
garage was 384 square feet that would only allow then 1 foot extra. She pointed out that there was no
defined area within their house where they have an office.
Ms. Higgins suggested that some additional square footage be added at least for a 5' X 5' room for an
office.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
3
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZT A 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05
Monticello Historic District
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
June 8, 2005
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
o Signed Proffers with Updated Application Plans
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACTlS):
Benish, McDowell, Ragsdale
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This is a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) and Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has
been refining for several years, resulting in the submittal of ZT A 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05 in April 2004. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on the applications their April 12, 2005 meeting where they recommended approval of
both the ZT A and the ZMA.
DISCUSSION: .
.ince the Planning Commission meeting, the proffer statement (Attachment A) has been signed by the property owner
and application plans (AP-I through AP-4) have been dated to reference dates in the proffer statement. Also, a legend
was added to AP 2 of 4 to clarify what is changes are planned for the Monticello mountaintop.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends approval ofZTA 2004-03 and the ZMA 2004-05.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Proffer Statement
B. Application Plans (AP-I through AP-4) dated June 1,2005
.
,.
Final
.
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
ZMA 04-05
PROFFER STATEMENT
The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 04-05 and thus to
this proffer statement: tax map parcels 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, 78-28A, 78-28B, 78-29, and
79-7A (the "Property"). The Applicant and Owner of the Property is the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation" or the "Owner").
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that if the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Monticello Historic District as requested, the
Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to
Section 15.2-2298 ofthe Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section
33.3 ofthe Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily
proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 04-05 is
denied these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and
effect.
. This Proffer Statement shall relate to the application plan shown on sheets AP-1 through
AP-4, each dated June 1,2005, of the plans entitled "Monticello, Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc., Albemarle County, Virginia, Zoning Map Amendment Application
Plan, ZMA 04-05, June 1,2005," which sheets are attached hereto as Exhibit A (the
"Application Plan") and also to the tenns of Section 8.5.5.3 ofthe Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as in effect on the date of this Proffer Statement, a copy of which
Section 8.5.5.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
1. The Owner will convey easements on certain portions of the Property and on
tax map parcel 78-31A for incorporation of such easement areas into the
Rivanna River Greenway Trail Park, on the tenns and conditions contained
herein:
.
a. The Foundation shall convey easements to the County encumbering
the portions of tax map parcels 78-28B and 79-7 A (collectively, the "Shadwell
Quarter Farm") and 78-31A (the "Lego Quarter Farm") that are contiguous to
the Rivanna River and consist ofthe real property defined in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency national flood insurance maps as land
within the 100-year flood plain on the north side of the Rivanna River
(individually, the "Shadwell Easement Area," and the "Lego Easement Area,"
and collectively, the "Easement Areas") for the extension of the County's
Greenway Trail Park within the Easement Areas.
,
·
b. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be conveyed after
an easement or land dedication is conveyed to the County for the County's
Greenway Trail Park by the owners of tax map parcel 78-33D for the
extension of the greenway trail through that parcel, upon the request ofthe
County and as soon thereafter as the Foundation can reasonably cause an
easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of easement in a form
reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County, and complete any
other administrative matters associated with such easement.
c. The easement on the Lego Quarter Farm shall be conveyed within six
months after request by the County, or as soon thereafter as the Foundation
can reasonably cause an easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of
easement in a form reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County,
and complete any other administrative matters associated with such easement.
d. The easements shall be subject to the terms of existing encumbrances
and easements of record, including, but not limited to, the Deed of Easement
conveyed to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources ("DHR") of
record in the Clerk's Office ofthe Albemarle County Circuit Court in Deed
Book 1970, page 412, and the Deed of Easement conveyed to the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation ("VOF") of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in
Deed Book 2894, page 76, each as applicable.
·
e. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Farm shall be previously
approved in writing by DHR and/or VOF, as applicable, with regard to any
portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of
Easement from the Foundation to DHR or the Deed of Easement from the
Foundation to VOF.
f. The Foundation may expressly reserve the following: (i) a right of
access for ingress and egress to and from the Easement Areas from other
parcels the Foundation owns for the benefit of the Foundation; (ii) an
easement for drainage from any ofthe Foundation's stormwater control
facilities through the Easement Areas; (iii) for riparian rights in the Rivanna
River for the benefit of the Foundation; (iv) the right to physically restrict
access by the public to other portions of the Shadwell Quarter Farm and the
Lego Quarter Farm, or any other parcels the Foundation owns, as may be
necessary or appropriate in the Foundation's discretion to protect any
historical artifacts or features on such parcels; and (v) for crossings of the
greenway trail and use of the Easement Areas outside of the greenway trail for
other purposes reasonably stipulated by the Foundation, including but not
limited to interpretation of historically significant areas that may be present
within the Easement Areas.
·
g. The Foundation may expressly reserve in the Shadwell Quarter Farm
deed of easement a right of access for the benefit of the County through the
2
p
·
Shadwell Quarter Fann in an area reasonably agreeable to the Foundation, for
access to and from the Shadwell Easement Area for greenway trail
maintenance and for emergency purposes, provided that no activities
inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR or the
Deed of Easement from the Foundation to VOF shall be carried out within the
Shadwell Easement Area.
h. The Foundation shall not be responsible for the construction,
operation, maintenance, expense or policing of the Easement Areas as
portions of the County's Greenway Trail Park.
i. Upon the approval ofZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, employees,
agents and independent contractors of the County shall have reasonable access
to the Easement Areas for purposes of planning the greenway trail, provided
that no earth shall be disturbed, nor any vegetation cleared within the
Easement Areas without the prior consent of the Foundation, and provided
further that no activities inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the
Foundation to DHR or the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to VOF
shall be carried out within the Shadwell Easement Area.
·
j. The County shall notify the Foundation at least six (6) months prior to
disturbing any land within the Easement Areas. Upon such notice, the
Foundation will either cause a Phase I archeological study to be conducted at
its expense within the Easement Area proposed for disturbance if the
Foundation deems such a study necessary, or it will authorize the County to
move forward with such planned land disturbance.
k. The trail surface shall be not more than 10 feet wide within a clear
zone (12 feet wide and 8 feet high), shall be unpaved and shall utilize only
natural materials. The trail will be a "Class B" trail pursuant to County
standards.
1. The precise location of the trail within the Easement Areas will be
mutually agreed upon by the Foundation and the County.
m. Any construction, grading or other disturbance by the County within
the Shadwell Easement Area must be approved in advance in writing by DHR
with regard to any portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to
the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR, or VOF with regard to
any portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of
Easement from the Foundation to VOF.
·
n. The Foundation will be responsible for the administrative costs of
drafting the deeds of easement, the easement plats, any surveys of the
Easement Areas, and recordation costs.
3
,
·
o. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail
within the Lego Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's conveyance
of the easement thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years of the
conveyance, upon request by the Foundation, the County shall release all of its
interest in the easement, at no expense to the Foundation, unless the
Foundation and the County shall agree to another permissible use by the
County for the Easement Area.
p. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail
within the Shadwell Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's
conveyance of the easement thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years
of such conveyance, upon request by the Foundation, the County shall release
all of its interest in the easement, at no expense to the Foundation, unless the
Foundation and the County shall agree to another permissible use by the
County for the Easement Area.
q. If the County terminates the greenway trail program, upon request by
the Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the easements, at
no expense to the Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall
agree to another permissible use by the County for the Easement Areas.
·
r. When negotiating the deeds of easement pursuant to this paragraph I
of this proffer statement, the County and the Owner may mutually agree to
modify the terms and conditions hereof.
2. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the proposed Monticello Visitors
Center as shown on the Application Plan, the Owner shall make improvements
to the existing Monticello exit onto Route 53 as necessary to provide for the
turning movement of a "BUS-45" vehicle onto Route 53 without crossing the
opposing lane of traffic, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Albemarle County
Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
WITNESS the following signature:
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
·
4
,
·
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY/COUNTY OF ~o wit:
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I b ~ of
rY\rJ..u ,2005 by Daniel P. Jordan, as President of the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, ijî2'
My Commission eXPire~L. ~O, .2.ób7 @,d £ II ~tíJ/J
. otary Pubhc
·
·
5
..
·
Exhibit A
Application Plan
·
·
6
r
.
.
.
Exhibit B
Section 8.5.5.3 ofthe Zoning Ordinance in Effect on the date oftrus Proffer Statement
\ \REA \222243.6
7
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
.
community development; in making this determination, the zoning administrator shall be
guided by section 22.2.1 of this chapter;
c.
In addition to the foregoing, conformity with the application plan and the standards of
development. Within each neighborhood model zoning district, the general development plan
and the code of development, as determined by the director of planning and community
development after consultation with the zoning administrator.
(§ 8.5.6.2, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.2, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
8.5.5.3 VARIATIONS FROM APPROVED PLANS, CODES, AND STANDARDS OF
DEVELOPMENTS
The director of planning and community development may allow a site plan or subdivision plat for
a planned development to vary from an approved application plan, standard of development and,
also, in the case of a neighborhood model district, a general development plan or code of
development, as provided herein:
a. The director is authorized to grant a variation from the following provisions of an approved
plan, code or standard:
1. Minor variations to yard requirements, maximum structure heights and minimum lot
sizes;
2. Changes to the arrangement of buildings and uses shown on the plan, provided that the
major elements shown on the plan and their relationships remain the same;
.
3. Changes to phasing plans;
4. Minor changes to landscape or architectural standards; and
5. Minor variations to street design.
b. The applicant shall submit a written request for a variation to the director; the request shall
specify the provision of the plan, code or standard for which the variation is sought, and state
the reason for the requested variation; the director may reject a request that fails to include the
required information.
c. The director is authorized to grant a variation upon a determination that the variation: (1) is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan; (2) does not increase the
approved development density or intensity of development; (3) does not adversely affect the
timing and phasing of development of any other development in the zoning district; (4) does
not require a special use permit; and (5) is in general accord with the purpose and intent of the
approved application.
d. Any variation not expressly provided for herein may be accomplished by rezoning.
(§ 8.5.6.3, 12-10-80; 9-9-92; § 8.5.5.3, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
8.5.5.4 BUILDING PERMITS AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PERMITS
Building permits and erosion and sediment control permits may be issued as provided herein:
.
a. A building permit, including any special footings or foundation permits, may be issued for
any work within a planned development, excluding the installation of street signs, only after
18-8-6
Zoning Supplement #26, 3-19-03
,
MONTICELLO
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
THE LIMITS OF THE VARIOUS PROPERTIES
WHICH CONSTITUTE THE MONTICELLO
HISTORIC DISTRla (PD-MHD) AS SHOWN ON
THIS PLAN ARE BASED ON A COMBINATION
OF TAX MAP INFORMATION AND OTHER
LEGAL DOCUMENTATION SUCH AS PLATS
AND DEEDS, ALL SUPERIMPOSED OVER A
BASE OF TOPOGRAPHIC AND PHYSICAL
DATA. DUE TOTHE AGE OF THE NUMEROUS
SURVEYS AND INHERENT INACCURACIES IN
TAX MAPS THE LINES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN
ARE ONLY GENERAL REPRESENTATIONS OF
THE MHD DISTRIG.
Albemarle County, Virginia
.;¡¡¡m!U'"ill ¡!ili!J~œ~¡m¡!¡Ei:m:ili~.!¡""""'·'" ,"""",'"'" "",-"",-,,,,,-.--,,,,,..~,,
CITY OF
CHARLOTTESVI LLE
(&0 RAil
OTYOF
---.... (-IAR_QïESVll
~
~
~~~'"
,
'0
LAND USE SUMMARY
ZONE TOTAL OPEN SPACE
ACRES (IN AC.)
868 831
3"J:RIX..'/'~~;:----
"¡OSPITAL
, ~¢-
!-------~\ç,~
OF4
Owner:
The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 316
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
AP
OPEN SPACE
(IN%)
95.75
2. THE LAND USE SUMMARY INCLUDES
DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 21 ACRES IN
THE VISITORS CENTER AND SERVICE COMPLEX;
APPROXIMATELY 4 ACRES IN THE ADMINISTRATIV
COMPLEX; APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES ON THE
MOUNTAINTOP; AND APPROXIMATELY 2 ACRES
AT SHADWELL.
TOTAL:
1. THE NUMBERS ABOVE ARE APPROXIMATE AND
ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST WHOLE ACRE. TOTAL
SITE ACREAGE EQUALS 868 +1-.
-.--- --
-~._~ ------
7. THIS SITE IS NOT LOCATED WITHIN A RESERVOIR WATERSHED.
8. PART OF THIS SITE LIES WITHIN A DESIGNATED 1 OO-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN.
INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS PLAN WAS OBTAINED BY FEMA FLOOOWAY
MAP (PANEL245B), DATED 12-16-80.
9. PLAN INCLUDES SUCH TEMPORARY FACILITIES AS MAY BE REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN ONGOING OPERATIONS DURING CONSTRUŒON OF NEW FACILITIES.
Notes ~~~
1. ALL PROPOSED LOCATIONS FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS/RENOVATIONS/RE-
CREATIONS/EXPANSIONS ARE APPROXIMATE AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES
ONLY.
2. THIS PLAN IS PART OF THE ZMA 2004-05 REZONING APPLICATION.
3. DATUM: USGS
4. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM LOUISA AERIAL SURVEYS, MINERAL, VA,
DATED: 10/26/98.
5. BOUNDARY INFORMATION FROM PLATS OF RECORD LOCATED IN THE COUNTY
RECORDS ROOM AND FROM COUNTY TAX MAPS.
6. EXISTING ZONING: RURAL AREA IRA) PROPOSED ZONING: PLANNED DISTRla
MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRla (PD-MHD).
j
\ - --~
\\ ø~/
/
\ ~._-~ -j¿~
~--:..~/
MI ':<P'i) '--------/
UNE200S
~ Corwur'Ne"lal~'O
~
1000 ,nna
~m!m!m!im!mi!m!lb!~~
O. PLAN INCLUDES THE USE OF SEWERAGE SYSTEMS AS NEEDED AND AS
APPROVED BY THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
DOCUMENTATION OF DEMOLITIONS OR REMOVALS OF ENTIRE PERMANENT
STRuaURES SHALL FOLLOW THE JUNE 28, 2004 PO-MHO DOCUMENTATION
PLAN.
-~ @
Vicinity Map~
.
.
S'.I.'AFF OFFICES ¡,
S:I!I'litVICE
Proposed Alterations to
Existing Structures
Structures to be Removed
*Features indicated for ultimate removal may be modified prior to removaL
Paving to be Removed
.
.
VISITOR CENTER AREA
A - VISITOR &. HISTORY CENTI!It 48,750 SF
D - OUTIJOOI't CLASSROOM PAVILION
E - SHIJ'ITUì BUS PICE>UI' &. DROP-OfF
G - SERVICE BAY
11- ACC!1SSll!LE PARKING
1- mUR/SCHOOL BUS I'AJtKlNG (UPTO 25)
¡ - VEHlCULAJt PAJtKING cupm 400)
K - LANDSCAPE LINK TO DURJAL GROUND
L - EXISTING I!UlUAL GIIDUNDS
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS SERVICE AREA
M - OFFICES&. WORIíSIIDPS(UPI'ER FLOOR) 3,800 SF
N - EQ1JJPMENT SERVICEMYS (LOWER FLOOR) 3.800 SF
0- GENERAL STOltWE WILDING 2,400 SF
I' - SOILS STORAGE &. MIXING AJtEA
Q- FUELING STATION
It - GREENHOUSE
S - GIŒENIIDUSESUPPORT
T - GROUNDS OFfiCES
U - FLAT BEDS
V - STAFF PAIOONG (UPTO 50)
W - SERVICE MYS(2)
X-GARDEN STORAGE
3.400 SF
75i1SF
2,700 SF
2,000 SF
700 SF
.
.
.
.
.
Phone (434) 296-5832
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
File
David B. Benish, Chief of Planning
April 25, 2005
ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05 Monticello Historic District (MHD)
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 12, 2005, by a vote of 5:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to the
Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission recommended approval of ZMA 2004-05 with proffers
along with the five waivers as requested by the applicant and including engineering conditions (Staff
Report Attachment G).
The Board is scheduled to hold public hearings on both items at its June 8, 2005 meeting. An updated
staff report will be provided in the near future.
DBB/aer
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Rebecca Ragsdale
April 12, 2005
June 8, 2005
ZT A 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05 Monticello Historic District
.
APplicant's Proposal: The applicant, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., has requested a
Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to establish a planned district called the
Monticello Historic District (MHO). The site is currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated for
Rural Area land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed district would include
approximately 868 acres. (Attachment A) Monticello and the activities associated with its
operation as a historic house museum and educational center are not in compliance with the
zoning ordinance and are non-conforming uses. The proposed MHO would bring these existing
uses into compliance with the zoning ordinance and allow for improved facilities. The Foundation
is not proposing to introduce new activities but would continue the land uses that have been
taking place, including education programs, research, and visitor facilities. A new visitor's center,
service center, administrative campus, and restoration to the Monticello mountain top are
planned with this application. The Foundation believes that the visitor experience will be
enhanced as a result of these changes. The Foundation does not anticipate visitor growth, as a
result of these changes, beyond what would normally be expected to occur.
The Foundation intends to remove 20th Century additions surrounding the Monticello mansion,
including the gift shop, offices, and restrooms which are currently located in a historic building
known as Weayer's Cottage, as well as remove offices from the basement and upper floors of
Monticello. The Foundation plans to relocate these uses to less obtrusive locations at lower
elevations and as far from the historic house and structures as possible. The Administrative
Campus would be located on a site on the south side of Route 53 adjacent to Kenwood. A new
visitor's center and parking area would replace the existing facilities. A building and grounds
service area is planned in areas where existing facilities are located, further down the mountain
from the visitor's center area, near Route 53.
A binder containing details of the application background and ZT A and ZMA requests was
provided to you in April 2004. With the resubmittal of this application on February 28, 2005,
another bound notebook (Attachment B) of information was provided to you reflecting any
changes from the original application. (Please remember to bring these materials to the meeting
on Apri/12, 2005)
.
Petitions: ZT A 2004-03 - Monticello Historic District (MHO) - This zoning text amendment
would establish a new zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and
structures associated with Monticello by amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in
the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts; amending Section 7, Establishment of Districts;
amending Section 8.1, Intent; amending Section 8.2, Relation of Planned Development
Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3, Planned Development
Defined; amending Section 8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11, Monticello
Historic District, MHO; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The
amendment to Section 4.15.8 would add the MHO as a district subject to that section. The
amendment to Section 7 would add the MHO as a district subject to that section and re-
order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to Section 8.1 would add the MHO as a
district subject to that section and revise the purposes of planned deyelopment districts.
The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a requirement
\'IOlHiccllo 7\1:\ 2004-05 alld 7T!\ 2()(i-I-()~
:\pril 5. 2005
1
of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained, and revise the findings
required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Section 8.3 would revise
the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as
the MHD from certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Section 8.4 would allow
planned historic districts such as the MHD that contain and pertain to a historic site to exist
in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of
Section 11 and its subparts would establish the MHD as a zoning district, state its intent and
purpose, identify its status as a planned development district, and establish permitted uses
and associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The proposed MHD zoning
district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic
house museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and
administratiye facilities; temporary eyents; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and
agricultural, residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the
Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district regulations also would require that
deyelopment be preceded by an application plan approyed by the County, and otherwise be
subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of the Zoning Ordinance. The density for new residential
development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres.
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - Request to rezone approximately 868
acres from the Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZT A
2004-03), to allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and
administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and
agricultural, residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the
Rural Areas zoning district. The properties proposed for rezoning are within the Scottsyille
Magisterial District in the vicinity of Monticello, south of Interstate 64 and east of Route 53,
and are identified more particularly as follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello), 23, 25,
28A, 28B, 29; and Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A. The Comprehensive Plan designates these
lands as Rural Area 4, and the general usage for Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses
supportive of the character of the rural area, including agricultural and forestal uses, land
preservation, conservation, and resource protection. No residential density range is
specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential development authorized in the
MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. A copy of the map showing
the lands to be rezoned by this amendment is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Deyelopment, County Office Building, 401
Mcintire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Character of the Area: The majority of the area surrounding the proposed Monticello Historic
District is rural in character, with larger parcels intact and substantial open space surrounding the
project areas. Most parcels adjoining the district are also owned by the Foundation and are under
conservation easement. Natural features include substantial wooded portions surrounding the
Monticello mansion and the Rivanna River bisects the MHD between Shadwell and the
Monticello Home Farm tract. There is a residence (Pippen) adjoining the visitor center area to the
east. Adjacent to the proposed Administrative Campus is the Robert H. Smith International
Center for Jefferson Studies and the Jefferson Library, both located at Kenwood. The Shadwell
portion of the MHD is under two easements and adjoins Route 250 (Richmond Road); there are
commercial and industrial uses adjacent to that property. Other historic uses are located in the
vicinity of the Monticello Historic District, including Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn.
Plannina and Zonina Historv: Construction of Monticello began in 1769 and the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation acquired the property in 1923. Since that time, the Foundation has
operated the property as a museum. As part of the 1980 comprehensive downzoning of the
County, Monticello was zoned Rural Areas (RA). No land use was established within the RA
\Iollticcllu 7\1.,\ 2()(J-!-():, cllld IT \ 2(1!J-I-(l3
\pili '. 2(111:'
2
.
Zoning District during that rezoning that accommodated the Foundation's activities, which
resulted in Monticello's non-conforming use status. After a facilities planning process in 1999,
which identified a four-campus vision for Monticello, the Foundation began working with the
County on a zoning amendment to bring Monticello into compliance and to allow for new facilities.
Applications ZT A 2000-02, ZT A 2000-8, and ZMA 2001-10 were the first applications attempting
to address Monticello's non-conforming uses. At the time of those applications, new facilities
were planned for the Blue Ridge Hospital site on Route 53 and Route 20. (This site is no longer a
viable option for the Foundation's facilities.) A work session was held with the Planning
Commission in August 2001 where comments were provided to the Foundation. After the work
session, the Foundation decided to reyisit the application and its facilities needs to provide a
more detailed application. This resulted in the submittal of the ZMA and ZT A applications
currently under reyiew and withdrawal of all previous applications. The applications currently
requested for approval were originally submitted in April 2004. The Planning Commission held a
work session on these applications June 8, 2004 and a public hearing was scheduled for July 27,
2004. The applicant's requested that their ZMA and ZT A requests be deferred prior to that
meeting and the public hearing was not held. Since that time, the applicants and their team of
professionals have been working to refine the applications, which were resubmitted February 28,
2005. These refinements include improved building and site design with respect to terrain at the
Visitor Center complex. The reyised application also reflects that a significant portion of the
proposed MHO is now under easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
.
ZT A 2004-03: One of the key components of the proposed ZT A is that Monticello and its
associated activities are unique and necessitate different proYisions from other existing zoning
districts in the County's ordinance to meet their land use needs. Given this factor, and taking into
account comments made by the Planning Commission during reyiew of the preYious application
submittals regarding specificity of planned activities, a planned zoning district has been drafted in
accordance with Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The MHO provisions of the district address
both Monticello's historic and rural aspects and appropriate uses of the RA Zoning District have
been incorporated in the MHO. The revised version of the ZTA is attached for your reYiew.
(Attachment C).
Since the proposed Monticello Historic District and plans are submitted as a planned
development district, as allowed in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, an application plan is
required. This application plan specifies what site improvements will take place with this rezoning,
including general location and limits on building square footage. Any significant deviation from the
application plan would require approval of an amended rezoning application.
ZMA 2004-05: No major changes in building square footage or general location are proposed
with the resubmittal of this ZMA from its original version. The applicant is proposing major
improvements to three main project areas, within the MHO. These include the Monticello
Mountaintop, the Visitor's Center and Service area, and the Administrative Campus adjacent to
Kenwood. The fourth project area includes the Shadwell Quarter Farm, where minor
improvements are planned as the property is under easement with the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources and now also the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
.
Mountain TOD lAP 2 of 4): Main improyements to this project area include removal of staff offices
and service structures which are located along the second roundabout, allowing for restoration of
the roundabout and possibly future historic interpretation. The Foundation hopes to restore the
house and grounds on the mountain top to their Jefferson-era appearance to the greatest extent
possible without modern intrusions. There will be a need for restrooms, utilities, and some service
parking, which would be moved to more appropriate locations during the restoration project. It is
not expected that all improvements proposed with this ZMA plan will be completed
simultaneously, but will be phased according to the Foundation. With the recent resubmittal, the
\\p1\ticcl\u 7\1/\ 21í114-o5 ;lIld 7T\ 21104-1!'
.\pri\ 5. :!(!l15
3
Mountaintop plan has been revised to clarify that the staff offices and service structures located
along the second roudabout will have to remain until the new Building and Grounds Service Area
can be completed.
Visitor's Center/BuildinQ Grounds and Service Area CAP 3 of 4): The visitor's center project area
currently consists of a shuttle shelter, an open air garden shop, a luncheonette, a slave cemetery,
and approximately 400 parking spaces. The service area is located further down the mountain,
closer to Route 53, and consists of a fueling station, a warehouse, and two existing houses used
for office space. The square footage of proposed buildings is the roughly the same as the
previous yersion of this ZMA, approximately 19,500 total for Building and Grounds service center
complex and 48,750 total for Visitors Center complex. The applicant is proposing to construct an
improved yisitor center that will consist of five interconnected buildings to include a museum
shop, café, exhibits, and classrooms. These will be proposed in the same location as the existing
shuttle station. The architects have now chosen several smaller buildings to better fit the
topography the site and will result in less tree clearing. An outdoor classroom paYilion is now
proposed in the wooded area adjacent to the Visitor Center to the north. The parking lot will not
be regarded as was preYiously proposed. This will leave the existing parking lot and trees intact.
The landscape link from the new visitor's center to the slave burial grounds to create a linear park
will be provided. The revised building and parking plan will result in far less tree clearing and
grading than was previously proposed. This plan was reyised following engineering comments to
include an additional note regarding stormwater management. (Attachment D)
In the Building Grounds and Service area, the applicant is proposing to construct office and work
shop spaces, a greenhouse, equipment bays, and to provide for staff parking. This area has also
been slightly redesigned based on better topographic information. The applicant is proposing a
total building area of 20,000 square feet for buildings constructed in this area. Although not highly
yisible from Route 53, the service area is located within the Entrance Corridor Oyerlay District
and will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board prior to any building construction.
Administrative Campus: CAP 4 of 4): There were no changes to the Administratiye Campus plan
with the resubmittal of this application. The 5.5 acre site is located to the west of Kenwood and
currently consists of a dwelling and seyeral outbuildings. It is not used by the Foundation at this
time for any uses related to Monticello. The Foundation is proposing a 27,121 square foot
building, or mass of several buildings, for office space, meeting rooms, archeological labs,
storage, and support space with a total of 86 parking spaces. It is envisioned that the new
building(s) will have a connection to Kenwood. VDOT has recommended that access to this site
be through shared entrance with Kenwood, instead of creating another entrance onto Route 53.
The applicant has indicated they have studied this option as to its feasibility and have provided a
note on the application plan (AP-4) that indicates the entrance will be shared. This project area is
also located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay district and will require further review by the
Architectural Review Board.
Shadwell: The 277 acre Shadwell Quarter Farm is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson and
includes several modern structures including a barn and shed. The Foundation has limited
historic interpretation plans for Shadwell as permitted by the Department of Historic Resources
and VOF easements (found in the Appendix of Attachment B). The application plan specifies that
improvements at the site will be limited to interpretative trails, a maximum of 3,000 square feet of
building area for a visitor shelter, 1,000 square feet for restrooms, and any road/entrance
improvements needed. A proffer (Attachment E) pertaining to the County's greenway has been
submitted for the Shadwell property to further Comprehensive Plan goals for the greenway and
trails system. A greenway easement will be dedicated on portions of the Shadwell property that
are contiguous to the Rivanna River on the north side and are part of the 1 OO-year flood plain.
\¡c'l;rlcl'llu 1\1.\ 2!1I1~~-()) ~l:ld IT \ 2(1í.!-+-1'-'
:\11]'11 ,_ 2(111)
4
.
By-riÇlht Use of the Property: If developed under the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning, the
property could be developed with agricultural uses, forestal uses, or residential development at
allowed densities, subject to easement restrictions. The current Monticello operations are non-
conforming and any further expansions or new facilities are not permitted under the Zoning
Ordinance regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rural Area: The Guiding Principles of the Rural Area Plan are not compromised with this
proposed application but have been incorporated into this proposal as it helps to further
preserve unique natural, scenic, and cultural resources not found elsewhere in the County,
and unique to Virginia and the World. In addition, the proposed MHO zoning district will
have reduced deyelopment potential with the VOF easement affecting a large portion of the
MHO district. The land placed under easement totals 1, 060 acres and includes
approximately 418 acres of the "Home Farm" adjacent to the Monticello mountain, the 560
acre Tutton property southeast of Monticello, and approximately 80 acres along the Rivanna
River.
.
Historic Preservation Plan: The goals of protecting historic resources, recognizing their value,
pursuit of additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and
archeological resources are all being achieved through this proposed rezoning. It is suggested in
the Comprehensive Plan that an important strategy to further the historic preservation goals of
the County is to adopt a historic district overlay ordinance that would recognize and protect
historic and archeological resources, including individual sites and districts, on the local level.
The County's Historic Preservation Planner has commended Monticello on their application and
has indicated that the MHO may serve as a model for future historic zoning in the County.
(Attachment F)
Open Space Plan and Mountain Protection Plan: Monticello is an identified mountain resource in
the Mountain Protection Plan. This rezoning does not cause substantial new disturbance of the
mountain and actually removes obtrusive modern day structures from the ridge/mountain top
area. No negative impacts to scenic resources are anticipated with this proposed rezoning,
including the Riyanna River, which is designated as a Virginia State Scenic River from Woolen
Mills to the Fluvanna County line.
Greenways and Trails Plan: Through this project, the goal of a countywide network of greenway
trails is furthered with the dedication of an easement along the Rivanna River on the Shadwell
property. The Riyanna River from the Ivy Creek Natural area to Fluvanna County is specifically
identified as a location for river and stream trials in the Rural Area. This will provide a trail along
one of the only two State Scenic Rivers in the County.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoninÇl
district
The Foundation is requesting to rezone to a zoning district specifically crafted to accommodate
the needs of Monticello as a unique historic resource but also recognizes its location with in the
Rural Area of the County. The application is entirely consistent with the purpose and intent of the
proposed zoning text amendment.
.
\:('l1tìcl'llo /\1\ 2004-115 ;md 7T.\ 2ii(!4-(I.i
\¡>ri I ~. 20( I.~
5
Public need and iustification for the chanae
This application will provide the chance to improve the visitor's experience to Monticello and
provide for improved historic preservation efforts through removal of modern structures from the
mountain top and administrative office located inside the mansion. As the applicant indicates, it
may also extend the length of time visitors of Monticello remain in Albemarle County and would
therefore increase the tourism dollars into the local economy. Monticello is not only a tourist
destination, but an educational and historic resource to the local community.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that has been
reviewed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for impacts to Route 53
(Thomas Jefferson Parkway). While the TIA did not indicate a significant increase in vehicle
trips associated with the rezoning request, as there will not be an increase in visitation or
employees, VDOT has identified the following safety concerns with Route 53:
· Monticello Property - The existing exit needs to be upgraded to improve the sight distance for
the large bus traffic leaving the site;
· Proposed Administrative Office Entrance - Recommend connecting to roadway into the
Kenwood property and utilize their existing entrance. The existing entrance can be closed to
minimize access points, and maintain the natural corridor Route 53 presents.
· Entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Commercial Entrance Standards.
The applicant has been responsive to these concerns from VDOT and has placed a note on
the application plan to indicate that the entrance to the Administratiye Campus will be
combined with Kenwood and during the site plan process it will be designed and approved by
VDOT. The applicant has provided a proffer (Attachment E) indicating that the exit from the
Monticello Visitor's Center onto Route 53 will be upgraded to allow for improved vehicle
turning onto Route 53 from Monticello's exit.
Water and Sewer: The Monticello mountain complex (AP 2 of 4 and 3 of 4) is the only
portion of the proposed project area located within the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA) Jurisdictional Area and is designated for water service only. The ACSA indicates
current water service to the property, including the Monticello mansion and Visitors Center.
The Administrative Campus would be supplied water by an on-site well. The water facility
analysis provided by the applicant indicates that both sites should have adequate capacity to
serve the proposed uses, including under fire flow scenarios.
No portions of the project area are located within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for sewer
service. The applicant has proposed to serve the Administrative Campus and Visitor's Center
with an advanced wastewater treatment plant combined with drip irrigation disposal. The drip
irrigation system is preferred as it can be installed to follow contours and can be place at
more shallow depths (6-12"). Any proposed central systems will require approval by the
Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission must also review the request to ensure that
it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by the Code of Virginia §15.2-
2232. The issue of central systems will be addressed separately, after further study and staff
review of detailed system design specifications have been submitted.
Schools: There are no anticipated impacts to the County's school systems as this project will
not include residential components or result in additional school children.
\[¡.1111ìcl'lj'l j \\.\ 2!)(j-J.-{)~ ~\i1d iT \ ~()(}4-j)3
6
\¡~:·í~ 5. :fì(l:-;
.
Stormwater Management --The applicant has provided a stormwater analysis as part of
their application which demonstrates that County requirements regarding both stormwater
quantity and quality can be met. The system that will be used will combine traditional
stormwater management techniques with a low impact development approach. This
approach will include the use of bio-retention in the form of rain gardens. Engineering staff
has reviewed the applicant's analysis and provided favorable comments. (Attachment G)
Fiscal impact on public facilities--It is not expected that this rezoning request will result in
any negative fiscal impacts to public facilities. Monticello provides positive impacts to the
local economy, through the employment it provides and the travel expenditures associated
with visitors to the museum. In December 2001, The Weldon Cooper Center for Public
Service released a study, Monticello's Economic Impact on the Charlottesville-A/bemarle
Area, which quantified the local economic impact of Monticello. Major findings of this report
indicated that Monticello generates state and local tax revenues through the activities
associated with the Foundation; nearly half of Monticello's visitors choose to stay oyemight in
the area; and even though Monticello itself employs around 300 people, its overall impact to
employment is greater and is equivalent to around 900 people.
Anticipated impact on natural. cultural. and historic resources
.
Monticello is listed on the Virginia Landmarks (State) and National Register of Historic Places and
is designated as a National Historic Landmark, the highest national recognition category for
historic resources. Most notably, Monticello is on the United Nations Education, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List. Impacts to Monticello are expected to be
positive. This application will allow the relocation of modern intrusions from the mountaintop to
more appropriate sites. The applicant will be able to heighten restoration efforts through this
rezoning application and eventual completion of the application plans. The applicant has
indicated that impacts on natural resources will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. The
Visitor's Center and Service Center will be constructed in areas where tree clearing has already
occurred. The majority of the project will remain in open space and oyer 95% of the project area
will not be disturbed, which is 831 of the 868 acres included with this application.
Proffers: As part of this rezoning request the Foundation has provided a proffer statement
(Attachment E) to address review comments that could not be provided for on the Application
Plan. The terms of the Greenway easement are included in the proffer, as well as provisions for
the improyement of the existing Monticello exit onto Route 53. These proffers are in a final form
and haye been reviewed by the County Attorney and approyed by the applicant, however they
have not been signed by the owners/applicant.
To address comments made by the historic preservation planner, a documentation plan has
been provided to ensure that the demolition, removal, or relocation of permanent structures will
be recorded. A note referring to these documentation procedures has been provided on the
Application Plan (AP 1 of 4).
Waiver Reauests:
.
The applicant has identified several waiyers to Zoning Ordinance requirements that will be
necessary to fully implement the application plan submitted with this ZMA. Applicant justification
and need for these waivers has been provided in the new submittal notebook (Attachment B)
along with exhibits in section C of the notebook. Planning Commission approval of the waivers for
Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 is needed.
\Ic'micc']lu l\! \ --'OIP-II:') ~mci l r.\ --'110-1-113
.\ i'ri I ". --'i II I:'
7
Section 4.2.3.2 -- Critiæl Slopes: Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-
disturbing activity on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning
Commission to waive this restriction upon finding that a strict application of this provision would
not forward the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. This waiver is needed primarily in the new
parking areas to serve the Building and Grounds Service Area (Exhibit "Non-conforming Slopes"
in Attachment B). Engineering staff has commented (Attachment G) on this waiver and
recommends approval with a condition:
Additional erosion control measures will be required with newly constructed slopes, to include
matting, wire-reinforced silt fence, sediment traps, and other measures as may be necessary, at
the discretion of the county engineer.
Section 21.7.3 - Minimum Yard Requirements for Commercial Districts: Section 21.7.3 specifies
that within the buffer zone adjacent to rural and residential districts, no construction activity
including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer that 20 feet to any residential or rural
areas district. The Planning Commission may waiye this requirement if it has been demonstrated
that grading and clearing is necessary or would result in improved site design, provided that
minimum screening requirements are met and the existing landsæping in excess of minimum
requirements is substantially restored. This buffer is needed for grading in the setback on the side
property lines at the Administrative æmpus property, which is somewhat narrow and adjoins
Foundation owned property on one side and a use similar to that proposed for it with Kenwood to
the east. The "Grading in Setback" exhibit included in the waivers package has been revised to
show that this waiver is needed on both side property lines. (Attachment H) Planning and
engineering staff are in support of this waiyer.
Section 4.12.15.c - slopes for parkina areas and Section 4.12.17.a - arades for
driyewavs/trayelwav slopes
The Zoning Administrator is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance to grant these waivers which are
not necessary for existing site conditions. The appliænt has requested approval for these waivers
with this ZMA appliætion but Zoning staff has indiæted that it would be more appropriate to
review and approve any requests for this at the site plan stage.
Section 4.12.15.Q-to eliminate curb and autter reauirementso
The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to
accommodate stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the
Rural Areas (RA) zoning district. The Comprehensive Plan suggests ayoiding these more
urban requirements for Rural Area sites. This request has been reyiewed by engineering
staff and approval is recommended.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning
request:
1. This proposal will result in improved facilities for visitors of Monticello and also the
Foundation's employees.
2. The Monticello exit onto Route 53 will be improved, proYiding a safer roadway for all
users.
3. No new entrances on to Route 53 will be created with the development of the
Administrative æmpus, which will share access with Kenwood.
4. Monticello has positive fisæl impacts and this proposal will not result in any burden on
public facilities.
\k'11ticcllo 7\1'\ 2110-+-0) ;:ml FI ,\ 200-+-0_,
.\pril '.20(1)
8
.
.
.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends
approval of ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, along with the waivers of Section 4.2.3.2 and
Section 21.7.3 as requested by the applicant and including engineering conditions
(Attachment G).
A IT ACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Notebook titled: Monticello Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment
Applications, February 28, 2004 (This was provided to you by the applicant. If you do
not have a copy please let me know so that one can be provided to you. Please
remember to bring this notebook to the meeting.)
C. Zoning Text Amendment, April 1 , 2005
D. ReYised Application Plan, AP 3 Of 4, Visitor Center Area
E. Proffer Statement
F. Historic Preservation Planner Comments
G. Engineering Comments, dated March 14, 2005
H. Revised Grading in Setback exhibit March 28, 2005
I. Proposed Visitor Center Building Elevation and Section with Key
\llm:icc'llo 7\1\ 211114-0" and ?T:\ 21104-0,\
'\plii ".21105
9
ATTACHMENT A
~
~.~
"
~,
11.\
-i~\
-,
to
N
'"
,
'--
~
N
'"
~
Z
Z
Oan
NO
WO
a::~
00
...J~
...J'
We(
u::E
¡::N
z
o
::E
c
; -¡
c u..
'"
...
c
\
)
."
:¡
<
o
~
t!:c::
e ·2
.!t
~ Ii
î .~;
î!~ II
8~g~a
-!ON¡1:
~tlji
~ ~~ ¡ a
z~1e:
~~~~~
.. III U ". Q
l~lii
'.
to
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT C
Draft: U4/U1IU5
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS,
AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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
18, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the
County of Albemarle is amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.8
Sec. 7
Sec. 8.1
Sec. 8.2
Sec. 8.3
Sec. 8.4
By Adding:
Sec. 11.1
Sec. 11.2
Sec. 11.3
Sec. 11.3.1
Sec. 11.3.2
Sec. 11.4
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Establishment of districts
Intent
Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Planned development defined
Where pennitted
Intent and purpose, where pennitted
Status as a planned development district
Pennitted uses
By right
By special use pennit
Regulation of development
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD. RA, VR, R-l and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs pennitted per lot or
establishment, the sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for
which a sign pennit is required within the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA),
Village Residential (VR) and Residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback
Allowed (Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 10 feet
as authorized bv zoninll administrator
I per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot 24 square feet, aggregated;
with 100 or more feet of continuous street if more than 1 sign, no 10 feet 10 feet
Freestanding frontage, plus I per lot if the lot is greater than single sign shall exceed 12
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance sq uare feet
1
~ \
o
Draft: 04/01/05
on its frontage
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated, 6 feet 5 feet
per entrance
10 feet, if freestanding
Temporary 1 per street 24 square feet sign; 20 feet, if wall 10 feet
frontage per establishment sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
40 square feet, aggregated
Wall As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20 in the RA zoning district; 20 feet Same as that
20 square feet, aggregated, applicable to
in other zoniDl! districts structure
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01)
State law reference- Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 7 Establishment of districts
For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided
into the following districts:
Commercial District - C-l
Commercial Office - CO
Entrance Corridor - EC (Added 10-3-90)
Heavy Industry - HI
Highway Commercial - HC
Light Industry - LI
Monticello Historic District - MHD
NeÍl:!hborhood Model - NMD
Overlay Districts:
Airport Impact Area - AlA
Flood Hazard - FH
Natural Resource Extraction - NR
Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92)
Neighborhood Model NMD
Entrance Corridor EC V~dded 10 3 90)
Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD- IP
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial- PD-MC
Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC
Planned Residential Development - PRD
Planned Unit Development - PUD
Residential - R-l
Residential- R-2
Residential - R-4
Residential - R-6
Residential - R-l 0
Residential - R -15
Rural Areas - RA
2
It[.
v
Draft: 04/01105
.
Village Residential- VR
(§ 7.0, 12-10-80; § 7, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.1 Intent
The planned development districts are the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Planned
Residential Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD),
Planned Development - Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers
(PDSC), and Planned Development - Industrial Park (PD- IP) zoning districts. Each of these
districts is distinct in purpose; however, all are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in
design necessary to implement the various goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan.
Through a planned development approach, the regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish
the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a greater extent than the regulations of
conventional districts. In addition, these regulations are intended to promote: economical and
efficient land use through unified development; improved levels of amenities; appropriate and
hannonious physical development; creative design; and a better environment than generally realized
through conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned
development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned development approach in
areas appropriate in tenns of location and character.
.
Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and
convenience of residents or visitors; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding
lands. neighborhoods and the ad] acent rural areas; and to lessen traffic impacts through a
reasonably short travel time between origins and destinations of persons living, working, or visiting
in such developments. Housing, commercial and service facilities, and places of employment shall
be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street networks so as to promote these
objectives.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2),3-19-03)
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned
development districts.
.
If any regulation in section 8 or the specific plarJ1ed deyelopment district conflicts with any
regulation in sections 4, 5 or 32 of this chapter, an An applicant may request that any requirement of
sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development district regulations be waived or modified if it is
found to be inconsistent with planned development design principles and that the waiver or
modification is consistent with the intent and oumoses of the olanned develooment district under
the oarticular circumstances. If the aoolicant reauests such a waiver or modification as oart of the
aoolication olan. +!he applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the application, and
shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public health,
safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the
original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification.
Notwithstanding any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a
waiver or modification, any reauest for such a waiver or modification to a regulation applicable to a
3
1'3
L---
Draft: 04/01/05
planned development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Nothinl! in
this section Drohibits an owner within a Dlanned develoDment from reQuestinl! a waiver or
modification of anv reQuirement of sections 4. 5 and 32 at anv time. under the urocedures and
reQuirements established therefor. In addition to the makinl! the findinl!s reQuired for the !!rantinl!
of a waiver or modification in sections 4. 5. and 32. such a waiver or modification mav be !!ranted
onlv if it is also found to be consistent with the intent and Durooses of the Dlanned develoDment
district under the Darticular circumstances. and satisfies all other aDDlicable reQuirements of section
8.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land
is under unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in
general accord with one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all Dlanned develoDment
districts other than a Dlanned historic district. the development will provide, operate and maintain
common areas, facilities and improvements for some or all occupants of the development where
these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Sec. 8.4 Where permitted
A planned development district may be established in any development area identified in the
comprehensive plan, and in anv rural area identified in the comurehensive Dlan if the district is a
Dlanned historic district containinl! a historic site and the Durooses of the district include the
restoration. ureservation. conservation and enhancement of the historic site. provided that its
location is suitable for the character of the proposed uses and structures.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
Section 11
Monticello Historic District. MHD
Sec. 11.1 Intent and DurDose. where oermitted
The intent and Duroose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as
"MHD") is to create a Dlanned historic district:
_ To Dermit restoration. ureservation. conservation. education. uro!!rams. research and
business activities related to the oDeration of a historic house museum and historic site at
Monticello.
_ To uromote the Dreservation and enhancement of a uniQue historical site:
- To ureserve silmificant tracts of arncultural and forestal land:
4
[4
.
.
.
c
Draft: 04/01105
- To be a district that is uniQue to those Darcels which both belonæd to Thomas Jefferson and
contain uses related to the oDeration ofthe historic site. in recoenition of:
the imDortance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County.
the imDortance of Monticello to the reDutation. education. and economy of
Albemarle County:
Monticello as a uniQue element of the historical and architecturalle!!acv of
Albemarle County. the nation. and the world. as recoenized bv its inclusion on the
World Herita!!e List administered bv the United Nations Educational. Scientific. and
Cultural Of!!anization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscaDe features. and their
subseQuent intemretive use. shall be re!!Ulated only to the extent necessary to Drotect Dublic health
and safety.
Sec. 11.2 Status as a Dlanned develoDment district
The MHD is a Dlanned develoDment district within the meanin!! of section 8 ofthis chaDter.
and shall not be construed to be an a!!ricultural zonin!! district or a district in which a!!ricultural.
horticultural or forestal uses are dominant.
Sec. 11.3 Permitted uses
The followin!! uses shall be Dermitted in the MHD. subiect to the re!!Ulations in this section
and section 8 ofthis chaDter. the aDDroved aDDlication Dlan. and any acceDted Droffers:
Sec. 11.3.1 Bv riQ'ht uses
The followin!! uses shall be Dermitted bv ri!!ht in the MHD:
1. Uses relatin!! to the oDeration of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic
site as follows:
a. Intemretative. educational and research uses such as tours: intemretive
siens. walkin!! Daths. disDlavs and exhibits: classes. workshoDs. lectures.
DrOlITams and demonstrations: field schools and history-related day
camDS: and archaeolo!!icallaboratories.
b. Administrative and SUDDOrt activities includin!! visitor ticketin!! and shuttle
bus oDerations. maintenance oDerations. eQuiDment stora!!e. vehicle
maintenance and refuelin!!. security and æneral administration. and
related SUDDort SDaces and offices.
c.
Visitor amenities includin!!: Darkin!! lots: travelwavs: Dublic restrooms:
food and drink DreDaration and vendin!!: Dicnic areas: walkin!! Daths and
Dedestrian bridæs.
5
1C)
c·
Draft: 04/01/05
d. Disulay and sale of Droducts related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Other uses not eXDressly delineated in subsection l( a) throul!h (d)
authorized by the zoninl! administrator after consultation with the director of
ulanninl! and other aUDrouriate officials: Droyided that the use shall be
consistent with the exuress UUfDose and intent of the MHD. similar to the
uses delineated in this subsection in character. locational reauirements.
ouerational characteristics. visual imuact. and traffic I!eneration.
2. Temuorary events related to or suuuortiye of the historic. educational or civic
sÜmificance of Monticello. such as. but not limited to the Naturalization
Ceremony on the Fourth of July. Thomas Jefferson's Birthday celebration.
summer sueakers series. Dresidential inaul!Ural events. and commemorative events
similar to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
3. Disulayand sale of I!ifts. souvenirs. crafts. food. and horticultural and arncultural
Droducts. inc1udinl! outdoor storal!e and disulay of horticultural and arncultural
Droducts. inc1udinl! wayside stands for disulay and sale of arncultural
Droducts Droduced on the Dremises (reference 5.1.19),
4. Establishment and chanl!es to structures shown on the aUDroved auulication ulan:
a. Modification. imDroyement. exuansion. or demolition of "modem structures"
existinl! on the effective date of this section 11.
b. Modification. imDroyement. re-creation. or restoration (inc1udinl! exuansion)
of "historic or interoretiye structures."
c. Establishment of "new Drimary structures or features" identified as such on
the aUDroved auulication ulan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached sinl!le-family dwellinl!s. inc1udinl! I!uest cottal!es and rental of the
same.
7. Side-by-side duulexes: Drovided that density is maintained and uroyided that
buildinl!s are located so that each unit could be Drovided with a lot meetinl! all
other reauirements for detached sinl!le-family dwellinl!s exceut for side yards at
the common wall. Other two-family dwellinl!s shall be uennitted Drovided
density is maintained.
8. Arnculture. forestry. and fishery uses exceut as otherwise eXDressly Drovided.
9. Game Dreserves. wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
6
¡(o
.
~
Draft: 04/01105
10.
Electric. Ilas. oil and communication facilities exc1udinll tower structures and
inc1udinll no1es. lines. transfonners. nines. meters and related facilities for
distribution of local service and owned and onerated bv a nublic utility. Water
distribution and seweralle collection lines. numninll stations and annurtenances
owned and onerated bv the Albemarle County Service Authoritv. Excent as
otherwise eXDresslv Drovided. central water sunnlies and central seweralle systems
in confonnance with Chanter 16 ofthe Code of Albemarle and all other annlicable
laws.
11. Accessorv uses and structures inc1udinll home occunation. Class A (reference 5.2)
and storalle buildinlls.
12. Temnorarv construction uses (reference 5.1.18),
13. Public uses and buildinlls includinll temnorarv or mobile facilities such as schools.
offices. narks. nlavllrounds and roads funded. owned or onerated bv local. state or
federal allencies (reference 31.2.5): nublic water and sewer transmission. main or
trunk lines. treatment facilities. numninll stations and the like. owned and/or onerated
bv the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authoritv (reference 31.2.5: 5.1.12),
14. Temnorarv sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subiect to Derfonnance standards in
4.14),
. 15.
16.
17.
18.
Allricultural service occunation (subiect to nerfonnance standards in 4.14),
Divisions ofland in accordance with section 10.3.
Tourist lodllinll (reference 5.1.17),
Mobile homes. individual. Qualifvinll under the followinll reQuirements (reference
5.6):
a. A Dronertv owner residinll on the Dremises in a nennanent home wishes to
nlace a mobile home on such Dronertv in order to maintain a full-time
arncultural emnlovee.
b. Due to the destruction of a Dennanent home an emerllencv exists. A
nennit can be issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The
zoninll administrator shall be authorized to issue nennits in accordance
with the intent of this ordinance and shall be authorized to reQuire or seek
any infonnation which he may detennine necessarv in makinll a
detennination of cases "a" and "b" ofthe aforementioned uses.
19. Fann winery (reference 5.1.25),
.
20.
Borrow area. borrow nit. not exceedinll an all!ITellate volume of fifty thousand
(50.000) cubic yards includinll all borrow nits and borrow areas on any one narcel
of record on the adontion date of this Drovision (reference 5.1.28),
7
11
c/
Draft: 04/01105
21. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.03),
22. Stormwater manallement facilities shown on an aDDroved final site Dlan or
subdivision Dlat.
23. Tier I and Tier II Dersonal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40),
Sec. 11.3.2 Bv soecial use oermit
The followinll uses shall be Dermitted bv sDecial use DermÏt in the MHD:
1. Farm sales (reference Section 5.1.35),
2. Private helistoD (reference Section 5.1.0n.
3. Commercial fruit or arncultural Droduce Dackinll Dlants.
4. Flood control dams or imDoundments.
5. Concerts (such as Derformances bv the Charlottesville SvrnDhonv Orchestra and the
Charlottesville MuniciDal Bandt theater. and outdoor drama events ODen to the
Ileneral Dublic. not otherwise DermÏtted bv rillht under section 11.3.1(2),
6. Home occuDations Class B.
7. Boat landinlls and canoe livery.
Sec. 11.4 Re!!ulation of develooment
In order to Drotect the county's historic resources and the rural character of surroundinll
lands. all uses and structures shall be subiect to an aDDroved aDDlication Dlan. and to sections 4.5. 8
and 32 of this chaDter. inc1udinll such rellulations as may be waived or modified Dursuant to section
8.2. In addition:
a. Densitv. Densitv shall not exceed one dwellinll unit Der twenty-one (21) acres and
the minimum lot size shall be twenty-one (21) acres.
b. Structure heÌf!ht. The maximum structure heililit established in the standards for
develoDment reauired by section 8.5.1 (d)(11 ) of this chaDter shall not exceed forty-five (45) feet.
c. Yards. The minimum yards established in the standards for develoDment reauired bv
section 8.5.1(d)(11) of this chaDter shall not be less than the minimum yards Drovided in section
21.7. exceDt as otherwise Drovided on the aDDlication Dlan.
8
t6
.
.
.
c
Draft: 04/01/05
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _ to
, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Donier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
9
to¡
ATTACHMENT D
VISITOR CENTER A REA
A - VISITOU HISTORY CENTER 48.750 SF
D -OIJTOOOR CLASSROOM PAVlUON
E -SHUmE B¡;SPICK-UP& DROP-OFF
G-SERVlCEBAY
H -ACCESSIBLE PARKING
1- TOUR/SCHOOL BUS PARKING (UPTO 25)
J - VEHICULAR PARKING (UPTO 400)
K - LANDSCAPE LINK TO BURIAL GROUND
L . EXISTING BL;RJAL GROUNDS
~k:;;,,,,,,:,
t~;~;"t1.-,,-
~\ .::
;;:.- ::.....( ". - --; _11-
.~ bJ:ill -. : i. i
, 11 - ZMA 04-05 APPLICATION PLAN
Monttce 0
BUILDINGS & GROUNDS SERVICE AREA
M - OFFICES &. WORKSHOPS (UPPER FLOOR) 3.800 SF
N - EQUIPMENT SERVICE BAYS (LOWER FLOOR) 3.800 SF
O. GENERAL STORAGE Bl:ILDlNG 2,400 SF
P -SOILS STORAGE &. MIXING AREA
Q-FUEUNGSTATlON
R - GREENHOUSE
S-GREENHOUSESUPPORT
T -GROUNDS OFFICES
U - FLAT BEDS
V -STAFF PARKING (UPT050)
W -SERVICE BAYS (2)
X-GARDEN STORAGE
.c::i,.~,:~.;;{;.~,t:!~:::.~,~_.
Rummel. Klqp,·r. & KaM
civil Enginur.i
¡\{ îha¿ì Vag¡JSon
LwJ.'.(,¡pt A r.:hitat.'
3AOIISF
750SF
2.700 SF
2.000 SF
700 SF
AYlrs S~1ínr Gn1s.-, Inc
.4.rd/írects + Pl¡Jnlla~
- I
o 20 40 80 120
,',/\ARcr-: í8, Î'>,)~:
ED
(ZC
.
.
.
A' 'AGHMENT E
j-:L:;-U~
Draft
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
ZMA 04-05
PROFFER STATEMENT
The following parcels are subject to rezoning application ZMA 04-05 and thus to
this proffer statement: tax map parcels 78-22, 78-23, 78-25, 78-28A, 78-28B, 78-29, and
79-7A (the "Property"). The Applicant and Owner of the Property is the Thomas
Jefferson Foundation, Inc.
The Owner hereby voluntarily proffers that ifthe Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors acts to rezone the Property to Monticello Historic District as requested, the
Owner shall develop the Property in accord with the following proffers pursuant to
Section 15.2-2298 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, and pursuant to Section
33.3 ofthe Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. These conditions are voluntarily
proffered as part of the requested rezoning, and the Owner acknowledges that (1) the
rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. If rezoning application ZMA 04-05 is
denied these proffers shall immediately be null and void and of no further force and
effect.
This Proffer Statement shall relate to the application plan shown on sheets AP-1 through
AP-4, each dated February 28,2005, of the plans entitled "Monticello, Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc., Albemarle County, Virginia, Zoning Map Amendment Application
Plan, ZMA 04-05, February 28,2005," which sheets are attached hereto as Exhibit A (the
"Application Plan") and also to the tenns of Section 8.5.5.3 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as in effect on the date ofthis Proffer Statement, a copy of which
Section 8.5.5.3 is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
1. The Owner will convey easements on certain portions of the Property and on
tax map parcel 78-31A for incorporation of such easement areas into the
Rivanna River Greenway Trail Park, on the tenns and conditions contained
herein:
a. The Foundation shall convey easements to the County encumbering
the portions of tax map parcels 78-28B and 79-7 A (collectively, the "Shadwell
Quarter Fann") and 78-31A (the "Lego Quarter Fann") that are contiguous to
the Rivanna River and consist of the real property defined in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency national flood insurance maps as land
within the 100-year flood plain on the north side of the Rivanna River
(individually, the "Shadwell Easement Area," and the "Lego Easement Area,"
and collectively, the "Easement Areas") for the extension ofthe County's
Greenway Trail Park within the Easement Areas.
'2\
f
b. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Fann shall be conveyed after
an easement or land dedication is conveyed to the County for the County's
Greenway Trail Park by the owners of tax map parcel 78-33D for the
extension of the greenway trail through that parcel, upon the request of the
County and as soon thereafter as the Foundation can reasonably cause an
easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of easement in a form
reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County, and complete any
other administrative matters associated with such easement.
c. The easement on the Lego Quarter Fann will be conveyed within six
months after request by the County, or as soon thereafter as the Foundation
can reasonably cause an easement plat to be prepared, prepare the deed of
easement in a form reasonably agreeable to the Foundation and the County,
and complete any other administrative matters associated with such easement.
d. The easements would be subject to the terms of existing encumbrances
and easements of record, including, but not limited to, the Deed of Easement
conveyed to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources ("DHR") of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Albemarle County Circuit Court in Deed
Book 1970, page 412, and the Deed of Easement conveyed to the Virginia
Outdoors Foundation ("V OF") of record in the aforesaid Clerk's Office in
Deed Book 2894, page 76, each as applicable.
e. The easement on the Shadwell Quarter Fann shall be previously
approved in writing by DHR and/or VOF, as applicable, with regard to any
portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to the Deed of
Easement from the Foundation to DHR or the Deed of Easement from the
Foundation to VOF.
f. The Foundation may expressly reserve the following: (i) a right of
access for ingress and egress to and from the Easement Areas from other
parcels the Foundation owns for the benefit of the Foundation; (ii) an
easement for drainage from any of the Foundation's stormwater control
facilities through the Easement Areas; (iii) for riparian rights in the Rivanna
River for the benefit ofthe Foundation; (iv) the right to physically restrict
access by the public to other portions ofthe Shadwell Quarter Farm and the
Lego Quarter Farm, or any other parcels the Foundation owns, as may be
necessary or appropriate in the Foundation's discretion to protect any
historical artifacts or features on such parcels; and (v) for crossings of the
greenway trail and use of the Easement Areas outside of the greenway trail for
other purposes reasonably stipulated by the Foundation, including but not
limited to interpretation of historically significant areas that may be present
within the Easement Areas.
g. The Foundation may expressly reserve in the Shadwell Quarter Farm
deed of easement a right of access for the benefit of the County through the
2
"2;7,
E
.
Shadwell Quarter Fann in an area reasonably agreeable to the Foundation, for
access to and from the Shadwell Easement Area for greenway trail
maintenance and for emergency purposes, provided that no activities
inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR shall be
carried out within the Shadwell Easement Area.
h. The Foundation shall not be responsible for the construction,
operation, maintenance, expense or policing of the Easement Areas as
portions of the County's Greenway Trail Park.
i. Upon the approval ofZTA 2004-03 and ZMA 2004-05, employees,
agents and independent contractors of the County shall have reasonable access
to the Easement Areas for purposes of planning the greenway trail, provided
that no earth shall be disturbed, nor any vegetation cleared within the
Easement Areas without the prior consent of the Foundation, and provided
further that no activities inconsistent with the Deed of Easement from the
Foundation to DHR shall be carried out within the Shadwell Easement Area.
.
j. The County shall notify the Foundation at least six (6) months prior to
disturbing any land within the Easement Areas. Upon such notice, the
Foundation will either cause a Phase I archeological study to be conducted at
its expense within the Easement Area proposed for disturbance ifthe
Foundation deems such a study necessary, or it will authorize the County to
move forward with such planned land disturbance.
k. The trail surface shall be not more than 10 feet wide within a clear
zone (12 feet wide and 8 feet high), shall be unpaved and shall utilize only
natural materials. The trail will be a "Class B" trail pursuant to County
standards.
1. The precise location of the trail within the Easement Areas will be
mutually agreed upon by the Foundation and the County.
m. Any construction, grading or other disturbance by the County within
the Shadwell Easement Area must be approved in advance in writing by DHR
with regard to any portion of the Shadwell Easement Area which is subject to
the Deed of Easement from the Foundation to DHR.
n. The Foundation will be responsible for the administrative costs of
drafting the deeds of easement, the easement plats, any surveys of the
Easement Areas, and recordation costs.
.
o. If the County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail
within the Lego Quarter Farm within 20 years ofthe Foundation's conveyance
of the easement thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years of the
conveyance, upon request by the Foundation, the County shall release all of its
3
1--'
i'
t
.....
interest in the easement, at no expense to the Foundation, unless the
Foundation and the County shall agree to another pennissible use by the
County for the Easement Area.
p. lfthe County has not commenced construction of the greenway trail
within the Shadwell Quarter Farm within 20 years of the Foundation's
conveyance of the easement thereon, and completed such trail within 22 years
of such conveyance, upon request by the Foundation, the County shall release
all of its interest in the easement, at no expense to the Foundation, unless the
Foundation and the County shall agree to another pennissible use by the
County for the Easement Area.
q. lfthe County tenninates the Greenway trail program, upon request by
the Foundation, the County shall release all of its interest in the easements, at
no expense to the Foundation, unless the Foundation and the County shall
agree to another pennissible use by the County for the Easement Areas.
r. When negotiating the deeds of easement pursuant to this paragraph 1
of this proffer statement, the County and the Owner may mutually agree to
modify the tenns and conditions hereof.
2. Prior to the approval of a final site plan for the proposed Monticello Visitors
Center as shown on the Application Plan, the Owner shall make improvements
to the existing Monticello exit onto Route 53 as necessary to provide for the
turning movement of a "BUS-45" vehicle onto Route 53 without crossing the
opposing lane of traffic, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Albemarle County
Engineer and the Virginia Department of Transportation.
WITNESS the following signature:
THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION, INC.
By:
Daniel P. Jordan, President
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY ¡COUNTY OF , to wit:
4
'Z4
.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of
,2005 by Daniel P. Jordan, as President of the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation, Inc.
My Commission expires:
.
.
Notary Public
5
~
¿~
---
l
Exhibit A
Application Plan
6
20
.
.
.
Exhibit B
Section 8.5.5.3 ofthe Zoning Ordinance in Effect on the date of this Proffer Statement
\\REA\222243.5
7
e
~I
ATTACHMENT F
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823 Ext.3336
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Joan McDowell
Julie Mahon
March 18,2004
ZMA 2004-00005 Monticello Historic District - Historic Resources Review
The above referenced submittal has been reviewed for possible impact to known historic architectural resources and
known or potential archaeological resources with the following results:
1. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources' Historic Resource Data Sharing System has identified the
following historic architectural and/or archaeological sites identified on parcels within the project area:
a. 002-0050 (TMP 78-22) Monticello c. 1768 dwelling, World Heritage List, National Historic
Landmark, National Register of Historic Places, Virginia Landmarks Register
b. 002-1054 (TMP 78-22) Monticello Gatekeeper's Lodge
c. 002-0862 (TMP 78-25) c. 1940 dwelling
d. 002- 1515 (TMP 78-28A) Shadwell Lock and Dam c. 1800
e. 002-0138 (TMP 79-7A) Shadwell- archaeological site
2. The subject area is located within the boundary of the proposed Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District
(002-5045) which includes notable properties such as Monticello, Ash Lawn-Highland, Tallwood, Hatton
Grange, Jefferson Mill, and many others, and meets all four criteria for significance (A - Patterns of History; B -
Significant Person; C _ Architecture; and D - Archaeological Potential) under the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The proposed rezoning of Monticello embodies Albemarle County's commitment to preservation of its historic
resources through identification and recognition of valuable buildings, structures, landscapes, sites and districts
which have historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural significance. Furthermore, this proposal reflects the
Historic Preservation Plan's objective to pursue additional protective measures and incentives to preserve
Albemarle's historic and archaeological resources in order to foster pride in the County and maintain the County's
character. The proposed Monticello Historic District will allow Monticello to continue to thrive as a tourist
destination while enabling continued scholarly research reflective of Thomas Jefferson's own visions. Conversely,
we have no objection to the proposed use with the following recommendation:
1. Based upon information provided by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, two existing dwellings (c. 1960-70) will
be removed from the interpretive area located on TMP 78-22/23 and reconstructed in a more suitable area. Other
assorted outbuildings wi11 be removed from the interpretive area as well. Although these buildings and structures
are non-contributing to Monticello's Jeffersonian period of significance, they do reflect the evolution of
Monticello as a tourist destination and should be recorded prior to demolition.
w
(;
Monticello
Engineering Comment
Page 2 of2
1. A maximum grade of 7% is to be used for parking areas, and for trave1ways abutting
parking spaces. A maximum grade of 12% is to be used for travelways not abutting
parking spaces. Grades are to follow those generally shown on the concept plans.
.
Waiver of proposed buffer requirement:
It is noted that the applicant owns the property being buffered. The narrow plan may
necessitate off-site grading, which would not be a concern in this case.
Waiver for curbing required in parking areas:
Approval is recommended in keeping with the rural area nature and current development of
Monticello. This treatment would be similar to what is intended for existing rural area
churches.
Below are some comments regarding issues which will be reviewed with final plans, should the
ZMA be approved. (These were given in previous correspondence, and it does not appear that
stormwater concept plans have changed.)
- There is some concern with a proposed rain harvesting reservoir that it be emptied between
significant rainfalls. This may depend on size and demand.
- It would be preferable to use the basinlbiofilter area shown on the concept grading plan for
detention, rather than an underground system, which is more difficult to maintain. In any
case, a vehicular road to the facility will be needed on final plans.
- For the Administrative Campus, the bio-filters proposed alongside the parking area do not
appear to be situated effectively. The County has had problems with similar facilities placed
perpendicular to the grade. Difficulties getting drainage to such facilities is anticipated on
final plans. It would be preferable to have a central facility placed in the swale common
with the library property, downstream of the proposed parking area.
.
One way to address these concerns with the ZMA would be to use a note or condition to
accompany the application plan, such as;
1. The concept Stormwater Management and BMP measures may change significantly with
final plans. Final plans are to provide equal or better stormwater treatment and
attenuation, and any new concepts are subject to approval by the county engineer.
.
'/-:;D
ATTACHMENT G
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development, Current Development
Engineering Plan Review
To: Rebecca Ragsdale
From: Glenn Brooks
Subject: Monticello, proposed zoning text amendment, and rezoning with various waivers
Date plan received: 3 Mar 2005
Date of comment: 14 Mar 2005
There are no engineering comments regarding the Zoning Text Amendment. Regarding the
Zoning Map Amendment, approval is recommended with the comments below on the waivers.
Critical Slopes waiver:
The grade islands in between existing parking areas are a negligible area of critical slopes.
These are part of the parking area and anticipated to be changed with parking area
improvements. There disturbance has no significant affects.
The slope proposed downhill of the new parking, offices and service areas may be more
problematic and will require special attention during construction, with fabric matting,
reinforced silt fence, and plantings. This area occurs at the edges of the site where slopes will
be constructed from the pavement. It comprises approximately 0.37 acres, in bands of up to
40' width. The disturbed area will be larger when sediment trapping facilities are placed
downhill for temporary erosion control. The addition of sediment trapping facilities may bring
the area of disturbance up to 0.5 acres.
The requirements of section 18-4.2 are adequately addressed in the application package.
Approval ofthe critical slopes waiver is recommended, with the following condition:
1. Additional erosion control measures will be required with newly constructed slopes, to
include matting, wire-reinforced silt fence, sediment traps, and other measures as may be
necessary, at the discretion of the county engineer.
Waiver to exceed required grades in parking areas and travelways:
The travelways without parking, proposed at the steepest point as a 12% grade to the offices
and service areas, are well below the 16% maximum grade of the private road standard, which
is used for comparison.
The grade in the employee parking area next to the office and service areas will be at a
maximum of 7% grade, measured from the contours shown on the concept grading. With this
condition for final plans, and considering the existing parking area grades of up to 10%, the
waiver can be supported. (It is noted that the Zoning Ordinance standard prior to 2003
allowed a 7% grade in parking areas, derived from 5% and 2% grades in perpendicular
directions. )
It is also noted that the administrative campus site would need these waivers, as currently
shown.
This waiver is recommended for approval with the following condition:
t2¿î
;.,ïb ..r.~·~~
.
t¡
.~
r '~
, ,
" ~
, ~
'>,-> i
~'~,-.J
Q
,
,
t¡
.
"...:'""~~-'---:O-~'""ì.-.
~\.-.rJ"" .....,-'...,
--
,..........,..~.-..
~~
6'.90
" '
,
.
~' ,
,.' " t
'..;-*;,
Montíce d~
ATTACHMENT H
.' ,
<:>",0
~?a/
..-11 <:>1-°
I <:>'~
l #
/
0/
/
o
t ~
.' \
"\,./<
, -RQU;J.F
53-. -''-,
"
ì""l- ~_..
, ',..
'"
~ -
.~~,
-"'::,''\...
~..., '-~,
'-
~
"
"-.
, -
. j~
i.
/ ".....
" '-...... "
~N"~S " ,-~
/ '\ '11 :.,.,
\ Iv-,
,.~.-)
,_/,,-/'
~
@
b
r/'"
,
<,
"
:",<"
5:)Ù"-'"
"
"'
,
,
~----",-......~_...,...I
..-~/"'--/'/'. -.,-..-
.-.. - -.. ~
_.~,..r 'ì., ?,
).---
"
{~'~ "" 'V"
~~~^.~ ~ C:>
;.c-"'~ 7'ý\:~~~;' -- y- /:-':', '1.
) "fU'''/ " "'-- ( ) <
.",_,r ~ /_ ,1<iNWOOr), /'\~'i:'; 1
,'Q/ j -~y.'~-..]-
> \.. ~ J .$): -,
''''-.::_./' 0 ~\" _ \.;'~)
J --"\.f
.-/ \-,
\. (
V\ \ ~C)
(V'; ",) 0)'
',J ,..r-r~"V
~- ç ,)
""r N-vv."¡ ,:
¡
,
"
,
,
'-
"
~C)
.-.",.~
\
.r0 '/',,-..-,.../
('
,
LEGEND
-5'6'0
.
GRADING IN
SETBACK
~
\ ;
.Z
6'.
1 I I . f
,{ il1..[",1"'¡·;;Jr''Olt.11ir' (aff!11j1¡Ç
y r f, ~'..' ~ y , ,~ ',",",~~ 'T ¡'-, ;J t ¡. ,Y'....
GRADING IN SETBACK
Ayers Saint Gross, IIIC.
Architats + Planners
Rummel, Klepper, & Kahl
Civil EllgilllU.¡
Michael VergaSOtl
L;wJ;,¡¡P' ArâJitut.<
o 75 lio EB "/ l
'/lARCH 28 2005 )
:I:
OJ·
~,
w
,-I,
¥
/.'r.-- -- --
c
u
':þ
'"
'"
... ... ... ...
j~ ib !~ !~
i~ .
. ~ r j
!
J!
H
!
"
I
,..
. .. ~~
I-
I -
J=
;
____-.J
,
HI
J:
Io¡,
,
I
-,
,
j
'J: ¡.
ATTACHMENT I
i
Æ
~,
"I
.",
!I~
,:.
.,-
RCif¡W:c!. Klepper. &.> !(.lld
Cij'¡¡ E;jgír¡;:a.-
;\f:',-JuJd \·e..~¡.(('iI;
!\yrrs Saint Gro:~, 11Jc.
ArchÍ1f(fS + P!t¡tHirrf.
-
Q 8 16
~(,~.JF·
L :; - - :ï :. ~ ¡ ¡
V'
EB
31-
. ~ ~ ~ J
;~ 'lb !~ ~~
~~ h~ .- §'
.
~ P ð j
~
j
,
í
;
J:
'" \
" ~ \
v
/;(I-:~'-'
'$' I
! I
j !
~
~ ~ I
. 4"- __n__ _I
-
o
ü
'J'
.
:--::~
j
_ :'L'
"'
.
«
I
I
.
A IT ACHMENT I
v
,
"
]
f
~
~"
t;
,3!
Rummel. Klert". & Kahl
(i)lil Enginurs
Mic1¡ad \ 'ç'rsasMI
[1Ì1,dJCII!'f Arr:hitu!5
Ayers Sainr Gross., I"'.
Archítew +plantlm
-
o 8 16 32
¡:¡:5~ yi,o\ ~':' 2 ,?,
:.. EB
~'3
.
.
.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 12, 2005 Minutes For
ZMA-2004-03 and ZMA-2004-05 Monticello Historic District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 12,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice-
Chair, Pete Craddock; Calvin Morris and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Jo Higgins and David J. Neuman,
FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia were absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Francis
MacCall, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Division Director of Zoning and Current Development; Joan
McDowell, Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; John Shepherd, Zoning Administration
Manager; Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner,
Assistant County Attorney.
Mr. Rieley recused himself from the next hearing because of his ongoing consulting work with Monticello.
The Planning Commission recessed at 9:03 p.m.
The Planning Commission meeting was called back to order at 9:20 p.m. by the Chairman.
ZTA 2004-03 Monticello Historic District (MHD): This zoning text amendment would establish a new
zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and structures associated with Monticello by
amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts; amending
Section 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Section 8.1, Intent; amending Section 8.2, Relation of
Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3, Planned
Development Defined; amending Section 8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11, Monticello
Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment to Section
4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section. The amendment to Section 7 would add
the MHD as a district subject to that section and re-order the list of zoning districts. The amendment to
Section 8.1 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and revise the purposes of planned
development districts. The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver or modification of a
requirement of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained, and revise the findings
required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Section 8.3 would revise the definition
of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the MHO from certain
definitional criteria. The amendment to Section 8.4 would allow planned historic districts such as the
MHD that contain and pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the County as designated in
the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Section 11 and its subparts would establish the MHD as a
zoning district, state its intent and purpose, identify its status as a planned development district, and
establish permitted uses and associated regulations applicable within the zoning district. The proposed
MHD zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The proposed district
regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan approved by the
County and otherwise be subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of the Zoning Ordinance. The density for new
residential development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres.
AND
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) (Signs# 38,39&41) - Request to rezone
approximately 868 acres from the Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference
ZTA 2004-03), to allow uses specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house
museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities;
temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other
delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The properties proposed for
rezoning are within the Scottsville Magisterial District in the vicinity of Monticello, south of Interstate 64
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 1
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
and east of Route 53, and are identified more particularly as follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello),
23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; and Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as
Rural Area 4, and the general usage for Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses supportive óf the character
of the rural area, including agricultural and forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, and resource
protection. No density range is specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
Ms. Ragsdale summarized the staff report. The applicant, Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., has
requested a Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to establish a planned district called
the Monticello Historic District (MHD). This application was submitted last April and is an application that
has evolved from previous applications starting in 2000 when Monticello identified the need for some new
facilities. They started working with the County to address their nonconforming status. The uses there
now such as the house museum and the educational research activities are nonconforming and have not
been addressed in the zoning ordinance. Therefore, that is what these applications are attempting to do
by establishing the Monticello Historic District as a planned district in the zoning ordinance. The site is
currently zoned Rural Areas and is designated for Rural Area land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed district would include approximately 868 acres. Monticello and the activities associated with its
operation as a historic house museum and educational center are not in compliance with the zoning
ordinance and are non-conforming uses. The proposed MHO would bring these existing uses into
compliance with the zoning ordinance and allow for improved facilities. The Foundation is not proposing
to introduce new activities but would continue the land uses that have been taking place, including
education programs, research, and visitor facilities. A new visitor's center, service center, administrative
campus, and restoration to the Monticello mountain top are planned with this application. The Foundation
believes that the visitor experience will be enhanced as a result of these changes. The Foundation does
not anticipate visitor growth, as a result of these changes, beyond what would normally be expected to
occur.
The Foundation intends to remove 20th Century additions surrounding the Monticello mansion, including
the gift shop, offices, and restrooms which are currently located in a historic building known as Weaver's
Cottage, as well as remove offices from the basement and upper floors of Monticello. The Foundation
plans to relocate these uses to less obtrusive locations at lower elevations and as far from the historic
house and structures as possible. The Administrative Campus would be located on a site on the south
side of Route 53 adjacent to Kenwood. A new visitor's center and parking area would replace the existing
facilities. A building and grounds service area is planned in areas where existing facilities are located,
further down the mountain from the visitor's center area, near Route 53.
A binder containing details of the application background and ZTA and ZMA requests was provided to
you in April 2004. With the resubmittal of this application on February 28, 2005, another bound notebook
(Attachment B) of information was provided to you reflecting any changes from the original application.
Petitions: ZTA 2004-03 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - This zoning text amendment would
establish a new zoning district in Albemarle County pertaining to land uses and structures associated with
Monticello by amending Section 4.15.8, Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 Zoning
Districts; amending Section 7, Establishment of Districts; amending Section 8.1, Intent; amending Section
8.2, Relation of Planned Development Regulations to Other Zoning Regulations; amending Section 8.3,
Planned Development Defined; amending Section 8.4, Where Permitted; and adding Section 11,
Monticello Historic District, MHD; of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The amendment
to Section 4.15.8 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section. The amendment to Section 7
would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and re-order the list of zoning districts. The
amendment to Section 8.1 would add the MHD as a district subject to that section and revise the
purposes of planned development districts. The amendment to Section 8.2 would clarify when a waiver
or modification of a requirement of Sections 4, 5 or 32 of the Zoning Ordinance could be obtained, and
revise the findings required for granting a waiver or modification. The amendment to Section 8.3 would
revise the definition of "planned development district" to exempt planned historic districts such as the
MHD from certain definitional criteria. The amendment to Section 8.4 would allow planned historic
districts such as the MHD that contain and pertain to a historic site to exist in the Rural Areas of the
County as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. The addition of Section 11 and its subparts would
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 2
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
.
.
.
establish the MHD as a zoning district, state its intent and purpose, identify its status as a planned
development district, and establish permitted uses and associated regulations applicable within the
zoning district. The proposed MHD zoning district would allow uses specifically related to the operation of
Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site, including visitor facilities; educational, research,
and administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products; cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural,
residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district.
The proposed district regulations also would require that development be preceded by an application plan
approved by the County and otherwise be subject to Sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The density for new residential development authorized in the MHD would be one dwelling unit per
twenty-one acres.
ZMA 2004-05 - Monticello Historic District (MHD) - Request to rezone approximately 868 acres from the
Rural Areas (RA) to the Monticello Historic District (MHD) (reference ZTA 2004-03), to allow uses
specifically related to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site, including
visitor facilities; educational, research, and administrative facilities; temporary events; sales of products;
cemeteries; concerts; and agricultural, residential uses, and other delineated uses similar to those
permitted in the Rural Areas zoning district. The properties proposed for rezoning are within the
Scottsville Magisterial District in the vicinity of Monticello, south of Interstate 64 and east of Route 53, and
are identified more particularly as follows: Tax Map 78, Parcels 22 (Monticello), 23, 25, 28A, 28B, 29; and
Tax Map 79, Parcel 7A. The Comprehensive Plan designates these lands as Rural Area 4, and the
general usage for Rural Area 4 is as follows: land uses supportive of the character of the rural area,
including agricultural and forestal uses, land preservation, conservation, and resource protection. No
residential density range is specified for Rural Areas 4. The density for new residential development
authorized in the MHD district would be one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres. A copy of the map
showing the lands to be rezoned by this amendment is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 Mcintire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Character of the Area: The majority of the area surrounding the proposed Monticello Historic District is
rural in character, with larger parcels intact and substantial open space surrounding the project areas.
Most parcels adjoining the district are also owned by the Foundation and are under conservation
easement. Natural features include substantial wooded portions surrounding the Monticello mansion and
the Rivanna River bisects the MHD between Shadwell and the Monticello Home Farm tract. There is a
residence (Pippen) adjoining the visitor center area to the east. Adjacent to the proposed Administrative
Campus is the Robert H. Smith International Center for Jefferson Studies and the Jefferson Library, both
located at Kenwood. The Shadwell portion of the MHD is under two easements and adjoins Route 250
(Richmond Road); there are commercial and industrial uses adjacent to that property. Other historic uses
are located in the vicinity of the Monticello Historic District, including Michie Tavern and Ash Lawn.
Planning and Zoning History: Construction of Monticello began in 1769 and the Thomas Jefferson
Foundation acquired the property in 1923. Since that time, the Foundation has operated the property as a
museum. As part of the 1980 comprehensive downzoning of the County, Monticello was zoned Rural
Areas (RA). No land use was established within the RA Zoning District during that rezoning that
accommodated the Foundation's activities, which resulted in Monticello's non-conforming use status.
After a facilities planning process in 1999, which identified a four-campus vision for Monticello, the
Foundation began working with the County on a zoning amendment to bring Monticello into compliance
and to allow for new facilities. Applications ZTA 2000-02, ZTA 2000-8, and ZMA 2001-10 were the first
applications attempting to address Monticello's non-conforming uses. At the time of those applications,
new facilities were planned for the Blue Ridge Hospital site on Route 53 and Route 20. (This site is no
longer a viable option for the Foundation's facilities.) A work session was held with the Planning
Commission in August 2001 where comments were provided to the Foundation. After the work session,
the Foundation decided to revisit the application and its facilities needs to provide a more detailed
application. This resulted in the submittal of the ZMA and ZTA applications currently under review and
withdrawal of all previous applications. The applications currently requested for approval were originally
submitted in April 2004. The Planning Commission held a work session on these applications June 8,
2004 and a public hearing was scheduled for July 27, 2004. The applicant's requested that their ZMA and
ZTA requests be deferred prior to that meeting and the public hearing was not held. Since that time, the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 3
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
applicants and their team of professionals have been working to refine the applications, which were
resubmitted February 28, 2005. These refinements include improved building and site design with respect
to terrain at the Visitor Center complex. The revised application also reflects that a significant portion of
the proposed MHD is now under easement with the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
ZTA 2004-03: One of the key components of the proposed ZTA is that Monticello and its associated
activities are unique and necessitate different provisions from other existing zoning districts in the
County's ordinance to meet their land use needs. Given this factor, and taking into account comments
made by the Planning Commission during review of the previous application submittals regarding
specificity of planned activities, a planned zoning district has been drafted in accordance with Section 8 of
the Zoning Ordinance. The MHO provisions of the district address both Monticello's historic and rural
aspects and appropriate uses of the RA Zoning District have been incorporated in the MHD. The revised
version of the ZTA is attached for your review. (Attachment C).
Since the proposed Monticello Historic District and plans are submitted as a planned development district,
as allowed in Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, an application plan is required. This application plan
specifies what site improvements will take place with this rezoning, including general location and limits
on building square footage. Any significant deviation from the application plan would require approval of
an amended rezoning application.
ZMA 2004-05: No major changes in building square footage or general location are proposed with the
resubmittal of this ZMA from its original version. The applicant is proposing major improvements to three
main project areas, within the MHD. These include the Monticello Mountaintop, the Visitor's Center and
Service area, and the Administrative Campus adjacent to Kenwood. The fourth project area includes the
Shadwell Quarter Farm, where minor improvements are planned as the property is under easement with
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and now also the Virginia Outdoors Foundation.
Mountain Top (AP 2 of 4): Main improvements to this project area include removal of staff offices and
service structures which are located along the second roundabout, allowing for restoration of the
roundabout and possibly future historic interpretation. The Foundation hopes to restore the house and
grounds on the mountain top to their Jefferson-era appearance to the greatest extent possible without
modern intrusions. There will be a need for restrooms, utilities, and some service parking, which would be
moved to more appropriate locations during the restoration project. It is not expected that all
improvements proposed with this ZMA plan will be completed simultaneously, but will be phased
according to the Foundation. With the recent resubmittal, the Mountaintop plan has been revised to clarify
that the staff offices and service structures located along the second roundabout will have to remain until
the new Building and Grounds Service Area can be completed.
Visitor's Center/Building Grounds and Service Area (AP 3 of 4): The visitor's center project area currently
consists of a shuttle shelter, an open air garden shop, a luncheonette, a slave cemetery, and
approximately 400 parking spaces. The service area is located further down the mountain, closer to
Route 53, and consists of a fueling station, a warehouse, and two existing houses used for office space.
The square footage of proposed buildings is the roughly the same as the previous version of this ZMA,
approximately 19,500 total for Building and Grounds service center complex and 48,750 total for Visitors
Center complex. The applicant is proposing to construct an improved visitor center that will consist of
five interconnected buildings to include a museum shop, café, exhibits, and classrooms. These will be
proposed in the same location as the existing shuttle station. The architects have now chosen several
smaller buildings to better fit the topography the site and will result in less tree clearing. An outdoor
classroom pavilion is now proposed in the wooded area adjacent to the Visitor Center to the north. The
parking lot will not be regarded as was previously proposed. This will leave the existing parking lot and
trees intact. The landscape link from the new visitor's center to the slave burial grounds to create a linear
park will be provided. The revised building and parking plan will result in far less tree clearing and grading
than was previously proposed. This plan was revised following engineering comments to include an
additional note regarding storm water management. (Attachment D)
In the Building Grounds and Service area, the applicant is proposing to construct office and work shop
spaces, a greenhouse, equipment bays, and to provide for staff parking. This area has also been slightly
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 4
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
.
redesigned based on better topographic information. The applicant is proposing a total building area of
20,000 square feet for buildings constructed in this area. Although not highly visible from Route 53, the
service area is located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and will be reviewed by the
Architectural Review Board prior to any building construction.
Administrative Campus: (AP 4 of 4): There were no changes to the Administrative Campus plan with the
resubmittal of this application. The 5.5 acre site is located to the west of Kenwood and currently consists
of a dwelling and several outbuildings. It is not used by the Foundation at this time for any uses related to
Monticello. The Foundation is proposing a 27,121 square foot building, or mass of several buildings, for
office space, meeting rooms, archeological labs, storage, and support space with a total of 86 parking
spaces. It is envisioned that the new building(s) will have a connection to Kenwood. VDOT has
recommended that access to this site be through shared entrance with Kenwood, instead of creating
another entrance onto Route 53. The applicant has indicated they have studied this option as to its
feasibility and have provided a note on the application plan (AP-4) that indicates the entrance will be
shared. This project area is also located within the Entrance Corridor Overlay district and will require
further review by the Architectural Review Board.
Shadwell: The 277 acre Shadwell Quarter Farm is the birthplace of Thomas Jefferson and includes
several modern structures including a barn and shed. The Foundation has limited historic interpretation
plans for Shadwell as permitted by the Department of Historic Resources and VOF easements (found in
the Appendix of Attachment B). The application plan specifies that improvements at the site will be limited
to interpretative trails, a maximum of 3,000 square feet of building area for a visitor shelter, 1,000 square
feet for restrooms, and any road/entrance improvements needed. A proffer (Attachment E) pertaining to
the County's greenway has been submitted for the Shadwell property to further Comprehensive Plan
goals for the greenway and trails system. A greenway easement will be dedicated on portions of the
Shadwell property that are contiguous to the Rivanna River on the north side and are part of the 100-year
flood plain.
.
Bv-right Use of the Property: If developed under the current RA (Rural Areas) zoning, the property
could be developed with agricultural uses, forestal uses, or residential development at allowed densities,
subject to easement restrictions. The current Monticello operations are non-conforming and any further
expansions or new facilities are not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance regulations.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Rural Area: The Guiding Principles of the Rural Area Plan are not compromised with this proposed
application but have been incorporated into this proposal as it helps to further preserve unique natural,
scenic, and cultural resources not found elsewhere in the County, and unique to Virginia and the World.
In addition, the proposed MHD zoning district will have reduced development potential with the VOF
easement affecting a large portion of the MHD district. The land placed under easement totals 1, 060
acres and includes approximately 418 acres of the "Home Farm" adjacent to the Monticello Mountain, the
560 acre Tufton property southeast of Monticello, and approximately 80 acres along the Rivanna River.
Historic Preservation Plan: The goals of protecting historic resources, recognizing their value, pursuit of
additional protection measures and incentives to preserve Albemarle's historic and archeological
resources are all being achieved through this proposed rezoning. It is suggested in the Comprehensive
Plan that an important strategy to further the historic preservation goals of the County is to adopt a
historic district overlay ordinance that would recognize and protect historic and archeological resources,
including individual sites and districts, on the local level. The County's Historic Preservation Planner has
commended Monticello on their application and has indicated that the MHD may serve as a model for
future historic zoning in the County. (Attachment F)
.
Open Space Plan and Mountain Protection Plan: Monticello is an identified mountain resource in the
Mountain Protection Plan. This rezoning does not cause substantial new disturbance of the mountain and
actually removes obtrusive modern day structures from the ridge/mountain top area. No negative impacts
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 5
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
to scenic resources are anticipated with this proposed rezoning, including the Rivanna River, which is
designated as a Virginia State Scenic River from Woolen Mills to the Fluvanna County line.
Greenways and Trails Plan: Through this project, the goal of a countywide network of greenway trails is
furthered with the dedication of an easement along the Rivanna River on the Shadwell property. The
Rivanna River from the Ivy Creek Natural area to Fluvanna County is specifically identified as a location
for river and stream trials in the Rural Area. This will provide a trail along one of the only two State Scenic
Rivers in the County.
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zonina district
The Foundation is requesting to rezone to a zoning district specifically crafted to accommodate the needs
of Monticello as a unique historic resource but also recognizes its location with in the Rural Area of the
County. The application is entirely consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning text
amendment.
Public need and justification for the change
This application will provide the chance to improve the visitor's experience to Monticello and provide for
improved historic preservation efforts through removal of modern structures from the mountain top and
administrative office located inside the mansion. As the applicant indicates, it may also extend the length
of time visitors of Monticello remain in Albemarle County and would therefore increase the tourism dollars
into the local economy. Monticello is not only a tourist destination, but an educational and historic
resource to the local community.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation: The applicant has prepared a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that has been reviewed
by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) for impacts to Route 53 (Thomas Jefferson
Parkway). While the TIA did not indicate a significant increase in vehicle trips associated with the
rezoning request, as there will not be an increase in visitation or employees, VDOT has identified the
following safety concerns with Route 53:
· Monticello Property - The existing exit needs to be upgraded to improve the sight distance for the
large bus traffic leaving the site;
· Proposed Administrative Office Entrance - Recommend connecting to roadway into the Kenwood
property and utilize their existing entrance. The existing entrance can be closed to minimize
access points, and maintain the natura/ corridor Route 53 presents.
. Entrance needs to be designed in accordance with the Commercia/ Entrance Standards.
The applicant has been responsive to these concerns from VDOT and has placed a note on the
application plan to indicate that the entrance to the Administrative Campus will be combined with
Kenwood and during the site plan process it will be designed and approved by VDOT. The applicant
has provided a proffer (Attachment E) indicating that the exit from the Monticello Visitor's Center onto
Route 53 will be upgraded to allow for improved vehicle turning onto Route 53 from Monticello's exit.
Water and Sewer: The Monticello mountain complex (AP 2 of 4 and 3 of 4) is the only portion of the
proposed project area located within the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional
Area and is designated for water service only. The ACSA indicates current water service to the
property, including the Monticello mansion and Visitors Center. The Administrative Campus would be
supplied water by an on-site well. The water facility analysis provided by the applicant indicates that
both sites should have adequate capacity to serve the proposed uses, including under fire flow
scenarios.
No portions of the project area are located within the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for sewer service. The
applicant has proposed to serve the Administrative Campus and Visitor's Center with an advanced
wastewater treatment plant combined with drip irrigation disposal. The drip irrigation system is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 6
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZT A-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
.
preferred as it can be installed to follow contours and can be place at more shallow depths (6-12").
Any proposed central systems will require approval by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning
Commission must also review the request to ensure that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive
Plan, as required by the Code of Virginia §15.2- 2232. The issue of central systems will be
addressed separately, after further study and staff review of detailed system design specifications
have been submitted.
Schools: There are no anticipated impacts to the County's school systems as this project will not
include residential components or result in additional school children.
Stormwater Management --The applicant has provided a stormwater analysis as part of their
application which demonstrates that County requirements regarding both stormwater quantity and
quality can be met. The system that will be used will combine traditional stormwater management
techniques with a low impact development approach. This approach will include the use of bio-
retention in the form of rain gardens. Engineering staff has reviewed the applicant's analysis and
provided favorable comments. (Attachment G)
Fiscal impact on public facilities--It is not expected that this rezoning request will result in any
negative fiscal impacts to public facilities. Monticello provides positive impacts to the local economy,
through the employment it provides and the travel expenditures associated with visitors to the
museum. In December 2001, The Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service released a study,
Monticello's Economic Impact on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Area, which quantified the local
economic impact of Monticello. Major findings of this report indicated that Monticello generates state
and local tax revenues through the activities associated with the Foundation; nearly half of
Monticello's visitors choose to stay overnight in the area; and even though Monticello itself employs
around 300 people, its overall impact to employment is greater and is equivalent to around 900
people.
.
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources
Monticello is listed on the Virginia Landmarks (State) and National Register of Historic Places and is
designated as a National Historic Landmark, the highest national recognition category for historic
resources. Most notably, Monticello is on the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List. Impacts to Monticello are expected to be positive. This
application will allow the relocation of modern intrusions from the mountaintop to more appropriate sites.
The applicant will be able to heighten restoration efforts through this rezoning application and eventual
completion of the application plans. The applicant has indicated that impacts on natural resources will be
minimized to the greatest extent possible. The Visitor's Center and Service Center will be constructed in
areas where tree clearing has already occurred. The majority of the project will remain in open space and
over 95% of the project area will not be disturbed, which is 831 of the 868 acres included with this
application.
Proffers: As part of this rezoning request the Foundation has provided a proffer statement (Attachment
E) to address review comments that could not be provided for on the Application Plan. The terms of the
Greenway easement are included in the proffer, as well as provisions for the improvement of the existing
Monticello exit onto Route 53. These proffers are in a final form and have been reviewed by the County
Attorney and approved by the applicant, however they have not been signed by the owners/applicant.
To address comments made by the historic preservation planner, a documentation plan has been
provided to ensure that the demolition, removal, or relocation of permanent structures will be recorded. A
note referring to these documentation procedures has been provided on the Application Plan (AP 1 of 4).
.
Waiver Requests:
The applicant has identified several waivers to Zoning Ordinance requirements that will be necessary to
fully implement the application plan submitted with this ZMA. Applicant justification and need for these
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 7
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
waivers has been provided in the new submittal notebook (Attachment B) along with exhibits in section C
of the notebook. Planning Commission approval of the waivers for Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 is
needed.
Section 4.2.3.2 -- Critical Slopes: Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth-disturbing
activity on slopes of 25 percent or greater. Section 4.2.5.2 allows the Planning Commission to waive this
restriction upon finding that a strict application of this provision would not forward the purposes of the
Zoning Ordinance. This waiver is needed primarily in the new parking areas to serve the Building and
Grounds Service Area (Exhibit "Non-conforming Slopes" in Attachment B). Engineering staff has
commented (Attachment G) on this waiver and recommends approval with a condition:
Additional erosion control measures will be required with newly constructed slopes; to include
matting, wire-reinforced silt fence, sediment traps, and other measures as may be necessary, at
the discretion of the county engineer.
Section 21.7.3 - Minimum Yard Requirements for Commercial Districts: Section 21.7.3 specifies that
within the buffer zone adjacent to rural and residential districts, no construction activity including grading
or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer that 20 feet to any residential or rural areas district. The
Planning Commission may waive this requirement if it has been demonstrated that grading and clearing is
necessary or would result in improved site design, provided that minimum screening requirements are
met and the existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. This buffer
is needed for grading in the setback on the side property lines at the Administrative campus property,
which is somewhat narrow and adjoins Foundation owned property on one side and a use similar to that
proposed for it with Kenwood to the east. The "Grading in Setback" exhibit included in the waivers
package has been revised to show that this waiver is needed on both side property lines. (Attachment H)
Planning and engineering staff are in support of this waiver.
Section 4.12.15.c -- slopes for parking areas and Section 4.12.17.a -- Qrades for driveways/travel way
slopes
The Zoning Administrator is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance to grant these waivers which are not
necessary for existing site conditions. The applicant has requested approval for these waivers with this
ZMA application but Zoning staff has indicated that it would be more appropriate to review and approve
any requests for this at the site plan stage.
Section 4.12.15.g-to eliminate curb and gutter requirements.
The county engineer may waive or modify this requirement if deemed necessary to accommodate
stormwater management/BMP facility design or existing uses located in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning
district. The Comprehensive Plan suggests avoiding these more urban requirements for Rural Area sites.
This request has been reviewed by engineering staff and approval is recommended.
SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. This proposal will result in improved facilities for visitors of Monticello and also the Foundation's
employees.
2. The Monticello exit onto Route 53 will be improved, providing a safer roadway for all users.
3. No new entrances on to Route 53 will be created with the development of the Administrative
campus, which will share access with Kenwood.
4. Monticello has positive fiscal impacts and this proposal will not result in any burden on public
facilities.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff has reviewed the proposal and associated proffers for conformity with the
Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of ZTA 2004-03 and ZMA
2004-05, along with the waivers of Section 4.2.3.2 and Section 21.7.3 as requested by the applicant and
including engineering conditions (Attachment G).
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 8
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
. Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner had any questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph stated that she just wanted to clarify on thing. She asked if staff was only recommending for
the waiver request for the critical slopes and the curb and gutter.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that staff was supportive of the waivers as far as from the planning standpoint. The
Planning Commission action is needed to approve the critical slopes waiver and the minimum yard
requirements for the commercial district. In the ordinance it kind of varies where it specifies where
Planning Commission approval is necessary. Some places it says the zoning administrator can approve
it after consulting with the county engineer. In some places it just says the county engineer can approve.
But, these two specifically refer back to the Planning Commission. But, staff is in support of all of the
waivers at this point.
Ms. Joseph stated that they have planning support for the travel way and the parking waiver request.
Also, they have engineering support for the critical slopes.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that engineering reviewed it as far as all four waivers that were requested, and did
not recommend denial for any of them. They provided their comments to the waivers and what they could
identify at this stage as far as what they wanted to see as far as notes regarding storm water detention.
She pointed out that Glenn Brooks was present.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was specifically referencing the parking the travel way slopes. She asked if
Mr. Brooks would like to speak to that.
.
Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer stated that was the waiver that the zoning administrator would prefer to
do at the site plan stage. But, it was consistent with the parking that was already out there. Therefore, he
thought that it was fine.
Mr. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if the Commission chose to if they could go ahead and approve those
waiver requests.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the Commission could approve all the waivers at this point. Because this was a
planned development, under Section 8 it gives the Commission and Board the authority to consider all of
these waivers at the rezoning stage. Until recently they would have been coming at a later stage in the
development process.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and asked the
applicant to come forward to address the Commission.
Michael R. Matthews, Jr., P.E., of Matthews Development Company, LLC, spoke for the request. It is my
distinct honor to represent the Thomas Jefferson Foundation on the three applications that are before the
Commission ton~ht. It is also a special day for the folks at Monticello. He pointed out that tomorrow is Mr.
Jefferson's 262" birthday. They will celebrate that tomorrow in Albemarle County with Founder's Day.
That is a special day for them. He introduced the following persons Mr. Weller Davis, member of the
Board of Trustees and Chair of the Building and Grounds Committee at Monticello; Kat Imhoff, Vice-
President of Thomas Jefferson Foundation; Mike Merriam, Director of Buildings and Grounds; Valerie
Long, of their legal team; Ashley Hardwell, also of McGuire & Woods; Adam Gross, of Aire, Saint, Gross;
and Sandra Vixeo, project architect. He presented a brief over view of the project with a short power point
presentation.
.
There are three parts to their application. The zoning text amendment is the amendment that creates the
district. Right now the district does not exist in the Code. It is a planned district under Section 8.0, which
is a very important distinction from what has come before us. The district is about 868 acres. This is an
area where either the foundations has either programmed now or is planning a program that is not
recognized in the rural area. In 1980 when the County comprehensively rezoned the County there was
not special provisions made for Monticello and what has been happening there since the foundation took
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 9
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
over in 1923. They tried to make the boundaries of the district very simple and wanted them to be
commensurate with the tax map and parcel numbers so that they would be easy to administer. Ninety-six
percent of the district is going to be left in open space. They wanted to have a very narrow definition of
the district. All of the properties need to be owned by the foundation, have been owned by Jefferson, and
are partially within the World Heritage designation. As you know the Monticello house is the only
residence in the United States that is on the World heritage list.
The zoning map amendment is the second part of this application. It breaks down their plans into three
pieces. Once the district is established, under Section 8.0 they create application plans, which will be
binding on us for all development of any of the precincts. The three precincts that were identified were
the mountaintop, where the goal is to basically return the mountaintop to the original Jefferson
presentation by removing the 20th Century from the mountaintop; the visitor's center where they play into
the enhanced visitor's experience and the administration campus, which will enable them to achieve the
other vision of removing the 20th Century from the mountaintop and appropriately house the staff
functions. All of these districts must comply with the application plan that will be binding on them.
Planning Commission approval is required for the critical slopes waiver and the buffer disturbance. They
chose the setbacks from section 21.0 that will apply to them in the rural areas, which are the commercial
setbacks that are very rigorous. In order to create the development shown in the application plans, they
need the waiver of the buffer disturbance, which will then be replaced.
The other three waivers that were discussed today were the travel way and slopes, the parking slopes
and the curb and gutter. They would certainly welcome the Planning Commission to approve those.
They have done their homework on those and they are primarily existing conditions or conditions that
they think are respectful of the site. He displayed a picture of the African American burial area. He stated
that they could not imagine surrounding it with curb and gutter and the grading that would be necessary
for that sort of activity.
As a brief history, they started this application in 2000. There was a work session in 2001 with the
Commission in which they received some valuable feedback. They went back to the drawing board. The
last 3 years have been spent in some pretty intense planning in rethinking what the future of Monticello
needs to look like. They refilled the application in 2004 under this planned district approach. They felt
that answered the Commission's questions about certainly what may in a fairly open ended text
amendment. Now it will be tied to the application plan, which was something that they were very
comfortable with. Last year they had a very good work session with the Planning Commission last June.
They went through a number of issues and made a number of changes to their plan. They had a great
staff report in July of last year. But, Kat had called him one day and said that they needed to talk about a
deferral. Monticello is one of the more self critical organizations that he had ever been evolved with.
They just were not happy with the master plan and some of the land use issues that they were dealing.
So they said let's stop and let's get this right. They took a six month pause and during that time really
made some substantial changes. These changes were made in how a visitor would experience the
mountain.
The district itself, shown in green area is unchanged from their original submission. What is significantly
different is the area that is in the cross-hatched. That is the 1,000 acres that was added into the VDOF
easement since they were last before the Commission. Shadwell's 215 acres had always been in
easement with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources. So now the vast majority of the district is
entirely within some form of perpetual easement.
In summary, according to the application plan. now there are three pieces on the plan. The mountaintop
plans are unchanged from what the Commission saw previously. Again, it is an effort over the years to
remove the 20th Century intrusions on the mountaintop and replace them in more appropriate locations.
The administration/campus plan is also unchanged from what the Commission saw last time. The big
change was in the visitor's center itself. Originally they had a building situated they felt nicely situated
into the hillside. It was not a small building. They had all of these areas in the parking lot being
completely regraded and they had a green connection with the visitor's center and the African-American
Burial area, which will incorporate that into the primary experience. That element has changed. Also, the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 12, 2005 10
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
.
building and grounds service area and the lower section of the site is part of their plan. From a big picture
speculative the dynamic change that has occurred is in the parking. All of this parking now is to be left as
is in its current scenario.
.
Due to the improved topographic information they were able to put the buildings in locations that are more
sensitive. Basically, they have been able to do more engineering on that part of the site. The building
itself is a lot difference. He pointed out that the picture more than anything from their original submission
is what resulted in their deferral. That building was pretty big. Their goals were to nestle this building into
the hillside. They felt like they had achieved that, but still the amount of area sticking out up the natural
grades on a sloping site just gave pause to a lot of folks at Monticello. There is a phrase that came about
in some of early planning that they had somewhat departed from. That was that they felt like they had
departed from a collection of dependencies that defined Monticello. They had probably strayed further
from that than they were comfortable. They reground themselves on their philosophy that resulted in this
plan. The buildings are now being broke up into six much smaller components that are smaller in scale
and much more open. It allows them to create a courtyard area that has many benefits to the program
and to the feel of the site. They have a new pavilion. In this area it is an area that is already cleared.
The existing septic area will be changed in its current configuration. That will be a bit of an overflow place
and a place where classrooms can come and meet for educational purpose. There will be four times less
grading than they had originally planned in the parking area. After they rethought it they had basically
been regarding the site to accommodate a bus circulation pattern that on second thought was not really
necessary to accommodate it. They still have maintained the philosophy of taking cues from the existing
building for materials and for open design. They want to draw from the strengths and materials and some
of the open forums. He pointed out that they had been successful in putting some of the areas
underground at the visitor's center. He completed the power point presentation and pointed out the
changes made to the plan. He stated that the pause that the Commission was kind enough to grant
allowed them time to look back at this goal of going lightly on the land that has been the buzz word in all
of the design meetings in nestling this building nicely into the terrain. He felt that they have done a much
better of achieving that. He stated that they have appreciated all of the efforts and the guidance that staff
has given along the way.
Kat Imhoff, Vice-President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, thanked everyone for their comments
and patience throughout this process, particularly the staff and the Planning Commission. She felt that
they have had to remind ourselves why we are doing this. It is really the dual mission of education and
preservation. She felt that they were really going to improve the experience for visitors and also for the
visitors of the community that utilize Monticello.
Mr. Thomas congratulated the Foundation for changing their original plans, particularly the parking lot.
Mr. Morris commended the Foundation for the wonderful plan. He felt that it was a beautiful plan. He
asked if it was handicap accessible.
Mr. Merriam stated yes, that it was definitely handicap accessible.
Mr. Edgerton invited comment from other members of the public.
Joe Andrews, representative for Luck Stone Corporation, stated that Ms. Ragsdale and Mr. Mathews
have both been very helpful in assisting him in understanding what this proposal is all about. Certainly
Monticello is a very valuable asset to Albemarle County and the State of Virginia. He felt that they most
likely need the required flexibility that they are asking for as a part of this zoning text amendment and
rezoning. A recommendation of approval would certainly seem appropriate by this Planning Commission.
The only question that he still has deals with the easements. He stated that he would like to understand a
little bit more about the easements sometime between now and the Board of Supervisors.
.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he was referring to the conservation easements on the land that adjoins his land
and the impacts of it.
Mr. Andrews stated that was correct.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 11
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anybody else who would like to address this application. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and a
possible action.
Ms. Joseph stated that she would like for the Planning Commission to go ahead and approve all of the
waivers that have been requested because it is more appropriate than asking the applicant to come back
at site plan stage. It would be extremely uncomfortable for the Commission to say that they approved a
rezoning based on this incredibly detailed plan that the applicant has gone through a lot of reiteration and
thoughtful process to try to preserve as many trees in that parking area and then to come back and say
no that they did not think it was going to work now. She asked to make one comment about the critical
slopes. The Planning Commission gets a lot of requests for critical slopes and they really need to point
out that the area proposed is a very small area that they are grading with the critical slopes and she felt
that it was also keeping them out of some more sensitive areas to just do it in that smaller area.
Therefore, the benefit to the community is that there is less disruption on the site as result of that.
Therefore, she could support this with the waiver request and the proffers as submitted and
recommended by staff.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the first action should be the zoning text amendment.
Action on ZTA-2004-03:
Ms. Joseph made a motion to recommend approval of ZTA-2004-03, Monticello Historic District (MHD).
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZTA-2004-03 Monticello Historic District (MHD) was approved and would be
heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 2004.
Action on ZMA-2004-05:
Mr. Morris made a motion to recommend approval of ZMA-2004-05, Monticello Historic District (MHD),
with proffers along with the five waivers as requested by the applicant and including engineering
conditions (Attachment G).
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Higgins - Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2004-05, Monticello Historic District (MHD) was approved and would also
be heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 8,2004.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 12, 2005 12
DRAFT MINUTES FOR ZTA-2004-03 AND ZMA-2004-05 MONTICELLO HISTORIC DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(5)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE
III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning,
Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.8
Sec. 7
Sec. 8.1
Sec. 8.2
Sec. 8.3
Sec. 8.4
Regulations applicable in the RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
Establishment of districts
Intent
Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
Planned development defined
Where permitted
By Adding:
Sec. 11.1
Sec. 11.2
Sec. 11.3
Sec. 11.3.1
Sec. 11.3.2
Sec. 11.4
Intent and purpose, where permitted
Status as a planned development district
Permitted uses
By right
By special use permit
Regulation of development
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.8 Regulations applicable in the MHD, RA, VR, R-1 and R-2 zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the
sign area, sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required
within the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Rural Areas (RA), Village Residential (VR) and Residential (R-1
and R-2) zoning districts (Amended 6-8-05):
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area Sign Height Sign Setback
(Maximum) (Maximum) (Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment, 24 square feet, 6 feet 1 0 feet
as authorized by zoning administrator aggregated
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, 24 square feet,
per lot with 1 00 or more feet of
continuous street frontage, plus 1 per aggregated; if more
Freestanding lot if the lot is greater than 4 acres and than 1 sign, no single 10 feet 10 feet
has more than 1 approved entrance on sign shall exceed 12
its frontage square feet
24 square feet,
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision aggregated, per 6 feet 5 feet
entrance
10 feet, if
freestanding sign; 20
Temporary 1 per street 24 square feet feet, if wall sign, but 10 feet
frontage per establishment not to exceed the
top of the fascia or
mansard
40 square feet,
aggregated in the RA Same as that
Wall As calculated pursuant to section zoning district; 20 20 feet applicable to
4.15.20 square feet,
aggregated, in other structure
zoning districts
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.1; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
State law reference - Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 7 Establishment of districts
For the purposes of this chapter, the unincorporated areas of Albemarle County are hereby divided into the
following districts:
Commercial District - C-1
Commercial Office - CO
Entrance Corridor - EC (Added 10-3-90)
Heavy Industry - HI
Highway Commercial - HC
Light Industry - LI
Monticello Historic District - MHD (Added 6-8-05)
Neighborhood Model - NMD
Overlay Districts:
Airport Impact Area - AlA
Flood Hazard - FH
Natural Resource Extraction - NR
Scenic Streams - SS (Amended 9-9-92)
Planned Development-Industrial Park - PD-IP
Planned Development-Mixed Commercial - PD-MC
Planned Development-Shopping Centers - PD-SC
Planned Residential Development - PRD
Planned Unit Development - PUD
Residential - R-1
Residential - R-2
Residential - R-4
Residential - R-6
Residential - R-10
Residential - R-15
Rural Areas - RA
Village Residential - VR
(§ 7.0,12-10-80; § 7, Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.1 Intent
The planned development districts are the Monticello Historic District (MHD), Planned Residential
Development (PRD), Planned Unit Development (PUD), Neighborhood Model (NMD), Planned Development
- Mixed Commercial (PDMC), Planned Development - Shopping Centers (PDSC), and Planned
Development - Industrial Park (PD-IP) zoning districts. Each of these districts is distinct in purpose;
however, all are intended to provide for variety and flexibility in design necessary to implement the various
goals and objectives set forth in the comprehensive plan. Through a planned development approach, the
regulations in section 8 are intended to accomplish the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to a
greater extent than the regulations of conventional districts. In addition, these regulations are intended to
promote: economical and efficient land use through unified development; improved levels of amenities;
appropriate and harmonious physical development; creative design; and a better environment than generally
realized through conventional district regulations. In view of the substantial public advantages of planned
development, these regulations are intended to encourage the planned development approach in areas
appropriate in terms of location and character.
Planned development districts shall be developed: to provide for the comfort and convenience of
residents or visitors; to facilitate the protection of the character of surrounding lands, neighborhoods and the
adjacent rural areas; and to lessen traffic impacts through a reasonably short travel time between origins and
destinations of persons living, working, or visiting in such developments. Housing, commercial and service
facilities, and places of employment shall be related either by physical proximity or by adequate street
networks so as to promote these objectives.
2
I
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.2 Relation of planned development regulations to other zoning regulations
The regulations in section 8 shall apply to the establishment and regulation of all planned
development districts.
An applicant may request that any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32, or the planned development
district regulations be waived or modified if it is found to be inconsistent with planned development design
principles and that the waiver or modification is consistent with the intent and purposes of the planned
development district under the particular circumstances. If the applicant requests such a waiver or
modification as part of the application plan, the applicant shall submit its request in writing as part of the
application, and shall demonstrate that the waiver or modification would not adversely affect the public
health, safety or general welfare and, in the case of a requested modification, that the public purposes of the
original regulation would be satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by the modification. Notwithstanding
any regulation in sections 4, 5, or 32 establishing a procedure for considering a waiver or modification, any
request for such a waiver or modification shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan.
Nothing in this section prohibits an owner within a planned development from requesting a waiver or
modification of any requirement of sections 4, 5 and 32 at any time, under the procedures and requirements
established therefor. In addition to making the findings required for the granting of a waiver or modification in
sections 4, 5, and 32, such a waiver or modification may be granted only if it is also found to be consistent
with the intent and purposes of the planned development district under the particular circumstances, and
satisfies all other applicable requirements of section 8.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.3 Planned development defined
A planned development is a development that meets all of the following criteria: (1) the land is under
unified control and will be planned and developed as a whole; (2) the development is in general accord with
one or more approved application plans; and (3) in all planned development districts other than a planned
historic district, the development will provide, operate and maintain common areas, facilities and
improvements for some or all occupants of the development where these features are appropriate.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 8.4 Where permitted
A planned development district may be established in any development area identified in the
comprehensive plan, and in any rural area identified in the comprehensive plan if the district is a planned
historic district containing a historic site and the purposes of the district include the restoration, preservation,
conservation and enhancement of the historic site, provided that its location is suitable for the character of
the proposed uses and structures.
(12-10-80; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03; Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Section 11
Monticello Historic District, MHD
Sec. 11.1 Intent and purpose, where permitted
The intent and purpose of the Monticello Historic District (hereinafter referred to as "MHD") is to
create a planned historic district:
To permit restoration, preservation, conservation, education, programs, research and business
activities related to the operation of a historic house museum and historic site at Monticello;
To promote the preservation and enhancement of a unique historical site;
3
To preserve significant tracts of agricultural and forestal land;
To be a district that is unique to those parcels which both belonged to Thomas Jefferson and
contain uses related to the operation of the historic site, in recognition of:
the importance of Thomas Jefferson to the history of Albemarle County;
the importance of Monticello to the reputation, education, and economy of Albemarle
County;
Monticello as a unique element of the historical and architectural legacy of Albemarle
County, the nation, and the world, as recognized by its inclusion on the World Heritage List
administered by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Restoration or re-creation of Jefferson-era structures or landscape features, and their subsequent
interpretive use, shall be regulated only to the extent necessary to protect public health and safety.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.2 Status as a planned development district
The MHD is a planned development district within the meaning of section 8 of this chapter, and shall
not be construed to be an agricultural zoning district or a district in which agricultural, horticultural or forestal
uses are dominant.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the MHD, subject to the regulations in this section and
section 8 of this chapter, the approved application plan, and any accepted proffers:
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.1 By right uses
The following uses shall be permitted by right in the MHD:
1. Uses relating to the operation of Monticello as a historic house museum and historic site as
follows:
a. Interpretative, educational and research uses such as tours; interpretive signs,
walking paths, displays and exhibits; classes, workshops, lectures, programs and
demonstrations; field schools and history-related day camps; and archaeological
laboratories.
b. Administrative and support activities including visitor ticketing and shuttle bus
operations, maintenance operations, equipment storage, vehicle maintenance and
refueling, security and general administration, and related support spaces and
offices.
c. Visitor amenities including: parking lots; travelways; public restrooms; food and drink
preparation and vending; picnic areas; walking paths and pedestrian bridges.
d. Display and sale of products related to Thomas Jefferson and the history of
Monticello.
e. Other uses not expressly delineated in subsection 1 (a) through (d) authorized by the
zoning administrator after consultation with the director of planning and other
appropriate officials; provided that the use shall be consistent with the express
purpose and intent of the MHD, similar to the uses delineated in this subsection in
4
character, locational requirements, operational characteristics, visual impact, and
traffic generation.
2. Temporary events related to or supportive of the historic, educational or civic significance of
Monticello, such as, but not limited to the Naturalization Ceremony on the Fourth of July,
Thomas Jefferson's Birthday celebration, summer speakers series, presidential inaugural
events, and commemorative events similar to the Lewis and Clark bicentennial.
3. Display and sale of gifts, souvenirs, crafts, food, and horticultural and agricultural products,
including outdoor storage and display of horticultural and agricultural products, including
wayside stands for display and sale of agricultural products produced on the premises
(reference 5.1.19).
4. Establishment and changes to structures shown on the approved application plan:
a. Modification, improvement, expansion, or demolition of "modern structures" existing
on the effective date of this section 11.
b. Modification, improvement, re-creation, or restoration (including expansion) of
"historic or interpretive structures."
c. Establishment of "new primary structures or features" identified as such on the
approved application plan.
5. Cemeteries.
6. Detached single-family dwellings, including guest cottages and rental of the same.
7. Side-by-side duplexes; provided that density is maintained and provided that buildings are
located so that each unit could be provided with a lot meeting all other requirements for
detached single-family dwellings except for side yards at the common wall. Other two-family
dwellings shall be permitted provided density is maintained.
8. Agriculture, forestry, and fishery uses except as otherwise expressly provided.
9. Game preserves, wildlife sanctuaries and fishery uses.
10. Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities excluding tower structures and including poles,
lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and
owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines,
pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central
sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other
applicable laws.
11. Accessory uses and structures including home occupation, Class A (reference 5.2) and
storage buildings.
12. Temporary construction uses (reference 5.1.18).
13. Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices,
parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state or federal agencies
(reference 31.2.5); public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment
facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and
Sewer Authority (reference 31.2.5; 5.1.12).
14. Temporary sawmill (reference 5.1.15 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
15. Agricultural service occupation (subject to performance standards in 4.14).
5
16. Divisions of land in accordance with section 10.3.
17. Tourist lodging (reference 5.1.17).
18. Mobile homes, individual, qualifying under the following requirements (reference 5.6):
a. A property owner residing on the premises in a permanent home wishes to
place a mobile home on such property in order to maintain a full-time agricultural
employee.
b. Due to the destruction of a permanent home an emergency exists. A permit can be
issued in this event not to exceed twelve (12) months. The zoning administrator
shall be authorized to issue permits in accordance with the intent of this ordinance
and shall be authorized to require or seek any information which he may determine
necessary in making a determination of cases "a" and "b" of the aforementioned
uses.
19. Farm winery (reference 5.1.25).
20. Borrow area, borrow pit, not exceeding an aggregate volume of fifty thousand (50,000) cubic
yards including all borrow pits and borrow areas on anyone parcel of record on the adoption
date of this provision (reference 5.1.28).
21. Commercial stable (reference 5.1.03).
22. Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat.
23. Tier I and Tier II personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40).
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.3.2 By special use permit
The following uses shall be permitted by special use permit in the MHD:
1. Farm sales (reference Section 5.1.35).
2. Private helistop (reference Section 5.1.01).
3. Commercial fruit or agricultural produce packing plants.
4. Flood control dams or impoundments.
5. Concerts (such as performances by the Charlottesville Symphony Orchestra and the
Charlottesville Municipal Band), theater, and outdoor drama events open to the general
public, not otherwise permitted by right under section 11.3.1 (2).
6. Home occupations Class B.
7. Boat landings and canoe livery.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
Sec. 11.4 Regulation of development
6
In order to protect the county's historic resources and the rural character of surrounding lands, all
uses and structures shall be subject to an approved application plan, and to sections 4, 5, 8 and 32 of this
chapter, including such regulations as may be waived or modified pursuant to section 8.2. In addition:
a. Density. Density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per twenty-one (21) acres and the
minimum lot size shall be twenty-one (21) acres.
b. Structure height. The maximum structure height established in the standards for
development required by section 8.5.1 (d)(11) of this chapter shall not exceed forty-five (45)
feet.
c. Yards. The minimum yards established in the standards for development required by
section 8.5.1 (d)(11) of this chapter shall not be less than the minimum yards provided in
section 21.7, except as otherwise provided on the application plan.
(Ord. 05-18(5), 6-8-05)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at a
regular meeting held on June 8. 2005.
ú (CU- c
, oard of County Supervisors
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye
r
y
y
r
y
y
Nay
7
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: ZT A 04-06: Community
CenterIHistorical Center
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
June 8, 2005
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Revisions to the proposed Zoning Text Amendment
following Planning Commission recommendations
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMA TION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Cilimberg, Benish, Ragsdale
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission passed a Resolution of Intent for this zoning text amendment in June 2004 and held two work
sessions on the ZTA in September 2004 and January 2005. A public hearing regarding this ZTA was held at their April 5,
2005 meeting where they recommended several changes to the proposed ordinance. (Attachment A)
DISCUSSION:
.he revisions to the draft of the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission include minor corrections to
ection 5.1.420)(3) and Section 5.1.42(j)(4). Revisions to Section 5.1.42(i)(1) have also been made according to the
Planning Commission's recommendation regarding special events.
RECOMMENDA TION:
Staff recommends approval of this zoning text amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance No. 05-18( ) dated 5/23/05
.
.
.
.
L
Attachment A
Draft: OS/23/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 10.2.2
Sec. 12.2.2
Sec. 13.2.2
Sec. 14.2.2
Sec. 15.2.2
Sec. 16.2.2
Sec. 17.2.2
Sec. 18.2.2
Sec. 19.3.2
By Adding:
Definitions
By special use pennit
By special use pennit
By special use pennit
By special use pennit
By special use pennit
By special use penn it
By special use pennit
By special use pennit
By special use penn it
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers
Sec. 3.1
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Definitions
The followim! definitions shall aDDlv in the administration and enforcement of this chaDter:
Community b~enter: .^. building, group of buildings or other plaee designed andlor used for the
cultural, educational andlor recreational activities of the inhabitants of a definable geographic area
and not operated for profit. A Dlace. structure. area or facility used for cultural. educational and/or
recreational activities. which is ODen to the Dublic and intended to serve the local community. A
community center is different from a neil!hborhood center. which is a use that is tVDicallv
accessorv to a residential develoDment.
Historical center. One or more buildinl!s. structures or facilities desil!ned and/or used for
1
Draft: OS/23/05
educational and/or interoretative activities related to natural. cultural. or al!ricultural history which
are ODen to the Dublic and located at or adiacent to a historic resource. For Durooses of this
definition. a "historic resource" is a district. site. buildinl! or structure with architectural.
enl!ineerinl!. archaeolol!ical. or cultural remains nresent. which Dossesses intel!ritv of location.
desil!n. settinl!. materials. workmanshiD. and association. and which is associated with one or more
of the followinl! historical or cultural themes: (i) events that have made a sil!nificant contribution
to the broad Dattems of local. state or national history: (m the lives of Dersons sil!nificant in local.
state or national history: (Hi) the embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a tVDe. Deriod. or
method of construction. or that renresent the work of a master. or that Dossess hil!h artistic values:
or that renresent a sil!nificant and distinl!uishable entity whose comDonents may lack individual
distinction: or (iv) vieldinl! information imDortant to nrehistorv or history.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers.
Each historical center shall be subiect to the followinl!:
a. New historical center structures. Newly constructed structures for historical
centers shall be limited to one thousand five hundred 0.500) SQuare feet in size.
al!l!rel!ate. includinl! interoretatiye SDace and accessory uses within such structures.
b. Rehabilitation or construction on historic structures or sites to be used for
historical center structure. The rehabilitation of historic structures and sites to be
used for historical centers shall be comDleted to the satisfaction of the Viminia
DeDartment of Historic Resources (DHR) as demonstrated by a letter to the county.
The desil!n and sitinl! of any nroDosed accessory uses and visitor amenities at a
historic structure or site shall also be aDnroved by DHR.
c. Minimum side and rear vards. Notwithstandinl! any other nrovision of this
chaDter. the minimum side yard and rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet: nrovided
that there shall be no minimum side yard or rear yard if the side or rear lot lines are
shared with another lot that is Dart of the historical center: and further nrovided
that I!reater side yards or rear yards may be reQuired bv the site Dlan al!ent if
deemed necessary because of site-sDecific conditions. and that lesser side yards
and rear yards may be allowed to facilitate the rehabilitation or reuse of a historic
structure or site.
d. Site vlan. A site Dlan is reQuired for a historical center. In addition to any
reQuirement of section 32: (i) the site Dlan al!ent may imDose additional
reasonable standards of deyeloDment as conditions of final site Dlan aDDroval: (ii)
the owner shall submit Dhotol!raDhic documentation of existinl! site conditions
with the nreliminary site Dlan: and (im the site Dlan al!ent may reQuire the
aDDlicant to submit a Phase 1 archaeolol!ical survey of the areas of the site
nroDosed for the historical center use Drior to final site Dlan aDnroval.
2
Draft: OS/23/05
.
e.
Items for disvlav. Items for disDlav shall be related to the sÜmificance of the
historic resource to be interoreted and shall relate to Dast or Dresent DeoDle.
Dlaces. thin!!s. or events in the countv.
f. Primary uses. The educational and interoretative activities that are Dennitted
Drimarv uses include. but are not limited to. Dassive disDlav. active demonstration
includin!! tours. Dublic DarticiDation in activities. educational classes. and research.
!!. Accessorv uses. Not more than ten Dercent (10%) of the total floor area of a
historical center structure may be devoted to uses other than the educational and
interoretive activities Drovided in subsection (t). A floor Dlan shall be submitted
with the sDecial use Dennit aDD Ii cation to ensure that this reauirement is met.
Accessorv uses may include. but are not limited to. administrative offices and
shoDs and facilities such as !!ift shoDs. book stores. and accessory food sales such
as luncheonettes. snack bars. or refreshment stands.
h. Overations. The oDeration of each historical center shall be subiect to the
followin!!: (i) daily tours of a historical center shall be Dennitted: (iD the nonnal
hours that the historical center is ODen to the Dublic shall be limited to davli!!ht
hours only. dawn until dusk: and (iiD an outdoor amDlified sound system shall be
Drohibited at all times.
1.
Svecial events. SDecial events are authorized bv sDecial use Dennit only. either as
Dart of the sDecial use Dennit authorizin!! the historical center or bv a seDarate
sDecial use Dennit.
.
1. For Durooses of this section. a svecial event is an event conducted at a
historical center on a sin!!le day for which attendance is allowed only bv
invitation or reservation and whose DarticiDants do not exceed one hundred
fifty (150) Dersons: svecial events are limited to events conducted for the
Duroose of Dromotin!! the mission of the historical center.
2. In addition to all other sDecial use Dennit aDDlication reauirements in
section 31.2.4. the aDDlication shall describe the nature of the sDecial events.
3. The sDecial use Dennit: (i) shall identify the number of aDDroved sDecial
events Der Year. which number shall not exceed twelve (12): (m may
authorize sDecific sDecial events. classes of sDecial events. or a combination
thereof: and (iii) may include reasonable conditions relative to the sDecial
events as authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
1. Festivals. Festivals are authorized bv sDecial use Dennit only. either as Dart of the
sDecial use Dennit authorizin!! the historical center or bv a seDarate sDecial use
Dennit.
.
1.
For the Durooses of this section. a festival is an event conducted at an
historical center for UD to three (3) consecutive days which is ODen to the
3
Draft: OS/23/05
!!eneral Dublic and conducted for the Durnose of Dromotinl! the mission of
the historical center.
2. In addition to any other sDecial use Dermit aDDlication reauirements in
section 31.2.4. the aDDlication shall describe the nature of the festivals.
3. The sDecial use Dermit: (i) shall identify the number of aDDroved festivals
ner Year. which number shall not exceed four (4): (ii) may authorize
sDecific festivals. classes of festivals. or a combination thereof: and (iii)
may include reasonable conditions relative to the festivals as authorized
under section 31.2.4.3.
4. The owner shall obtain a zoninl! comDliance clearance Drior to conductinl! a
festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) Dersons will be allowed
to attend. A sinl!le zoninl! comDliance clearance may be obtained for one
(1) or more such festivals as Drovided herein:
a. The owner shall aDDlv for a zoninl! comDliance clearance at least
thirtY (30) days Drior to the date of the first festival to be authorized
bv the zoninl! comDliance clearance. The aDDlication shall be
submitted to the zoninl! administrator. who shall forward cODies of
the aDDlication to the county Dolice deDartment. the county
deDartment of fire and rescue. and the local office of the Virl!inia
DeDartment of Health:
b. The aDDlication shall describe the nature of each festival to be
authorized bv the zoninl! comDliance clearance. the date or dates and
hours of oDeration of each such festival. the facilities. buildinl!s and
structures to be used. and the number of DarticiDants allowed to
attend each festival:
c. UDon a determination that all reauirements of the zoninl! ordinance
are satisfied. and imDosinl! all conditions of such aDDroval reauired
bv the offices identified in subsection 5.1.42(1)(4)( at the zoninl!
administrator shall issue a zoninl! comDliance clearance for one or
more festivals. The zoninl! comDliance clearance shall be
conditional UDon the owner's comDliance with all reauirements of
the zoninl! ordinance. all conditions of the aDDroved sDecial use
Dermit. the aDDroved site Dlan. and all conditions imDosed bv the
zoninl! comDliance clearance: and
d. The zoninl! administrator may issue a sinl!le zoninl! comDliance
clearance for two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the aDDlication
submitted bv the owner includes the reauired information for each
festival to be covered bv the zoninl! comDliance clearance: (ii) the
zoninl! administrator determines that each such festival is
substantially similar in nature and size: and (iii) the zoninl!
administrator determines that a sinl!le set of conditions that would
4
.
.
.
Draft: OS/23/05
aDDlv to each such festival mav be imDosed with the zoninl!
comDliance clearance.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2 By special use permit
49. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 12.2.2 By special use permit
17. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit
13.
Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit
15. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit
17. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit
17.
Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
5
Draft: OS/23/05
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit
19. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit
19. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit
11. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to _' as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
6
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
Planning
401 McIntire Road, Room 2 I 8
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
David B. Benish, Chief of Planning
April 12, 2005
ZTA-04-06 Historic Center and Community Center
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 5, 2005, by a vote of 6:0
recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment to the Board of Supervisors.
This approval is subject to the following modifications to staffs recommendations:
. The following revisions should be made to the Draft dated 3/17/05:
· Under the definition of historical center the word "feeling" and "or possibly yielding" should be
deleted.
· Section i(1) should read, "For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a
historical center on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation
and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) person: special events are limited
to events conducted for the purpose of promoting the mission of the historical center."
· Section i(2) should read, "In addition to all other special use permit application requirements in
section 31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the special events.
· Section i(3) should read, "The special use permit (i) shall identify the number of approved
special events per year, which number shall not exceed twelve (12): (ii) may authorize specific
special events, classes of special events, or a combination thereof: and (Hi) may include
reasonable conditions relative to the special events as authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
· In Section j(2) change "owner" to "application" and delete the last clause, "and how they would
promote the mission of the historical center."
· In Section j(3) delete the examples, "(e.g., the "ABC 200th Anniversary Festival") and (e.g., "ABC
Festivals").
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on this item at its June 8th meeting.
. DBB/aer
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
Rebecca Ragsdale
April 5, 2005
June 8, 2005
ZT A 04-06: COMMUNITY CENTER/HISTORICAL CENTER
ORIGIN:
This zoning text amendment is in response to concerns raised by the Planning
Commission regarding the current definition of community center and its applicability to
uses such as the proposed Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, which is a land use the
current Zoning Ordinance does not address. The Resolution of Intent (Attachment A) for
this ZTA was passed by the PC in June 2004.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED:
· ProYide an improyed definition of Community Center.
· This ZT A would proYide opportunities for interpretation of the County's many historic
resources (oyer 2000 buildings/structures and 400 archeological) which would
proYide increased awareness and educational opportunities for historic resources in
Albemarle County.
PROPOSAL:
This ZT A would amend the definition of Community Center and add the definition of
Historical Center. Historical center would be added as a use permitted by special use
permit in the Rural Areas and residential zoning districts in the Zoning Ordinance.
Currently, the only opportunity for such a use is in the Commercial zoning districts as a
museum. The primary change regarding the definition of community center is to clarify
the extent of the geographic area which is served. The definition was also revised so
that community centers are not limited to buildings only.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent in June and held a work session
in September 2004 and January 2005 to discuss proposed ordinance amendments to
change the definition of community center and to add historical center as a use allowed
by special use permit in the RA Zoning District with supplemental regulations. Since the
initial work session was held, this ZTA has been thoroughly considered by the Historic
Preservation Committee. The comments made by both the Planning Commission and
the Historic Preservation Committee haye been incorporated into the proposed ZT A.
The proposed historical center is intended to define land uses such as the proposed
Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center, historic homes that want to open for interpretation
such as Pine Knot, and natural resource interpretation centers and to allow for them, by
special use permit in the RA Zoning District and all Residential Zoning Districts (R-1, R-
2, R-4, R-10, R-15). The supplemental regulations have incorporated both the Planning
Commission and Historic Preservation Committee concerns.
STAFF COMMENT:
Comprehensive Plan: Protection of the Rural Area's historic, archeological, and cultural
resources is identified as a Guiding Principal for policy development in the Rural Areas
Plan. The majority of the historic resources listed in the Comprehensiye Plan are located
in the Rural Areas and the plan offers a specific strategy in support of this proposed
ZTA:
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to permit tours of National or State registered historic sites
or buildings and of contributing structures in historic districts by special use permit, as
recommended in the Historic Preservation Plan, and consider performance standards for
these uses to mitigate any impacts on the building, historic district, or Rural Areas.
The supplemental regulations proposed are intended to limit the scale and intensity of
historical centers, such that increases in service delivery to the Rural Areas will not be
required to support them nor will there be detrimental effects to agricultural or forestal
activities. This amendment may help to further preserve unique natural, scenic, and
historic resources by encouraging their preservation and furthering education by
increasing the awareness of their importance, and yalue to Albemarle County. It would
be possible for applicants to requests modifications to these supplemental regulations,
which may be appropriate on sites located in the Deyelopment Area.
Historic Preservation Plan: The goals of protecting historic resources, recognizing their
value, pursuit of additional protection measures and incentiyes to preserve Albemarle's
historic and archeological resources are all being achieyed through this proposed
amendment. This amendment would also help encourage heritage tourism in the
County, which the Historic Preservation Plan recommends as a strategy that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to enable property owners of certain historic resources the
opportunity to apply for a special use permit to allow public tours of the property.
Administration I Review Process:
Adoption of these regulations would allow an additional use by special use permit in
Rural and residential zoning districts. The reyiew process will be that of any other special
use permit application with some additional input regarding historic resources.
Housing Affordability: The proposed amendment would not affect housing
affordability.
Implications to Staffing I Staffing Costs: Additional Historic Preservation planner staff
time may be necessary to ensure that there are no detrimental effects to sensitiye
historic sites with proposed historical centers. It is intended that all special use permits
for historical centers will be reyiewed by the agent or designee of the Historic
Preservation Committee, who may seek comments from the committee regarding the
proposed historical center. This reyiew will address whether or not the historical center is
interpreting a historic resource, as defined by the Historic Preservation Committee, and
will include comments regarding whether or not the supplemental regulations for
historical centers have been adequately addressed with regard to historic preservation.
z..
.
.
.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the regulations as provided
in Attachment B.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent
Attachment B: Draft Ordinance dated 3/17/05
3
4
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT A
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, "museums are defined in Section 3, Definitions, of the Zoning
Ordinance, to be establishments "devoted to the procurement, care, study and display of
objects oflasting value or interest," and are allowed by right in various commercial
zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend the definition of "museum" to expressly
include educational, historic and interpretative centers, to allow such museums by special
use pennit in certain non-commercial zoning districts, and to establish supplemental
regulations governing their use, as deemed appropriate; and
WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend the definition of "community center" in
Section 3, Definitions, ofthe Zoning Ordinance, to clarify the extent ofthe geographical
area to be served by the center.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public
necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County
Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Sections 3, 5, and all
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes
described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing on the zoning text anlendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and
make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
ZTA 2004-06 Historical Center and Community Center
o
Iv
.
.
.
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL
PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III,
District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as
follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 10.2.2
Sec. 12.2.2
Sec. 13.2.2
Sec. 14.2.2
Sec. 15.2.2
Sec. 16.2.2
Sec. 17.2.2
Sec. 18.2.2
Sec. 19.3.2
By Adding:
Definitions
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers
Sec. 3.1
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Definitions
The followin2: definitions shall aoolv in the administration and enforcement of this chaoter:
Community b~enter: .^... building, group of buildings or other plaoe designed and/or used for the
~~~~~!, :<:uoational and/or reoreational aoti','itics of the inhabitants of a definable ge~~:;hï~ :ea
and not operated for profit. A olace. structure. area or facility used for cultural. educational and/or
recreational activities. which is ooen to the oublic and intended to serve the local community. A
community center is different fÌ"om a nei2:hborhood center. which is a use that is tvoicallv
accessorv to a residential develooment.
Historical center. One or more buildin2:s. structures or facilities desÌlmed and/or used for
1
7
Draft: 03/17/05
educational and/or intemretative activities related to natural. cultural. or alITicultural historY which
are ODen to the Dublic and located at or adiacent to a historic resource. For DurDoses of this
definition. a "historic resource" is a district. site. buildin2: or structure with architectural.
em!Ìneerin2:. archaeolo2:ical. or cultural remains Dfesent. which Dossesses inte!!fÌtv oflocation.
desÜm. settin2:. materials. workmanshiD. feelin2:. and association. and which is associated with one
or more ofthe followin2: historical or cultural themes: (i) events that have made a sÌ!mificant
contribution to the broad Dattems of local. state or national historY: (ii) the lives of Dersons
si£mificant in local. state or national historY: (iii) the embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a
tvoe. Deriod. or method of construction. or that reDfesent the work of a master. or that Dossess hi2:h
artistic values: or that reDfesent a si£mificant and distimrnishable entity whose comDonents may
lack individual distinction: or (iv) vieldin2:. or Dossiblv vieldim!. infonnation imDortant to
Dfehistorv or historY.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers.
Each historical center shall be subiect to the followin2::
a. New historical center structures. Newlv constructed structures for historical
centers shall be limited to one thousand five hundred 0.500) SQuare feet in size.
a2:IITe2:ate. inc1udin2: intemretative SDace and accessorY uses within such structures.
b. Rehabilitation or construction on historic structures or sites to be used for
historical center buildimz. The rehabilitation of historic structures and sites to be
used for historical centers shall be comDleted to the satisfaction of the Vinrinia
DeDartment of Historic Resources (DHR) as demonstrated bv a letter to the county.
The desi£m and sitin2: of any DfoDosed accessory uses and visitor amenities at a
historic structure or site shall also be aDDfoved bv DHR.
c. Minimum side and rear vards. Notwithstandin2: any other Dfovision of this
chaDter. the minimum side yard and rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet: Dfovided
that there shall be no minimum side yard or rear yard if the side or rear lot lines are
shared with another lot that is Dart of the historical center: and further Dfovided
that IITeater side yards or rear yards may be reQuired bv the site Dlan a2:ent if
deemed necessarY because of site-sDecific conditions. and that lesser side yards
and rear yards may be allowed to facilitate the rehabilitation or reuse of a historic
structure or site.
d. Site vlan. A site Dlan is reQuired for a historical center. In addition to any
reQuirement of section 32: (i) the site Dlan a2:ent may imDose additional
reasonable standards of develooment as conditions of final site Dlan aDDfoval: (ii)
the owner shall submit DhotolITaDhic documentation of existin2: site conditions
with the meliminarv site Dlan: and (iii) the site Dlan a2:ent may reQuire the
aODlicant to submit a Phase 1 archaeolo2:ical survey of the areas of the site
DroDosed for the historical center use Drior to final site Dlan aDDfoval.
2
8
Draft: 03/17/05
.
e.
Items for disDlav. Items for disDlav shall be related to the sitmificance of the
historic resource to be internreted and shall relate to Dast or Dresent DeoDle.
Dlaces. thin!!s. or events in the county.
f. Primary uses. The educational and internretative activities that are Dennitted
Drimarv uses include. but are not limited to. Dassive disDlav. active demonstration
includin!! tours. Dublic DarticiDation in activities. educational classes. and research.
!!. Accessorv uses. Not more than ten Dercent (10%) ofthe total floor area ofa
historical center structure may be devoted to uses other than the educational and
internretive activities Drovided in subsection (fl. A floor Dlan shall be submitted
with the sDecial use Dennit aDDlication to ensure that this reQuirement is met.
Accessory uses may include. but are not limited to. administrative offices and
shoDs and facilities such as !rift shoDs. book stores. and accessory food sales such
as luncheonettes. snack bars. or refreshment stands.
h. ODerations. The oDeration of each historical center shall be subject to the
followin!!: (i) daily tours of a historical center shall be Dennitted: (ii) the nonnal
hours that the historical center is ODen to the Dublic shall be limited to davli!!ht
hours only. dawn until dusk: and (iii) an outdoor amDlified sound system shall be
Drohibited at all times.
1.
SDecial events. SDecial events are authorized bv sDecial use Dennit only. either as
Dart of the sDecial use Dennit authorizin!! the historical center or bv a seDarate
sDecial use Dennit.
.
1. For Durnoses of this section. a sDecial event is an event conducted at a
historical center on a sin!!le day for which attendance is allowed only bv
invitation or reservation and whose DarticiDants do not exceed one hundred
fifty (150) Dersons: sDecial events include. but are not limited to. meetin!!s.
conferences. banQuets. dinners. weddin!! receDtions. Drivate Darties and
events conducted for the Durnose ofDromotin!! the mission of the
historical center.
2. In addition to all other sDecial use Dennit aDDlication reQuirements in
section 31.2.4. the owner shall describe the nature of the sDecial events and.
when aDDlicable. how they would Dromote the mission ofthe historical
center.
.
3. The sDecial use Dennit: (i) shall identify the number of aDDroved sDecial
events Der Year. which number shall not exceed twelve (12): (ii) may
authorize sDecific sDecial events (e.1?. the "ABC-XYZ weddin!!"t classes
of sDecial events (e. 1?. "weddin!!s"t or a combination thereof: and Œi) mav
include reasonable conditions relative to the sDecial events as authorized
under section 31.2.4.3.
3
q
Draft: 03/17/05
1. Festivals. Festivals are authorized bv sDecial use Dennit onlv. either as Dart of the
sDecial use Dennit authorizinl! the historical center or bv a seDarate sDecial use
Dennit.
1. For the DUfDoses of this section. a festival is an event conducted at an
historical center for UD to three (3) consecutive davs which is ODen to the
I!eneral Dublic and conducted for the DUfDose of Dfomotinl! the mission of
the historical center.
2. In addition to anv other sDecial use Dennit aDDlication reauirements in
section 31.2.4. the owner shall describe the nature of the festivals and how
thev would Dromote the mission of the historical center.
3. The sDecial use Dennit: (i) shall identify the number of aDDfoved festivals
Der vear. which number shall not exceed four (4): (ii) mav authorize
sDecific festivals (e. 2".. the "ABC 200th Anniversary Festival"). classes of
sDecial events (e. 2".. "ABC Festivals"). or a combination thereof: and (iii)
mav include reasonable conditions relative to the festivals as authorized
under section 31.2.4.3.
4. The owner shall obtain a zoninl! clearance Drior to conductinl! a festival at
which more than one hundred fiftv (150) Dersons will be allowed to attend.
A sinl!le zoninl! clearance may be obtained for one (1 ) or more such
festivals as Drovided herein:
a. The owner shall aDDly for a zoninl! clearance at least thirtv (30)
davs Drior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the
zoninl! clearance. The aDDlication shall be submitted to the zoninl!
administrator. who shall forward cODies of the aDDlication to the
countv Dolice deDartment. the county deuartment of fire and
rescue. and the local office of the Vinrinia DeDartment of Health:
b. The aDDlication shall describe the nature of each festival to be
authorized bv the zoninl! clearance. the date or dates and hours of
oDeration of each such festival. the facilities. buildinl!s and
structures to be used. and the number of D articiD ants allowed to
attend each festival:
c. UDon a detennination that all reauirements of the zoninl! ordinance
are satisfied. and imDosinl! all conditions of such aDDroval reauired
bv the offices identified in subsection 5.1.42(1)(53 )( a). the zoninl!
administrator shall issue a zoninl! clearance for one or more
festivals. The zoninl! clearance shall be conditional UDon the
owner's comDliance with all reauirements of the zoninl! ordinance.
all conditions of the aDDfoved sDecial use Dennit. the aDDfoved site
Dlan. and all conditions imDosed bv the zoninl! clearance: and
4
ID
.
.
.
Draft: 03/17/05
d.
The zoninf! administrator mav issue a sinf!le zoninf! clearance for
two (2) or more festivals if: (i) the aDD Ii cation submitted bv the
owner includes the reauired information for each festival to be
covered bv the zoninf! clearance: (ii) the zoninf! administrator
determines that each such festival is substantiallv similar in nature
and size: and (iii) the zoninf! administrator determines that a sinf!le
set of conditions that would aDDlv to each such festival mav be
imDosed with the zoninf! clearance.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
49.
Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 12.2.2
By special use permit
17.
Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 13.2.2 By special use permit
13. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 14.2.2 By special use permit
15. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 15.2.2 By special use permit
17. Historical centers. historical center sDecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
5
1/
Sec. 16.2.2 By special use permit
Draft: 03/17/05
17. Historical centers. historical center snecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 17.2.2 By special use permit
19. Historical centers. historical center snecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 18.2.2 By special use permit
19. Historical centers. historical center snecia1 events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
Sec. 19.3.2 By special use permit
11. Historical centers. historical center snecial events. historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42),
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
6
\2
~
.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 5, 2005 Minutes
ZT A-2004-006 Historic Center and Community Center
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, April 5,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Marcia Joseph, Vice-
Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for
University of Virginia and Calvin Morris were absent.
Other officials present were David Benish, Chief of Planning & Community Development; Stephen Waller,
Senior Planner; Juandiago Wade, Transportation Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Planner; and Greg
Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney.
.
ZTA 2004-006 Historic Center and Community Center: Amend Section 3.1, Definitions; add Section
5.1.42 Historical centers; and amend Section 10.2.2, By special use permit, Section 12.2.2, By special
use permit, Section 13.2.2, By special use permit, Section 14.2.2, By special use permit, Section 15.2.2,
By special use permit, Section 16.2.2, By special use permit, Section 17.2.2, By special use permit,
Section 18.2.2, By special use permit, and Section 19.3.2, By special use permit; of Chapter 18, Zoning,
of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Section 3.1, Definitions, by amending the
definition of "community center" and by adding a definition of "historical center"; add Section 5.1.42,
Historical centers, to establish supplementary regulations pertaining to the prerequisites for and the
operation of historical centers including regulations concerning the size of new historical center structures
and the rehabilitation of, or construction on, historic structures used for historical centers, minimum side
yards and rear yards, requirements for site plans, items for display, primary and accessory uses, daily
operations, special events and festivals; and amend Section 10.2.2, By special use permit (Rural Areas-
RA), Section 12.2.2, By special use permit (Village Residential-VR), Section 13.2.2, By special use permit
(Residential-R-1), Section 14.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-2), Section 15.2.2, By special use
permit (Residential-R-4), Section 16.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-6), Section 17.2.2, By
special use permit (Residential-R-10), Section 18.2.2, By special use permit (Residential-R-15), and
Section 19.3.2, By special use permit (Planned Residential Development-PRD) to allow historical centers,
historical center special events, and historical center festivals within such zoning districts by special use
permit. (Rebecca Ragsdale)
.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that this was a zoning text amendment that the Commission passed a resolution on
back in June, which originated with the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center's request for a historical
center type of use. In reviewing that it was found that the Zoning Ordinance was somewhat inadequate in
allowing such a use. Therefore, this zoning text amendment is to improve the definition of community
center and allow for historical center uses to interpret the many historical resources in the County, which
right now museums are allowed in commercial zoning districts, but residential and rural areas zoning
districts are left out as far as allowing historical resources interpretation. The Commission has been
reviewing this item since June. The Commission held a work session in September and then also in
January to discuss the proposed ordinance amendment. They received comments from the Lewis and
Clark applicants for the special use permit where this request originated, the Historic Committee and
some others, which has resulted in the drafted ordinance language which allows for historical centers in
the rural area and also in the residential zoning districts. This was drafted in a way that these would most
likely be in the rural areas where the majority of the historical resources are located, but there also may
be cases where you have rural area zoning be it in the development area or residential zoning districts
that also have sites where they may want to have a historical center. This would be allowed in the
supplemental regulations, which could be modified as you discussed at the last work session to 1,500
square feet total for building interpretative space and then 10 percent of that in accessory uses. A floor
plan would be submitted detailing the uses with the special use permit application. Accessory uses may
include but are not limited to administrative office uses and shop facilities, such as gift shops, book
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
1
stores, and accessory food sales such as luncheonettes, snack bars, or refreshment stands. They had
discussions at the last work session about what to call these since they did not envision a full scale
restaurant. But, that comes from the ordinance language for restaurants.
The supplementary regulations specify that the items for display will have historical significance. It is a
very conservative approach with the supplemental regulations. The definition for historical center itself
includes what is defined as a historic resource instead of having that in the supplemental regulations and
having the historic preservation committee interpreting that. Also, this allows for applicants for these
historical centers to request by special use permit the ability to have special events, which would be
something that is less than 150 people and by invitation only, such as a conference or reception of some
sort that is intended to be supportive of the historical center's mission. It also allows them the ability to
request at the special use permit stage to have festivals which may be multi-day and open to the public
for events which provide additional exhibits or things related to the historical period or the historical center
use. Those are the highlights. The ordinance has tried to address all of the comments that staff has got
and take the conservative approach that these would most of the time be located in the rural areas, but
since they are supplemental regulations that there may be flexibility through the special use permit
process to modify them.
Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioners have any questions for Ms. Ragsdale.
Mr. Rieley stated that the definition of historic center seems to have changed since their last discussion.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that the definition has been made more concise and consolidated. Historical center
defines what the use is and what an historic resource is. This was taken from the definition that the
Commission saw from the Historic Preservation Committee. It was a one page sheet, which she did not
provide. The definition was tightened. The second portion of the definition describes what themes there
might be in the history of Albemarle County. Therefore, that was not included. Mr. Kamptner did a lot of
work on tightening this definition.
Mr. Kamptner stated that the reason that they did it was because it relied too heavily on the input of the
Historic Preservation Committee. Ultimately, this will have to be a determination made by the zoning
administrator. Once she does that she can, of course, consult with committee members or anyone else
who can provide expertise. Therefore, they recognized that and tried to make sure that what they have
here is concise in terms of the process.
Mr. Rieley stated that under the definition of historical center the word "feeling" and "yielding" should be
deleted. He suggested that the definition not be so mushy.
Mr. Kamptner stated that hopefully the definition will not come up too often. But, when Ms. McCulley
makes determinations she relies on a lot of different resources. With some of these terms in here they
can fully expect that members of the committee may be consulted.
Ms. Higgins stated that on item 5.1.4.2.i.2, instead of saying that, "the owner shall" that it should say, "the
application shall describe the nature of the special events." She suggested deleting
". . , and when applicable, how they would promote the mission of the historical center." She felt that
suggested that some type of judgment was going to be made.
Ms. Joseph stated that she was curious as to how a wedding could promote a mission.
Ms. Ragsdale stated that this request had gotten farther along than they had gotten with the other special
events request. Where this special event definition and the examples originate is with what is included
with farm wineries. When they talk about special events they do reference weddings. In this case, and
with farm wineries, weddings are accessory. Whereas, with Ms. Randolph's case they are looking at it
and evaluating what it is going to be tied to as far as being a use that is permitted in the RA zone without
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES-
SP-2004-041 CRICKETS BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
2
.
.
.
'"
..
being tied to these other things directly. She pointed out that it is the use.
Mr. Rieley stated that there were places all over the County where this could apply. Because it is
attractive to have weddings to raise money, he did not think it should be an automatic thing. In looking at
provisions to allow weddings he felt that it should be a separate special use permit process.
Ms. Joseph suggested that the wording from the winery section might not fit in this because it is a whole
different animal from a vineyard. It is a historical center.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Edgerton opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to address the Commission on this zoning text amendment.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that the County is the applicant.
Fran Lawrence stated that he was here with Jane Henley, who is the President of the Lewis and Clark
Exploratory Center, who is here in support of the zoning text amendment. This has been a long process
and they appreciate the Commission allowing them to have some input. They did not have input in the
last definition. What staff did on that was to basically make it more restrictive and not less restrictive. He
stated that as he reads it that the difference between a festival and a special event is that the festival
seems clearly to be tied directly to the mission of the center. It seems like the special event is a little less
closely tied. Wineries were all located in the rural area and were an agricultural use. But, to really work
they had to have some festivals, i.e. wine festivals, and also they need to have some special events to
make it work. He felt that was where it came from. The thinking would be that the special event would be
only twelve times a year. What other people tell us who are trying to make this kind of thing work is that
they need the income from that. So he recognized their concern about that, but as he sees it the special
events would be less directly connected to the mission perhaps than the festivals would be. They are told
that the kind of thing that they are that is helpful for us to survive. Their most critical concern is the
language that they understand is going to be part of the supplement regulation that says newly
constructed structures for historical centers shall be limited to 1,500 square feet. This room is about 22' X
46'. He noted that 1,500 square feet would be 30' X 50'. They recognize the concern. At one point the
draft came to them at 2,000 square feet in the rural area as identified in the Comprehensive Plan.
Everybody realized that would not work. When they come back to the Commission for a special use
permit, they will tell them that they are actually in the rural area, but in the Comprehensive Plan they are
in the development area, which they will argue makes them somewhat different. But, their thought was
that you have 2,000 structures and houses and 400 sites that are archaeological otherwise. This includes
battlefields, river sites, and potential Native American burial sites on which no structures are located. It
seems to us that the 1,500 square feet contemplated a Pine Knot situation where they have an important
historical structure and you did not want to overwhelm it with new buildings. For example, the Lewis and
Clark proposed as their tentative plan which actually has their building almost underground with a sod
roof. Therefore, you would not be able to hardly see it. The second part about what they plan is that
Lewis and Clark were big. There were big grizzly bears and big pier boats. Although they will be asking
for more space then maybe they think is appropriate, they will be telling them that it is not going to be that
intense because one-fourth of their building is going to be filled up with the keel boat that they are
building. So it seems that some better language with respect to the building size would be to talk in terms
that newly constructed structures for historical centers shall be limited in size so as to be appropriate in
scale to the historical resource or so as to be appropriate in scale and intensity to the historical resource.
Therefore, you could look at that both in terms of what it looks like from the outside and how much open
space is there inside. If they have a 10,000 square foot building that is filled up with an 8,000 square foot
boat, you are not dealing with space that you could fill with people. He pointed out their boat was not
going to be that big. That was their concern. They recognize that the 1,500 square feet can be modified
as part of their process. But, it seemed that it might be better started out with language that addresses
the object of the 1,500 square feet. If there are any questions, he would be happy to answer them.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any questions for Mr. Lawrence.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
3
Mr. Thomas asked if he was specifically speaking about the application that they were going to submit or
just in general in what they were looking at for the ZMA.
Mr. Lawrence stated that what he was addressing in general is the concept that the new buildings on
historical structures ought to be scaled in intensity not to overwhelm the historic structure. If it was a
building like Pine Knot or if it was a historical plantation building, then they would not want any structure
at all. They would probably not even need one. But, if it was a battle field of 50 acres of nothing, then in
order to have an interpretative center there you would have to have thousands of square feet and it would
not take away from the battle field. Their thought was that the language would be better if they talked
about the scale and intensity. They think that will help them as Lewis and Clark, but they would say that
would make the ordinance better altogether. Therefore, he was speaking today not only for Lewis and
Clark, but that also they were looking at this hopefully to convince the Commission that the ordinance that
will help them will also help other people.
Kay Slaughter, a resident of Charlottesville, stated that she agreed with what Mr. Lawrence said. She
stated that she wanted to give the Commission a little reminder that they realize that the Commission was
trying to fashion this for more than just their project. But, since their project sort of brought it forward that
she just wanted to remind them again that they have been working on this project since 1997. It was
initiated by the City and the Board of Supervisors asked to be involved. So they have been working over
the years since then to identify the site. In July, 2003 they signed the lease with the City and the County
for this site. She hoped that they would consider what Mr. Lawrence said about the scale and the
intensity in general even when you are talking about the accessory uses and you think about ten percent
for other than educational uses for a small office. Their project is focusing on the historical aspect, but
they are very interested in the natural resources aspect and the river. Certainly there is always the
possibility that they might want someone like the Rivanna Conservation Society to share space with them.
They are focusing on their project and just thinking ahead on those things. With the 1,500 square foot
maximum that would very difficult to do. She pointed out that she understands that they could come back
and request this under the supplemental regulations. This is something sort of new and she had tried to
understand that from talking to the staff. Staff has been very helpful, but it makes her nervous because
these are regulations after all and appear to be the starting place. Certainly their facility would need to be
more sizeable than that for all the obvious reasons, including the keel boat.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other members of the public that would like to address the
Commission on this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back
before the Commission for possible action.
Ms. Higgins stated that things could become historic when they are about 50 years old. Therefore, there
might be something out there that might become historic.
Mr. Kamptner stated that to amend this ordinance now they would have to readvertise it if they were
going to have it apply in other zoning districts.
Mr. Benish suggested that if the Commission was ready to forward this on to the Board that they should
do so, but they could continue to discuss this and then bring the information back to the Board. If the
Board feels that it is worth pursuing, then they can decide to do that.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the discussion could be held and an adjustment made between now and the
Board meeting.
Mr. Benish stated that they could finish that discussion later. The Commission might look at that and
decide that there is nothing to it anyway.
Ms. Higgins stated that this could be adopted. Then they might find that it worked so well where it is at
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005 4
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
.
.
.
that it could be adopted by adding it to these other districts.
Mr. Edgerton stated that it sounds like that can be done between now and the Board's meeting.
Ms. Joseph asked that the Commission go over what they were eliminating.
After discussion, the Commission agreed to make the following revisions to the Draft dated 3/17/05:
· Under the definition of historical center the word "feeling" and "yielding" should be deleted.
· Section i(1) should read, "For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a
historical center on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation
and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) person: special events are limited
to iRsll;JBs, Bl;Jt Eire RSt limiteB tø, msstiR~s, sSRter-sRses, BElR€ l;Jets, BiRRers, weBBiR~ rese 3tisRs,
ßriv8te 3arties aRB events conducted for the purpose of promoting the mission of the historical
center."
· Section i(2) should read, "In addition to all other special use permit application requirements in
section 31.2.4, the application ewAeF shall describe the nature of the special events. , ElRB \VRsR
8 3 3lisSBls, RSw tASY 'Nsl;JIB 3rsmsts tAe missisR sf tAe Aistsrissl BeRter.
· Section i(3) should read, "The special use permit: (i) shall identify the number of approved
special events per year, which number shall not exceed twelve (12): (ii) may authorize specific
special events (8.~., tAe "ABC XYZ weBBiR~), classes of special events (e.~., "weBBiR~6"), or a
combination thereof: and (iii) may include reasonable conditions relative to the special events as
authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
· In Section j(2) change "owner" to "application" and delete the last clause, "and how they would
promote the mission of the historical center."
· In Section j(3) delete the examples, "(e.g., the "ABC 200th Anniversary Festival") and (e.g., "ABC
Festivals").
Ms. Higgins made a motion to recommend approval of ZTA-2004-006, Historic Center and Community
Center, with the following modifications to staffs recommendations.
The following revisions should be made to the Draft dated 3/17/05:
· Under the definition of historical center the word "feeling" and "or possibly yielding" should be
deleted.
· Section i(1) should read, "For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a
historical center on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation
and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) person: special events are limited
to events conducted for the purpose of promoting the mission of the historical center."
· Section i(2) should read, "In addition to all other special use permit application requirements in
section 31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the special events.
· Section i(3) should read, "The special use permit: (i) shall identify the number of approved
special events per year, which number shall not exceed twelve (12): (ii) may authorize specific
special events, classes of special events, or a combination thereof: and (iii) may include
reasonable conditions relative to the special events as authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
5
· In Section j(2) change "owner" to "application" and delete the last clause, "and how they would
promote the mission of the historical center."
· In Section j(3) delete the examples, "(e.g., the "ABC 200th Anniversary Festival") and (e.g., "ABC
Festivals").
Mr. Rieley seconded the motion.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was any further discussion.
Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission wants to ask staff to bring forward the concept of having this
available in other commercial districts.
Mr. Edgerton stated that he was of the opinion that process was going to go on between now and the
Board meeting.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that to add a district it would have to come back to the Planning Commission
for a public hearing. But, the rest of the ordinance could move on.
Mr. Edgerton stated that they would have to readvertise to add a district, but this portion could go forward.
Mr. Benish stated that all that he was going to do was get the Commission a zoning map so that they
could get a sense of how many parcels that are out in the rural area. He felt that most of the
Commissioners were seeing this as an opportunity where you might find that there are isolated zoning
districts in the rural area. If the Commission after the review of that information wants to have further
discussion, then staff will schedule another work session to see where to go from there.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Morris - Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZTA-2004-006, Community Center/Historical Center was approved and would be
heard by the Board of Supervisors on June 8,2004.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 5, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES -
SP-2004-041 CRICKET'S BAKED GOODS AND CATERING AND
ZTA-2004-006 HISTORIC CENTER AND COMMUNITY CENTER
6
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(7)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE II,
BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, of the
Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 3.1
Sec. 10.2.2
Sec. 12.2.2
Sec. 13.2.2
Sec. 14.2.2
Sec. 15.2.2
Sec. 16.2.2
Sec. 17.2.2
Sec. 18.2.2
Sec. 19.3.2
Definitions
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By special use permit
By Adding:
Sec. 5.1.42
Historical centers
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Sec. 3.1
Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the administration and enforcement of this chapter:
Community center: A place, structure, area or facility used for cultural, educational and/or recreational
activities, which is open to the public and intended to serve the local community. A community center is
different from a neighborhood center, which is a use that is typically accessory to a residential
development.
Historical center. One or more buildings, structures or facilities designed and/or used for educational
and/or interpretative activities related to natural, cultural, or agricultural history which are open to the public
and located at or adjacent to a historic resource. For purposes of this definition, a "historic resource" is a
district, site, building or structure with architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural remains
present, which possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association,
and which is associated with one or more of the following historical or cultural themes: (i) events that have
made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local, state or national history; (ii) the lives of
persons significant in local, state or national history; (iii) the embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a
type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic
values; or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual
distinction; or (iv) yielding information important to prehistory or history.
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 5.0 Supplementary Regulations
Sec. 5.1.42 Historical centers.
Each historical center shall be subject to the following:
a. New historical center structures. Newly constructed structures for historical centers shall be
limited to one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet in size, aggregate, including
interpretative space and accessory uses within such structures.
b. Rehabilitation or construction on historic structures or sites to be used for historical center
structure. The rehabilitation of historic structures and sites to be used for historical centers
shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources
(DHR) as demonstrated by a letter to the county. The design and siting of any proposed
accessory uses and visitor amenities at a historic structure or site shall also be approved
by DHR.
c. Minimum side and rear yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the
minimum side yard and rear yard shall be fifty (50) feet; provided that there shall be no
minimum side yard or rear yard if the side or rear lot lines are shared with another lot that
is part of the historical center; and further provided that greater side yards or rear yards
may be required by the site plan agent if deemed necessary because of site-specific
conditions, and that lesser side yards and rear yards may be allowed to facilitate the
rehabilitation or reuse of a historic structure or site.
d. Site plan. A site plan is required for a historical center. In addition to any requirement of
section 32: (i) the site plan agent may impose additional reasonable standards of
development as conditions of final site plan approval; (ii) the owner shall submit
photographic documentation of existing site conditions with the preliminary site plan; and
(iii) the site plan agent may require the applicant to submit a Phase 1 archaeological
survey of the areas of the site proposed for the historical center use prior to final site plan
approval.
e. Items for display. Items for display shall be related to the significance of the historic
resource to be interpreted and shall relate to past or present people, places, things, or
events in the county.
f. Primary uses. The educational and interpretative activities that are permitted primary uses
include, but are not limited to, passive display, active demonstration including tours, public
participation in activities, educational classes, and research.
g. Accessory uses. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total floor area of a historical
center structure may be devoted to uses other than the educational and interpretive
activities provided in subsection (f). A floor plan shall be submitted with the special use
permit application to ensure that this requirement is met. Accessory uses may include, but
are not limited to, administrative offices and shops and facilities such as gift shops, book
stores, and accessory food sales such as luncheonettes, snack bars, or refreshment
stands.
h. Operations. The operation of each historical center shall be subject to the following: (i)
daily tours of a historical center shall be permitted; (ii) the normal hours that the historical
center is open to the public shall be limited to daylight hours only, dawn until dusk; and (iii)
an outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited at all times.
i. Special events. Special events are authorized by special use permit only, either as part of
the special use permit authorizing the historical center or by a separate special use permit.
1. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a historical
center on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or
reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150) persons;
special events are limited to events conducted for the purpose of promoting the
mission of the historical center.
2
2. In addition to all other special use permit application requirements in section
31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the special events.
3. The special use permit: 0) shall identify the number of approved special events per
year, which number shall not exceed twelve (12); (ii) may authorize specific special
events, classes of special events, or a combination thereof; and (iii) may include
reasonable conditions relative to the special events as authorized under section
31.2.4.3.
j. Festivals. Festivals are authorized by special use permit only, either as part of the
special use permit authorizing the historical center or by a separate special use permit.
1. For the purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at an historical
center for up to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public and
conducted for the purpose of promoting the mission of the historical center.
2. In addition to any other special use permit application requirements in section
31.2.4, the application shall describe the nature of the festivals.
3. The special use permit: (i) shall identify the number of approved festivals per year,
which number shall not exceed four (4); (ii) may authorize specific festivals,
classes of festivals, or a combination thereof; and (iii) may include reasonable
conditions relative to the festivals as authorized under section 31.2.4.3.
4. The owner shall obtain a zoning compliance clearance prior to conducting a
festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to
attend. A single zoning compliance clearance may be obtained for one (1) or more
such festivals as provided herein:
a. The owner shall apply for a zoning compliance clearance at least thirty
(30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the
zoning compliance clearance. The application shall be submitted to the
zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the
county police department, the county department of fire and rescue, and
the local office of the Virginia Department of Health;
b. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized
by the zoning compliance clearance, the date or dates and hours of
operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be
used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival;
c. Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are
satisfied, and imposing all conditions of such approval required by the
offices identified in subsection 5.1.42U)(4)(a), the zoning administrator
shall issue a zoning compliance clearance for one or more festivals. The
zoning compliance clearance shall be conditional upon the owner's
compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance, all conditions of
the approved special use permit, the approved site plan, and all conditions
imposed by the zoning compliance clearance; and
d. The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning compliance clearance
for two (2) or more festivals if: 0) the application submitted by the owner
includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the
zoning compliance clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that
each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the
zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would
apply to each such festival may be imposed with the zoning compliance
clearance.
3
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 10.2.2
By special use permit
49. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 12.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 13.2.2
By special use permit
13. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 14.2.2
By special use permit
15. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 15.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 16.2.2
By special use permit
17. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 17.2.2
By special use permit
19. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 18.2.2
By special use permit
19. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
Sec. 19.3.2
By special use permit
11. Historical centers, historical center special events, historical center festivals
(reference 5.1.42).
4
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at
a regular meeting held on June 8. 2005.
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye
y
y
y
y
y
y
Nay
5
·
·
·
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Fax (434) 972-4012
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
David B. Benish~f of Planning
May 13, 2005
ZTA 2005-002 & ZMA 2005-004 - Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA)
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 3, 2005, by a vote of 6:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted Zoning Text Amendment and Zoning Map Amendment to the
Board of Supervisors.
The Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on these items at its June 8, 2005 meeting. An updated
staff report will be provided in the near future.
DBB/aer
Cc: Mr. Bryan Elliott
Executive Director
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Authority
100 Bowen Loop, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22911
.
.
.
STAFF PERSON: David Benish
PLANNING COMMISSION: May 3, 2005
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: June 8, 2005
ZTA 2005-02 and ZMA 2004-04 Airport Impact Area Overlay District
UPDATE: Minor non-substantive modifications and corrections have been made
to the text and format of the attached ordinance from the version reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
ORIGIN AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
This is a request to amend the text of the Airport Impact Overlay zoning district and
modify the district boundaries on the County Zoning Map.
Albemarle County has established the Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) in
order to minimize the adverse impacts of the airport on persons and properties and to
minimize the creation of physical, visual and other obstructions to the safe operations of
the airport facility. The AlA boundary and other sub-areas defined within the AlA are
based on information provided in the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan. The
Master Plan has recently been updated, and based on new information provided in the
Master Plan particularly related to the Noise Impact Area, Airport Protection Area the
Runway Clear Zone portions of AlA, certain changes to the AlA Text and Zoning Map
are required to keep the district current.
The Master Plan was recently updated by the Airport Authority, with the updated
Authority adopting the updated Master Plan on August 18, 2004. The Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors subsequently adopted the updated plan on January 11, 2005.
The Federal Aviation Administration has also reviewed and accepted the updated
Master Plan. The Airport has maintained a Master Plan for facility development since
1972. Prior updates include 1982 and 1994. FAA requires an airport to maintain a
master plan in order to be eligible to receive grant-in-aid funding through its airport
improvement program.
JUSTIFICATION FOR REQUEST/PUBLIC PURPOSE SERVED
As mentioned above, based on new information provided in the updated Airport Master
Plan, the AlA overlay district text needs to be amended to reflect this new information.
The AlA serves to minimize the impact of the Airport on persons and property and to
minimize the impact of physical development on airport operations.
STAFF COMMENT
Text Modifications
Attachment A is a draft of the sections to be amended in the AlA. Attachment B is a
copy of the existing ordinance, including the remaining portion of the AlA not being
amended. These amendments are necessary to assure that the AlA remains
consistent with information provided in the update Airport Master Plan. The primary text
amendments to this section are references to new information and maps which are the
bases for the boundaries of the AlA Overlay District and defined sub-areas of the AlA,
specifically the Noise Impact Area, the Airport Protection Area, and Runway Protection
Zone.
The AlA Overlav District Boundary
The boundary for the AlA Overlay District is defined by the "Airport Airspace Drawing-
Part 77" map contained in the updated Master Plan (Attachment C, 2 pages). The full
AlA boundary forms a "keyhole" shape. The only change to this map boundary is to the
northern arc of the boundary. Attachment D is a map which generally shows the
change in this boundary. This change occurred to reflect the future extension of the
runway. The extension planned for the north end of the runway necessitated a
corresponding extension of the AlA area to the north. The impact of this change is
additional properties are brought into the AlA. This change is discussed further in the
Airport Protection Area section below.
Airport Protection Area (APA)
This portion of the AlA is the horizontal and conical area surrounding the runway which
defines the airspace to be protected from penetration by buildings, structures, objects of
natural growth, or use. The APA is the circle portion of the AlA keyhole. The northern
arc of this area has changed due to the future 1,000 foot extension on the north end of
the runway. The impact of this change is additional properties are brought into the APA
portion of the AlA. In the APA, the height of structures placed on properties within this
are may be limited from penetrating the airspace as defined by the "Airport Airspace
Drawing" map. The height limitation is dependent on the specific elevation of the
property and the properties relative location in the APA. Because of the underlying
zoning district (RA) regulations, including uses and height restrictions, the only
use/structures likely impacted by the change to boundary of district are proposed tower
structures.
Noise Impact Area
The Noise Impact Area is the area which based and the average day-night noise level
(DNL) around the airport, specifically that area where the DNL reaches or exceeds 65
decibels. This area is identified in the Existing Noise Contours Map (see Attachment E).
Structures within this area are required to meet certain noise performance standards
established within the AlA. The noise impact area is located entirely on Airport owned
property. No other changes are proposed to the noise performance standards.
Runwav Protection Zone (RPZ)
This amendment to the AlA is to reflect new terminology and dimensions for the
Runway Protection Zone, formerly referred to as the Runway Clear Zone. This is the
area immediately beyond the end of the runway. This dimensions for this area have
changed somewhat, but are very similar to the previous boundaries. The RPZ for the
current runway are located entirely on airport property.
,...,
l-
.
.
.
The following is a summary of the changes by ordinance section:
Sec. 30.2.1 Intent
Changes to this Section are primarily housekeeping changes to update/correct
errors, and identify appropriate maps within the Master Plan that define the AlA.
See 30.2.2 Application
This section establishes where the overlay district regulations apply. The
changes to this Section are specific references to the new maps within the
Airport Master Plan which are the basis for the AlA's Airport Protection Area and
the Noise Impact Area boundaries
Sec. 30.2.3 Definitions
This section is updated to refer to appropriate maps in the Airport Master Plan. It
has also been updated to reflect the new name and dimensions for this area,
previously known as Runway Clear Zone.
Impact of amendment on Administration/Review Process
There should no significant impact on the administration and review process based on
the proposed amendment.
Impact of amendment of Affordable Housing
There should no significant impact on the administration and review process based on
the proposed amendment.
Implications to staffing/staffing cost
There should no significant impact on the administration and review process based on
the proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the zoning ordinance text amendment provided as
Attachment A and the associated zoning map amendments.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A, proposed ordinance amendments
Attachment B, existing AlA overlay district ordinance
Attachment C, Airport Airspace Drawing, Part 77 Map (2 pages)
Attachment D, Map showing change in AlA northern boundary
Attachment E, Existing Noise Contours Map (final publication version will be dated
2003)
3
.
.
.
Draft: 05/18/05
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18( )
Attachment A
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT
REGULATIONS, 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 18, Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 30.2.1
Sec. 30.2.2
Sec. 30.2.3
Intent
Application
Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec.30.2.1 Intent
The aimort imDact area ("AlA") AlA overlay district is created in recognition of: airport related
hazards which may endanger lives and property; obstructions which effectively reduce air space
required for take-off, landing and maneuvering of aircraft, thereby reducing the utility of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and the public investment therein; and noise from aircraft
operations which may adversely affect the health of persons and the peaceful use and enjoyment
of property. It is the intent of this section overlav district to minimize the creation of physical,
visual and other obstructions to the safe operations of the airport facility and to minimize adverse
airport-related impacts on persons and properties in the vicinity. The AlA overlav district shall
consist of the airport protection area, safety area runwav Dfotection zone ("RPZ") and the AlA
noise impact area.
Sec. 30.2.2 Application
The AlA overlay district is hereby created and designated generally on the zoning map and
specifically on the Charlottes'lille ,\lbcmarle ,\irport Imaginary Surfaces Map Aimort AirsDace
DrawinlZ-Part 77, as amended, and on the Day Night ,^~veragc Sound Level Map ExistinlZ Noise
Contours MaD (2002), of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Aimort Master Plan. as amended ("Aimort
AirsDace DrawinlZ-Part 77" and "ExistinlZ Noise Contours MaD (2003)", resDectivelv). Copies of
these documents shall be available in the office of the zoning administrator.
Sec. 30.2.3 Definitions
The followinlZ definitions shall aDDlv in the intemretation and imDlementation of this section 30.2:
(1) AlA noise imoact area. The term "AlA noise imDact area",^~L\ Noise Impact ,^~rca shall
include means all land within the bàH 65 DNL contour as delineated on the 1990 Day Night
,^~vcrage Sound Lcycl Map ExistinlZ Noise Contours MaD (2003) of the master planning study for
o
Draft: 05/18/05
the Charlottes','ille/¡\lbemarle .:\irport Master Plan, as amended.
Attachment A
(2) AirDort Drotection area. The term "airnort motection area" means l\irport Protection .^..rea
consists of the imaginary conical, horizontal, transitional and approach surfaces as delineated
and/or described on the Imaginary Surfaces Map Airnort AirsDace Drawim!-Part 77 as amended.
(3) Primarv surface. The term "mimarv surface" means Primary Surface: A ª surface
longitudinally centered on a runway. The primary surface for Runway 3-21 extends two hundred
(200) feet beyond each end and is one thousand (1,000) feet wide. The elevation of the primary
surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the runway centerline.
Runway Clear Zone begins at the end of the primary surface on the runway ends and extends with
the width of each approach surface defined in F.^~R 77.25D to terminate directly below each
approach surface slope at the point, or points, 'Nhere the slope reaches a height of fifty (50) feet
abo'/e the elevation of the rum-vay end or fifty (50) feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of
the clear zone, whichever distance is shorter. The clear zone on the north end of Runwa)' 3 21 at
Charlottesville Albemarle .^jrport is one thousand (1,000) feet y,'ide where it COlmects to the
primary surface and one thousand four hundred twenty five (1,125) feet wide at its northern edge
and it extends south/north one thousand seven hundred (1,700) feet. The clear zone on the south
end of Runway 3 21 at Charlottes'.'ille .^Jbemarle .^~irport is one thousand (1,000) feet wide where
it connects to the primary surface and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) feet at its southern
boundary and it extends two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet north/south.
(4) Runwav Drotection zone. The term "runwav motection zone" means an area at 12:round
level underlvin12: a Dortion of the FAR Part 77 ima12:inarv runway aDmoach surface and extendin12:
to a Doint on the 12:round where the elevation of the aDmoach surface reaches fifty (50) feet above
the runway end elevation. The runway motection zone is traDezoidal in shaDe and centered about
the extended runway centerline. with dimensions for a Darticular runway end defined bv the tVDe
of aircraft and aDmoach visibility minimum associated with that runway end. The runway
motection zone tVDically be12:ins two hundred (200) feet beyond the end of the runway area usable
for takeoff and landin12:. and extends from the ends of the mimarv surface. At the Charlottesville-
Albemarle Aimort. the dimensions of the runway motection zone for Runwav 3 are one thousand
(1.000) feet (inner width), one thousand seven hundred fifty (1.750) feet (outer width) and two
thousand five hundred (2.500) feet (len12:th): the dimensions of the runway motection zone for
Runwav 21 are one thousand (1.000) feet (inner width), one thousand five hundred ten (1.510) feet
(outer width) and one thousand seven hundred (1.700) feet (len12:th).
(5) Safetv area. The term "safetv area" means Safety .^~rea includes the airport primary
surface and the clear zones runway motection zone at each end of the runway as shown on the
Airport Lay-Out Plan.
2
(ç
.
.
.
Attachment A
Draft: 05/18/05
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an
Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
to , as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
--
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
3
7
ATTACHMENT B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
~IS~;j 'OQ...cLt) êh'\c~
.
30.1 OVERLAY DISTRICTS, GENERALLY
30.1.1 INTENT
Overlay districts hereby created and hereafter established shall be for the purpose of imposing
special regulations in certain areas which are intended to accomplish the stated purpose of the
particular overlay district and furthennore, intended to promote the general health, safety and
welfare of the citizenry and to promote the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan.
Regulations, requirements and limitations of overlay districts shall be in addition to, or supersede,
as the case may be, those of the underlying district.
30.1.2 APPLICATION
Overlay districts and amendments thereof shall be established in accordance with the provisions of
section 33.0 of this ordinance.
30.2 AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT - AlA
30.2.1 INTENT
.
The AlA overlay district is created in recognition of: airport related hazards which may endanger
lives and property; obstructions which effectively reduce air space required for take-off/ landing
and maneuvering of aircraft, thereby reducing the utility of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport
and the public investment therein; and noise from aircraft operations which may adversely affect
the health of persons and the peaceful use and enjoyment of property. It is the intent of this
section to minimize the creation of physical, visual and other obstructions to the safe operations of
the airport facility and to minimize adverse air port-related impact on persons and properties in the
vicinity. The AlA district shall consist of the airport protection area, safety area and the AlA noise
impact area.
30.2.2 APPLICATION
The AlA overlay district is hereby created and designated generally on the zoning map and
specifically on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Imaginary Surfaces Map, as amended, and
on the Day-Night Average Sound Level Map, as amended. Copies of these documents shall be
available in the office of the zoning administrator.
30.2.3 DEFINITIONS
AlA Noise Impact Area shall include all land within the Ldn 65 contour as delineated on the 1990
Day-Night Average Sound Level Map of the master planning study for the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, as amended.
Airport Protection Area consists of the imaginary conical, horizontal, transitional and approach
surfaces as delineated and/or described on the Imaginary Surfaces Map, as amended.
.
Primary Surface: A surface longitudinally centered on a mnway. The primary surface for Runway
3-21 extends two hundred (200) feet beyond each end and is one thousand (1,000) feet wide. The
elevation of the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the nearest point on the mnway
centerline.
18-30-3
q
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
Runway Clear Zone begins at the end of the primary surface on the runway ends and extends with
the width of each approach surface defined in FAR 77.25D to terminate directly below each
approach surface slope at the point, or points, where the slope reaches a height of fifty (50) feet
above the elevation of the runway end or fifty (50) feet above the terrain at the outer extremity of
the clear zone, whichever distance is shorter. The clear zone on the north end of Runway 3-2 I at
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is one thousand (1,000) feet wide where it connects to the
primary surface and one thousand four hundred twenty-five (1,425) feet wide at its northern edge
and it extends south/north one thousand seven hundred (1,700) feet. The clear zone on the south
end of Runway 3-21 at Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is one thousand (1,000) feet wide where
it connects to the primary surface and one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) feet at its southern
boundary and it extends two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet north/south.
Safety Area includes the airport primary surface and the clear zones at each end of the runway as
shown on the Airport Lay-Out Plan.
30.2.4 PERMITTED USES
Within the AlA overlay district, uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations and
requirements of the underlying district except as hereafter expressly provided.
30.2.4.1 PENETRA nON PROHIBITED
No building, structure, object of natural growth, or use shall be permitted which shall penetrate the
airport protection area. Penetration shall include but shall not be limited to any use or activity
which would cause the intrusion into any of the imaginary zones of light, glare, smoke, particles,
projectiles, radiation or electrical interference. In determination of potential penetration, the
zoning administrator shall consult with the Federal Aviation Administration, the Virginia
Department of Aviation and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board.
30.2.4.2 PERMITTED USES WITHIN SAFETY AREA
No uses except agricultural and open space type uses not involving concentrations of people shall
be permitted in the safety area. A prominent disclosure statement to this effect shall be required
upon any plans or plats approved by any Albemarle County official and on all land transfers
within the subdistrict.
The regulations prescribed by this ordinance shall not be construed to require the removal,
lowering or other changes or alteration of any structure or tree not confonning to the regulations as
of the effective date of this ordinance, or otherwise interfere with the continuance of a
nonconforming use. Nothing contained herein shall require any change in the construction,
alteration or intended use of any structure, the construction or alteration of which was begun prior
to the effective date ofthis ordinance and is diligently prosecuted.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the owner of any existing nonconforming structure or tree is
hereby required to permit the installation operation and maintenance thereon of such markers and
lights as shall be deemed necessary by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board to indicate to
the operators of aircraft in the vicinity of the airport the presence of such airport hazards. Such
markers and lights shall be installed, operated and maintained at the expense of the
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board. Such owner is hereby further required to permit the
trimming of any trees which presently conform to these regulations in such a manner as to prevent
such trees from not confoID1ing to these regulations in the future.
18-30-4
t6
Attachment B
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
.
30.2.5 NOISE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Any building or structure intended for human occupancy or use proposed to be located within the
noise impact area shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the acoustical performance
standards in section 30.2.5.1. Building plan conformance to these requirements shall be certified
by the Albemarle County building official prior to initiation of construction activities. "As-built"
conformance to these requirements shall be certified by the building official prior to the issuance
of any certificate of occupancy.
Plats or plans of lands within the noise impact area approved by any Albemarle County official
shall prominently display a disclosure statement that such plat or plan includes land and/or
buildings within the AlA noise impact area.
30.2.5.1 ACCOUSTICAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
.
Land Use Category
Residential
Public and quasi-public use:
School
Library
Church
Hospital
Auditorium, concert hall, etc.
Parks and recreation, sports arena
Office
Commercial
Retail
Movie theatre
Hotel, motel
Distribution, industry
Manufacturing and assembly industry
Maximum Interior
Noise Levels rdB(a)]
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 45
Ldn ::: 70
Ldn :::...55
Ldn ::: 55
Ldn ::: 55
Ldn ::: 55
Ldn ::: 70
Ldn ::: 70
30.2.6 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT, BONUS FACTORS
No cluster development or bonus level provisions or regulations will be permitted unless the
commission shall determine that such development will reduce or be equivalent to hazard and/or
noise impacts anticipated under standard level-conventional development of the underlying zoning
district.
'-
30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT - FH
30.3.01 INTENT
It is intended that the flood hazard overlay district hereby and hereafter created shall be for the
purpose of pr 'ding safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, these provisions are
intended to restn the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation
which may result in: nger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and/or
rescue and relief efforts; s '1 erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and
general degradation of the na al and man-made environment.
.
It is further intended that these proVl . ns shall be adequate for qualification and continuation of
Albemarle County on the regular pro am of the National Flood Insurance Program as
administered by the Federal Insurance Adml 'stration and the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). To these ends, provisions hav een developed in accordance with regulations
governing the regular program. (Amended 2-5-05)
18-30-5
Zoning Supplcmcnt #33, 2-5-05
II
lEGEND
E
- PART 77 SURFACE ELEVATIONS
- MOST DEMANDING PART 77 SUF
FEET
AIRPORT AIRSPACE DRAWING
PART 71
gOO'
aoo'
LEGEND
- EXTENDED RUNWAY CENTERLINE
PART 77 SURFACE ElEVATICNS
- MOST DEMANDING PART 77 SURFACE
BOOO
SCALE: "=4000' FEET
AIRPORT AIRSPACE
PART 77
LOTTESVlllE-AlBEMARlE AIF
CHARLOTTESVillE, VIRGINIA
4,
c-
~
Additional Parcels Affected bv 2005 FAR Part 77
1994
2005 FAR
¡Vtile'
ATTACHMENT E
7-- \ ~-z,
----
------ ~.
--- ,-----
- - - '\
I - - - -
- -
I
t CÐlETERY
=~
ROTATING R~~WA;r PROTECTION ZONE
BEACON ;J
- - - ,00 "'...='~ __
- -
- - -
- -
-
..
.
LEGEND
AIRPORT PROPERTY UNE (APPROX.)
EXISTING SECURITY FENCE
----
)(
~
....
...
.
..
-
/ RUNWAY PROTECTION ZONE
2,500' . 1.000' . 1, 7!SO'
-
-
-
-
-
- -
1200
~
FEET
600
o
~
=600
600
~
SCALE:
1046-EXH-6-1.DWG
L2
)ç
EXHIBIT
6-1
1 '
CHARLOTTESVillE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT
EXISTING NOISE CONTOURS (2002)
6
.
.
.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 3, 2005
ZTA-2005-002 and ZMA-2005-004 Airport Impact Area Overlay District
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, May 3,
2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mcintire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Calvin Morris, Marcia
Joseph, Vice-Chair, Jo Higgins, Pete Craddock and Bill Edgerton, Chairman. Absent was David J.
Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Mr. Craddock arrived at 6:10p.m. Ms. Joseph left the
meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David
Benish, Chief of Planning; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Development Process Manager;
Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Harrison B. Rue, Executive Director of
Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning
Organization; Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County
Attorney.
ZMA 2005-004 Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) - This proposed amendment to Chapter 18,
Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code, would amend the zoning map to change the boundaries of the
Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA), and the Noise Impact Area and Airport Protection Area within
the AlA. The AlA exists for the purpose of minimizing the creation of physical, visual, and other
obstructions to the safe operations of the airport facility and to minimize the adverse airport-related impact
on persons and properties in the vicinity. The amended boundaries of the AlA District and Noise Impact
Area are based on new maps resulting from the update of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Plan,
affecting the following parcels within Albemarle County, identified by tax map and parcel number: Tax
Map 19, Parcels 19, 19B, 19C, 19D, 19E, 19F, 191, 19J, 19K, 19L, 19W, 19X, 20, 20B, 22D, 22E, 23A,
24, 25, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B, 31 B, 31 D, 31 E, 31 E1, 32; Tax Map 20, Parcels 6A, 6A1, 6J, 6K, 6L, 6M, 6N,
6NN,6Q,6R,6S, 6T,6V, 6VV, 6X, 13A, 15C, 15C1, 16, 16E, 16E1, 16E3, 16E4, 16E6, 16P, 18, 18A, 19,
19B, 19B1, 19C, 20, 21, 22; Tax Map 21, Parcels 3D1, 3E, 5, 11, 11A, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 12C1, 12C3,
12D, 13C, 13C1, 13C2, 13C3, 13C4, 13E, 14C, 15, 15A, 15B, 15C, 15D, 15E, 15F, 15G, 16, 16A, 16C,
16D, 18, 18F, 18G; Tax Map 31, Parcels 1, 56; and Tax Map 33, Parcels 1, 2, 2A, 4, 4A, 4B, 4C, 9, 9A,
10, 12, 12A, 12D, 12E, 21, 22B, 35A, 36, 37 J and 37K. As a result of this proposed amendment to the
zoning map, some parcels, or portions thereof, will be placed within the AlA, some will remain in the AlA
but with the AlA's boundaries changing, and some will remain in the AlA but with no boundary change.
The Comprehensive Plan does not address the general usage and density of lands within the AlA, but are
determined by the underlying plan designation. The Zoning Ordinance provides that the general usage
and density ranges of lands within the AlA are as authorized by the underlying zoning district designation,
except that buildings, structures, objects of natural growth and uses may not penetrate the AlA's Airport
Protection Area, generally only agricultural and open space uses are allowed in the AlA's Safety Area,
and buildings and structures within the AlA's Noise Impact Area must be designed and constructed to
meet acoustical performance standards. A copy of the map showing the lands to be rezoned by this
amendment is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development.
AND
ZTA 2005-002 Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) - This zoning text amendment would update
references to maps designating the Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA) and the AlA's Noise Impact
Area and Protection Area, and make other associated changes by amending section 30.2.1, Intent,
30.2.2, Application, and 30.2.3, Definitions, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. The
review and update of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Master Plan has resulted in new maps that will
establish revised boundaries of the AlA, the Noise Impact Area and the Airport Protection Area. A copy
of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, and in the
Department of Community Development. (David Benish)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
1
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report. This is a request to amend the text of the AlA, Airport Impact
Overlay District. The District was established to minimize adverse impacts of the airport to persons and
properties and to minimize also the creation of physical, visual and other obstructions to the safe
operation of the airport. As you may call, they recently adopted a revised master plan for the airport.
With that master planning process there is work that was done to establish areas of noise impact and also
to provide for long term improvements in the airport. Two of those actions with the adoption of the master
plan have required the amendment of the Airport Impact Overlay District to ensure that the district
remains consistent with the master plan that guides it.
Specifically what has taken place are amendments to reference maps within the master plan that relate to
areas that are referred to as the Airport Protection Area and Noise Impact Area. The Airport Protection
Area is primarily the circular area around the airport. The Airport Master Plan calls for approximately a
1,000 extension of the airport at some point in the future. Based on that future design the air space for
the approaches and departures to that main runway has to provide for a certain area of protection. That
is what the Airport Detection Area does. It essentially protects the air space above the land, which is
commonly referred to as the imaginary surfaces, which he could explain if the Commissioners need to
know in greater detail. There is an attachment on the wall and in the packets that shows the change to
the Airport Impact Area boundary. It is all to the north and it is again reflective of that potential future
extension of 1,000 feet. The implication to that change is that there are requirements to control the height
of structures that may penetrate into that imaginary surface or air space that affects the approaches and
departures from the airport runway. That is one change. The text essentially refers to the maps attached
to the staff report. That is the update to the text. Those maps also become essentially the map for the
Airport Impact Area.
The second change is to the Noise Impact Area. The Noise Impact Area is based on the average
day/night sound levels emanating from the airport. The 65 decibel range of average daylnight noise level
is the area in which the Airport Impact Overlay District requires the sound continuation on structures. An
attachment of that map is also provided as Attachment E in the staff report. The entire boundary for that
are lies on the airport property. Right now the noise continuation only applies theoretically to any
buildings or structures lying on the airport land. That is the overview of the changes. If the Commission
has any particular questions, particularly in interpreting the air space, that he would be happy to answer
them.
Mr. Edgerton asked if all of these property owners been notified.
Mr. Benish stated yes, that the property owners had been notified and the map was the basis for the
notification. There is a third area that he would also point out. There is a text modification to it that is the
Runway Protection Zone, which was actually just new terminology. There is slightly different numbers
used in the calculation of the location of that. That is a fixed location on the ground, which starts at the
end of the runway. All of that area also lies on airport property.
Ms. Higgins asked if all of the area was to the north.
Mr. Benish stated yes, because that was where the master plan called for the extension of the runway.
Therefore, it just pushed that arc 1,000 feet to the north.
Mr. Rieley asked why are there a 50 to 1 approach surface to the south and a 44 to 1 approach surface to
the north. He asked if it was related to the topography for the additional clearance on the northern side.
Mr. Benish stated that was not exactly correct. There are types of approaches that are required for
airports. There are precision approaches, non-precision approaches and visual approaches. A visual
approach is what it sounds like when the pilot looks at the ground and activates his approach or departure
to take off or land. The precision and non-precision are types of approaches that rely on visual and
technological assistance. A non-precision approach comes in from the north and has a steeper grade to
it. It is aided by satellite information. The approach to the south is the non-precision approach and every
airport is required to have a non-precision approach that meets inclement weather requirements. The
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
2
.
precision approach requires them to be able to 4 feet above the ground to have visibility for 1 mile. For
inclement weather approaches you only need to be 200 feet above the ground for Y2 a mile. But that
protection area is protected by a gentler slope and more technical equipment that assists them in landing
with the lights that you see on the runway indication light with the strobe light and a localized antenna to
give them localized information as opposed to satellite information. That non-precision approach is based
on those 40 to 1 and 50 to 1 approaches. That is probably the more inclement weather approach, but
that is all that goes into it.
Mr. Rieley stated that they need the lower gradient and the lights to be able to land.
Mr. Benish stated that the air space that they are protecting if you look at the profile at the bottom of those
two sheets you are really looking at the horizontal area that extends over the runway essentially and
around the runway. Then those conical zones are 20 to 1 and 34 to 1 at the runway.
Mr. Rieley asked what happens to the space between the 639 contour and the 780 because it is like 150
feet before you get to that level.
Mr. Benish stated that was below those lines so wherever the lowest lines are above that line is the point
of penetration that needs to be controlled. Below that point the height is building up to those heights that
are acceptable. There may be other FAA requirements in terms of painting, strobe lights and lighting.
But, in terms of height limitations everything below those 1 to 20 lines, the horizontal dashed lines comes
across the airport and extends 10,000 feet and then those immediate approach 34 to 1 cuts in. The
consultants told him a good way to visualize it by thinking of it like a football field. Think of the runway as
the football field itself and the top of the picture is the dorm and all of the angles of the seats at the side
and then you can get a visual of a bowel.
.
Mr. Rieley stated that the airport always does a good job of putting these packets together.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there were any other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public
hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Mr. Benish stated that the County was the applicant and he had already spoken.
Mr. Edgerton stated that since they had already heard from the applicant, he would ask if there was any
member of the public who would like to comment on this application.
.
Janice Haney Yager stated that she was present as the attorney-in-fact for Geraldine Gray Haney who
was one of the land owners for tax map 20, parcel 16. If you look on the map they are impacted on a
portion of their property of about 100 acres. She presented pictures of the property so that the
Commission could see the topography. She noted that she had done research with the FAA to find out
how these things come about, but she found it difficult too see how an 800 to 1,000 foot extension of the
runway would affect this property when it was 3.2 nautical miles from the airport. It was interesting after
having been to the airport and observing the airplanes as they approach northbound and southbound how
it is that they would come to select this area. Her thinking as a landowner protecting her interest and
those of others is that they are already zoned as a RA district and they could not build anything over 65
feet. If she wanted to build a tower she would have to come and request a permit for that, which the
County would most likely not approve. But, she could look at towers located right behind her property up
on much higher grade that would certainly be impacted if planes came from that direction. She pointed
out that planes do come from all directions. It was just not logical that the planes were going to descend
and then try to climb back up when you look at the terrain behind it that is going to the airport. She felt
that to over raise something that is already restricted through zoning does adversely impact the
properties. It is something that you have to put on every plat from what she understands if there is a
transfer in the future. This property has been in the family for over 100 years. The cattle are happily
grazing at this time. If safety is an issue why is it that the citizens were allowed to have those towers? It
just does not make a whole lot of sense.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
3
Mr. Rieley asked what the elevation was of her property.
Ms. Yager stated that it was varies, but it is 521 and then it to 500 and then it rises up the back portion
somewhat.
Mr. Rieley stated that it appeared that her property was located in excess of 1,500 feet away from the end
of the runway. Based on the elevation she said and the bottom of the conical surface it looks like this
would only be an issue for her if she wanted to build something taller than 300 feet. He questioned why
she was concerned about it.
Ms. Yager stated that she did not want the overlay restriction on her property because it was overkill
since the zoning already puts restrictions on it. They have about 60 direct flights every day going to
Philadelphia and Charlotte. So they are not all coming my direction. From looking at that it seems that
they were the only ones impacted and there were planes coming in other directions. They seem to be the
ones picked on so to speak. She felt that the current zoning of the property is quite adequate to address
any concerns at the airport other than her trees growing to some height that might be unacceptable. She
stated that she did not understand this at all because it impacts the 118 parcels that were affected.
Mr. Rieley asked how it would impact them.
Ms. Yager stated that it impacts her because it designates my property as being in the Airport Impact
Zone. If you are buying property it would have an effect.
Mr. Rieley stated that it would only impact her property if she built a 300 foot building.
Ms. Yager asked what an airport would denote to him. She felt that it meant instance noise. She spoke
with David Benish and he was kind enough to give me some information to indicate that there would not
be any noise restrictions or any protection like that. She pointed out that she was just staying that planes
are noisy and certainly someone rightly or wrongly that is going to be interested in a nice pastoral setting
that they certainly are not going to want to think planes necessarily, even though you have limited planes
going in and out of that airport. As a landowner it certainly does nothing to appreciate my property. A few
months ago they had the flood maps revisited and now they have this. It is just like one overlay to
another overlay. In looking at the topography she could just not see that this area would be where it is
that they need to extend this zone.
Sheila McClung stated that she was also a landowner. They purchased 35 acres and it is adjacent to their
property. She urged the Commission to come visit her property and they could see the investment that
they made to have a rural setting. They have cows and a creek. They are located on top of a hilltop
where they built a house. When they bought the property three years ago there were not many planes
going over. Recently planes have started coming in right over their homes. After asking about that they
were told that it was only temporary because they were doing all of this construction on the airport. They
were not notified that there was a recent master plan that would then affect this outward zoning just a few
weeks ago. The first letter that they ever received was just one dated April 15. This is the only letter that
they have received. They have not received all of the information that the Commission has received.
The only person she was able to talk with was Jan when she called. That was all of the opportunity that
she was afforded at that time with everybody's schedules. But, if she had of know that there was a
proposed change in the master plan she would have probably come to that meeting also to understand
because it would have affecter her area. What truly is happening is that a lot of planes are flying over
their house very lot making a lot of noise. They purchased the property with a creek and cows because
she grew up on a farm and just to enjoy the out of doors. The number of planes seems to be rapidly
increasing. She questions what will happen twenty yeaTs from now. Once they give one easement, then
more can come. She stated that she could not see how this would benefit her as a homeowner,
particularly due to the noise level. She purchased the property because it was the rural areas and had an
agricultural use. She encouraged the Commission to come to her home and see the impacts on her
property. Since this is a beautiful agricultural area, she asked the Commission to reconsider approving
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
4
.
.
.
this until they visit her property and think about what is actually happening here and what this would mean
twenty years from now if they grant this.
Mr. Edgerton asked if there was anybody else who would like to address the Commission. There being
none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for action. He stated
that it would be helpful in order to be able to respond to some of the concerns being expressed if knew
who determines this arc. It appears that any property that touches it that their entire property is hatched
in. He asked Mr. Benish if he could respond to his questions.
Mr. Benish stated that the yellow arc is the boundary. Only a portion of the first speaker's property falls
within that area. The northern two-thirds of the property fall outside of the Airport Impact Overlay District.
The overlay district is again based on these approach requirements for those precision, non-precision and
visual approaches and perimeters that are required for meeting the safe approaches to that area. One
thing to keep in mind is the basis for those limitations are not just normal landings and take offs. They are
their procedures for emergency landings. The example that the consultant gave him to think about is on
an approach to an airport if something is all of a sudden discovered on the runway, such as deer or a
stray automobile based on something that has taken place, then emergency perversion procedures need
to take place. You are talking about planes traveling at a high rate of speed and they will need a large
protected area to make those moves. So the boundary for this airspace that is protected is not really
based on just normal operations of airports. It is also covers those sorts of perimeters. That is why the
circular zone is parallel to the runway. No one approaches a runway perpendicularly. But, if you have to
do those basic maneuvers you need the same protected area. Those are based on perimeters based on
standards set by the FAA. This extension is based on a presumed expansion to the runway. So it is an
extension that the airport would desire to have because it protects the ultimate area that they feel would
be the runway location. As an overlay district the application of it is more simply addressed by applying
the overlay. There are certain areas that are zoned where practically speaking the perimeter of uses limit
most of the activity that could be in conflict, but the overlay district as you can see on the map covers a lot
of the development area and any in close proximity within the airport there may be certain sensitive
issues to the intensity of the developments. It is sort of left to the application of the overlay district with the
underlying zoning. That is why they don't have a spotty for the zoning district that just covers certain
areas.
Ms. Higgins stated that it looked like the parcel owned by the second speaker was in the affected area in
the 1994 plan.
Mr. Benish stated that he believed that it was partially in the area in 1994, but that more of the area was
now in because of the extension of the runway.
Ms. Higgins stated that it would completely take the property in now. But, that there should have been a
note on the plat if it was transferred some time since 1994 to say that it was in that overlay district. That is
another whole issue, but the property should be aware of it if a property is purchased.
Mr. Benish stated that he could not speak to the specifics of that particular plat.
Mr. Kamptner stated that may not have identified the zoning of the property.
Ms. Higgins stated that it might have just been a transfer without a plat being done.
Mr. Edgerton stated that the plat might have been done prior to 1994.
Ms. Higgins stated that her understanding with the FAA is that even if there is an elevation difference and
it appears as if the property may be by some virtue of being unique could be excluded they are pretty
inflexible. Because they are the FAA they are one of the most difficult governmental agencies to deal
with is why she thinks they have this perfect line which does not flux rate based on it. If there had been a
mountain in that area there might have been some special provision that would have been taken and
probably the airport could not be there at all. But, given that even if the property is far away beneath the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005 5
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
conical shape it does not mean that they will change the line and exclude an area. But it potentially could
be any individual property owner could pursue that. But, it would be a FAA mitigation measure on their
part to amend that line. Because all they were doing was to make their master plan to be in compliance.
Mr. Benish stated that the Airport Overlay District refers to these maps and they define the Airport Import
Overlay areas. So what this amendment is doing is referring to the new maps. Those new map changes
are based on the proposed extension of the runway. The arc is designed based on FAA requirements for
. approaches to airports.
Ms. Higgins asked if they have a procedure for the excluding a particular property.
Mr. Benish stated that he honestly did not know.
Mr. Rieley stated that the Commission has already approved the adoption of the Airport Master Plan as a
part of our Comprehensive Plan the extension of the runway because that was a component of that plan.
Mr. Benish stated that they have approved a plan that calls for in the long term that extension. When that
extension takes place he would have to find out if additional approvals are necessary.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have adopted a plan that included that as a component.
Mr. Benish stated that was correct. Again, that is the twenty year plan for the expansion.
Mr. Craddock stated that it was right there in that sentence about the FAA requiring the airport to maintain
a master plan to receive grants and aids. Therefore, the airport has to have this plan to get their money
and that is why the circles are as they are.
Mr. Benish stated that is primarily the teeth of the federal regulations because they obviously have to
comply with the land use regulations.
Mr. Rieley stated that while he was sympathetic with the concern that somebody could misinterpret what
this really stipulates he does not find that this action is not going to create any more air traffic or any more
planes. This action is not going to prohibit anybody from doing anything that they could do anyway
unless it is for buildings in excess of 300 feet. It seems that this is a necessary overlay district and it goes
hand in hand with action that they have already taken.
Mr. Benish stated for the record he did not want to belabor this, but some of you might have realized that
the height of this is set by mean sea level elevation. So it affects particular properties are based on that
topography of that particular property. Most of this area does fall in the 500 to 600 foot contour. As you
approach Piney Mountain there are portions that actually go up to about 1,100 feet. But, he just wanted
to make sure that they understood the fixed height for this is in the air and you measure down to each
particular property to determine the height restrictions. Most of the properties because of the general
elevation at 200 to 300 feet of area before you hit the area in the line of penetration, which is what they
call it.
Ms. Higgins stated that it does not impose a fixed height limitation on a particular parcel, but it is an
elevation space and up to that you run into the zoning limitation before you would hit the airport overlay
district limitation.
Mr. Benish stated that was correct. The way the zoning department enforces this basically is with the
assistance of the FAA and the airport to ensure that they are picking and judging the right height for that
fixed area. It is easy in the horizontal plane to know what that height is. It is 789 feet, but as you reach
the 20 to 1 conical angle that has to be calculated. This map does give you a real good sense based on
this one cut of the type of area you have. But it does depend on the ground elevation.
Mr. Edgerton asked if these property owners were notified of the master plan process.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3,2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
6
.
.
.
Mr. Benish stated that the airport process was dealt with by the Airport Authority. They did a number of
public meetings out in the area. He pointed out that he had attended two of those meetings, but he did not
know how they did property owner notification. He felt that there was some, but he did not know how
extensive they were because the County was not involved in that.
Ms. Higgins stated that this was another somewhat indirect impact to the rural areas that they had a
master plan to continue increasing service to the community. As the community grows, the need for the
air transport is growing too with additional runways and traffic. This is not part of this action, but it is an
implied indirect impact on rural areas, which having residential in rural areas is the reason. If it was just
cows, they would not be affected. But as soon as the house is there, then there are impacts. They just
never talked about this that much when they were looking at the rural areas.
Mr. Thomas stated that he would bet that where he lives would be in that zone also.
Mr. Benish stated that the area was very large. It includes all of the Hollymead development area and
Forest Lakes.
Mr. Craddock stated that it even includes Berkeley.
Mr. Rieley pointed out that those areas were not in this conical surface area, which was what these
property owners were disturbed about.
Ms. Higgins stated that these properties were in the main approach surface.
Mr. Benish stated that just to clarify that the more inclement weather approach was from the south.
Action on Zonina Text Amendment:
Mr. Rieley moved for approval of ZT A-2005-002, Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA).
Mr. Thomas seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Joseph - Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZTA-2005-002, Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA), would go to the Board
of Supervisors on June 8 with a recommendation for approval.
Action on Rezoning:
Mr. Morris moved for approval of ZMA-2005-004, Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA).
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Joseph - Absent)
Mr. Edgerton stated that ZMA-2005-004, Airport Impact Area Overlay District (AlA), would go to the Board
of Supervisors on June 8 with a recommendation for approval.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - MAY 3, 2005
DRAFT MINUTES - ZMA-2005-002 AND ZMA-2005-004
AIRPORT IMPACT AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT
7
ORDINANCE NO. 05-18(6)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, 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 18,
Zoning, Article III, District Regulations, of the Code of the County of Albemarle is amended and reordained
as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 30.2.1
Sec. 30.2.2
Sec. 30.2.3
Intent
Application
Definitions
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 30.2.1 Intent
The airport impact area ("AlA") overlay district is created in recognition of: airport related hazards which
may endanger lives and property; obstructions which effectively reduce air space required for take-off,
landing and maneuvering of aircraft, thereby reducing the utility of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport and
the public investment therein; and noise from aircraft operations which may adversely affect the health of
persons and the peaceful use and enjoyment of property. It is the intent of this overlay district to minimize
the creation of physical, visual and other obstructions to the safe operations of the airport facility and to
minimize adverse airport-related impacts on persons and properties in the vicinity. The AlA overlay district
shall consist of the airport protection area, runway protection zone ("RPZ") and the AlA noise impact area.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
Sec. 30.2.2 Application
The AlA overlay district is hereby created and designated generally on the zoning map and specifically on
the Airport Airspace Drawing-Part 77, as amended, and on the Existing Noise Contours Map (2002), of the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Master Plan, as amended ("Airport Airspace Drawing-Part 77" and
"Existing Noise Contours Map (2003)", respectively). Copies of these documents shall be available in the
office of the zoning administrator.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
Sec. 30.2.3 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 30.2:
(1) AlA noise impact area. The term "AlA noise impact area" means all land within the 65 DNL contour
as delineated on the Existing Noise Contours Map (2003).
(2) Airport protection area. The term "airport protection area" means the imaginary conical, horizontal,
transitional and approach surfaces as delineated and/or described on the Airport Airspace Drawing-Part 77.
(3) Primary surface. The term "primary surface" means a surface longitudinally centered on a runway.
The primary surface for Runway 3-21 extends two hundred (200) feet beyond each end and is one
thousand (1,000) feet wide. The elevation of the primary surface is the same as the elevation of the
nearest point on the runway centerline.
1
(4) Runway protection zone. The term "runway protection zone" means an area at ground level
underlying a portion of the FAR Part 77 imaginary runway approach surface and extending to a point on the
ground where the elevation of the approach surface reaches fifty (50) feet above the runway end elevation.
The runway protection zone is trapezoidal in shape and centered about the extended runway centerline,
with dimensions for a particular runway end defined by the type of aircraft and approach visibility minimum
associated with that runway end. The runway protection zone typically begins two hundred (200) feet
beyond the end of the runway area usable for takeoff and landing, and extends from the ends of the
primary surface. At the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, the dimensions of the runway protection zone for
Runway 3 are one thousand (1,000) feet (inner width), one thousand seven hundred fifty (1,750) feet (outer
width) and two thousand five hundred (2,500) feet (length); the dimensions of the runway protection zone
for Runway 21 are one thousand (1,000) feet (inner width), one thousand five hundred ten (1,510) feet
(outer width) and one thousand seven hundred (1,700) feet (length).
(5) Safety area. The term "safety area" means the airport primary surface and the runway protection
zone at each end of the runway as shown on the Airport Lay-Out Plan.
(Ord. 05-18(6), 6-8-05)
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance
duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County by vote of six to zero, as recorded below, at
a regular meeting held on June 8. 2005.
Nay
Mr. Bowerman
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Mr. Rooker
Ms. Thomas
Mr. Wyant
Aye
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
ï
2
May 5, 2005
Mr. Dennis Rooker, Supervisor
Jack Jouett District
Dear Mr. Rooker:
I was stationed at the top of my driveway for the Foxfield
Spring Steeplechase from 3:30PM-7:00 PM_ I had an unobstructed
view from the main gate to the Hunt Country Store- 800 feet.
My purpose was to prohibit trespassers from using my property
as a public urinal, parking, shortcut and botanical gardens.
This was my 24th year of Spring "combat,"since this congested
area is the scene of the worst vehicular-pedestrian behavior
at Race termination.
There is an officer usually stationed in the roadway to control
traffic-pedestrians during exit time. In 2004, a single bycycle
policeman, Officer Turner,did an outstanding job. Unfortunately,
there was no police presence in 2005 except for five useless
motorcycle-patrol car passes. There were no police from 5:55 PM-
7:00 PM. During that time, I witnessed reckless lane changing
with two near auto accidents; two drunks walking the center lane
knocking over traffic cones; stop-go traffic for pedestrian pick-
ups or conversation with backed-up traffic; three fallen
inebrates; and numerous property intrusions with one drunk
refusing to leave.
My police complaint to Corporal Fink was well-received. He stated
they had mistakenly pulled police from this area and was making
a file notation for future corrective action. I was unable to
speak with Chief Miller, who has always been inaccessible.
My public concern is that student intoxication is widespread,
blatant and increasingly aggressive. Students admit on public
interviews that they attend to "party" and drink; a substitute
for the defunct Easters orgy. Hundreds of drivers leave Fox-
field DUI (six DUI arrests -seven on the grounds) proclamations
of preventive programs have obviously been ineffective or
poorly executed. Charged outside parking increases pedestrian
traffic to 700-900 without zoning permits/approval. It is
time for County administrators to become involved in constructive
solutions that bring the Spring event in line with a perfectly
behaved, horse-oriented Fall ~::~!~haSe
/~~~h· V. Whit
2002 Garth Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
(434-293-2307)
Date:
RECEIVED AT 80S MEETING
(p.g. oS-
/~
J:J7Y)
Agenda Item .:
Clerk's Initials:
.
Note for the file -
Under Other Matters by the Board:
Ken Boyd's Section
Larry Davis is referencing Section 20-9.8 in recording but
that is incorrect per Marsha Davis. Should be referencing
Section 19.8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
-
~
Page 1
Agenda Item No. 19. ZMA-2004-0014. Briarwood (Sian #17). Request to rezone 123.612 acs
from PRD to PRD to amend proffers of ZMA-1991-13 & ZMA-1995-5 & to amend the Application Plan.
TM 32G, P 1; TM 32G, Sec 3, P A; & TM 32G, Sec 3, P 83. Loc on Seminole Trail (Rt 29) at intersec of
Seminole Trail & Austin Dr (Rt 1575). (The Comp Plan designates this property as Neighborhood Density
Residential in the Piney Mountain Community.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in Daily Progress on January
17 and January 24, 2005) (Deferred from January 12, 2005)
The executive summary states that the Planning Commission heard ZMA 2004-14 on December
7,2004. The Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend denial of the ZMA request, citing the
following reasons for their recommendation of denial:
1. The proposed application plan was not submitted until after the normal review period had
ended. Comments from reviewers have just been received and the applicant has not had
a chance yet to respond to those comments and revise his submittal appropriately.
2. An interconnection between Briarwood and Camelot seems to be lost with the proposed
changes to Phase 4 on the application plan.
3. It is unclear what the proposed orientation of buildings along Camelot Drive in Phase 8
will be.
4. The proposed application plan does not show the existing resource protection area.
5. The proposed application plan does not provide access to the open spaces on the plan.
6. At this time, no commitment has been made to the streetscape of the remaining phases,
including a commitment to curb and gutter and sidewalks.
The Board of Supervisors heard this item on January 12, 2005. At that meeting, the Board voted
to defer the item to allow resolution of outstanding issues on the plan and in the proffers.
In order to address the outstanding issues identified by the Planning Commission and staff, the
applicants provided a revised Application Plan, dated 1/19/2005 and received 1/20/2005. That plan is
attached to this document. Planning, Zoning and Engineering staff have reviewed the plan. The previous
comments and concerns of Planning Commission and the staff have been addressed as follows:
Regarding the orientation of buildings in Phase 8 and the impact to Camelot Drive, a note has
been added to the plan that "Vegetative screening shall be provided adjacent to Camelot subdivision
along Camelot Drive in accord with section 32. 7. 9. 8(a) and 32. 7.9.8(c)(4)." Staff believes that, from a
design standpoint, orienting the buildings to face towards Camelot Drive is the preferable alternative to
screening from Camelot Drive. However, given the applicant's desire to orient the rear of the buildings
towards Camelot Drive, staff believes that this note will ensure adequate screening of the buildings from
Camelot Drive.
The resource protection area has been appropriately labeled on both sheets of the Application
Plan. Further, inconsistencies between the "old" and the "new" Application Plans have been reconciled
by attaching the two plans together and clearly labeling the "new" plan as sheet 1 of 2 and the "old" plan
as sheet 2 of 2.
In previous comments, concern was expressed about access to the open spaces on the plan.
Particularly, there was concern about the ability of pedestrians to access the area labeled "Passive
recreation area- to consist of walking and jogging trails" on the existing Application Plan. A note has been
added to the plan stating: ''Access to the recreation areas shall be provided in general accordance with
the original Briarwood Application Plan, now designated as sheet 2 of 2". This comment has been
adequately addressed.
With the previous submittals, no commitment was made to streetscape or install sidewalks in the
remaining phases of Briarwood. At the public hearing on January 12, 2005, the Board advised the
applicant that it recommended providing streetscape improvements, including curb and gutter and
sidewalks, in a manner consistent with the existing Briarwood development,. The existing phases of
Briarwood include curb and gutter and sidewalks along one side of the streets. The existing infrastructure
Date:
Agenda Item II:
Clerk's Initials:
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
(;;.~. OS-
/;1..,
/JíYl
Page 2
was provided voluntarily and was never required of the previous ZMA approvals. A note has been added
to the plan stating: "curb and gutter, streetscape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the
undeveloped sections of Bríarwood, in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and
ZMA-79-32 and ZMA-91-13". Zoning staff is concerned that this note, as written, will prove difficult to
interpret in the future. Staff recommends that this note be revised to state: "Curb and gutter, streetscape
and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of Briarwood in a manner which is
consistent with the existing development and sidewalks wíll be provided on a minimum of one side of all
streets in the remaining phases of development. "
The applicant has requested a modification for section 4.11.3, which is based on section 19.8.
This modification would allow the buildings to be separated by less than 30 feet. The requested
modification would allow the setbacks in the remaining phases of development to be consistent with the
setbacks in the existing phases of Briarwood. Specifically, setbacks would be 6' in the side yard, 25' in
the front yard and 10' in the rear yard. Staff supports this modification request.
The applicant's engineer has satisfied concerns regarding the need for a traffic analysis.
Remaining questions on traffic capacity will be addressed with VDOT approval of the entrance onto Route
29. With regard to the need for interparcel connections, the applicant has provided a note on the plan
indicating that a road connection will be made at either Phase 1 A or Phase 4. Staff would prefer the
connection be with Phase 1A but finds this alternative acceptable. If the connection is not shown with the
Phase 1A plans, it will then be required with the Phase 4 plans.
Staff previously noted the applicant has not shown critical slopes or resource protection areas.
While that concern remains unaddressed, staff has examined the site based on provided topography and
delineated areas considered sensitive and inappropriate for development. Staff has offered to review that
delineation with the applicant so the applicant has an advance understanding of the areas that staff
believes should remain undisturbed. As the applicant has not sought any critical slope waivers as part of
this plan, it is presumed any development in those sections would be required to comply with the
County's critical slope requirements and understands staff's position on the protection of sensitive
resources.
Since the January 12, 2005 Board meeting, the applicant has worked with the County Attorney's
office, Planning, Engineering and Zoning staff to put the proffers into an acceptable format for adoption by
the Board. No substantive changes have been made to the proffers and no new commitments have been
made. Proffers that do not offer anything beyond what is required by regulations have been eliminated.
The previous proffers of ZMA-91-13 and ZMA 95-05 have been combined with the currently proposed
proffers of ZMA 2004-014 into one set of proffers for all of Briarwood. The language has been refined to
ensure clear interpretation in the future.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA 2004--014, with proffers, with the recommendation that note
2 on Page 1 of the Application Plan be revised to read:
"Curb and gutter, streets cape and sidewalks will be provided throughout the remaining phases of
Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with the existing development and sidewalks wíll be
provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of development. "
Staff recommends approval with the understanding that approval of this ZMA and Application
Plan does not obligate the board to approve critical slopes waivers in the future.
Staff further recommends approval of the requested setback modification to allow a building
separation of less than 30 feet.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the executive summary as provided to the Board and set out above.
He further noted that in the report, areas of slope impact have not been analyzed, and approval of this
zoning map amendment and application plan does not obligate the Board to approve critical slopes
Page 3
waivers in the future; those would need to be analyzed with the sections brought into the county. Mr.
Davis confirmed that no special action is needed for that review; that is just a matter of course.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that there has been work to consolidate the proffers into one set, and
Mr. Davis has a set of recently signed proffers. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the applicant wants to
change "two basketball courts" to "two half basketball courts" in the sentence in Proffer #4 that starts
'This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4,..." Mr. Cilimberg said that the
applicant has concern about incidents that can occur when people congregate at full-court games. He
added that this corresponds with what the county has done at elementary schools for the same reasons.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that Proffer #8 refers to the Briarwood Drive connection through the
commercial area being built as approved by VDOT and bonded to the county. There is already an
approved/bonded plan on record for a 38-foot curb to curb section.
Mr. Cilimberg concluded that staff is recommending the plan as presented with the notes
and proffers included, with the request that the note regarding streetscape be specific to sidewalks
being provided on a minimum of one side of all streets in the remaining phases of the development.
He added that staff also recommends approval of the setback modification to allow building
separations of less than 30 feet.
Mr. Mark Graham, Director of Community Development, said that the interconnection would be
done as part of the construction of either Phase I-A or Phase IV. Mr. Davis stated that that connection
was not proffered, but the note offered should suffice because it has to be built according to the master
plan. Mr. Cilimberg said that it would have to happen in one of two subsequent phases, noting that
Phase IV is the more internal connection, with Phase I-A as the Camelot Drive connection.
Mr. Wyant commented that if the phases follow the sequence of their numbers, because in Phase
IV the road could be built first. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there is not a particular phasing sequence noted
here, but Briarwood Drive connection is happening as part of improvements that occur in the phases. He
said that they would be addressed as they come in, but the order is not known yet.
Mr. Rooker said that his only concern would be that if the phase closest to Route 29 is built first,
there may not be a connection available for a while, until future phase are built. Mr. Bowerman said that
the applicant may rely on the builder to determine the order.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood about the timing of the road connections. Mr. Wendell Wood, the
applicant, responded that he would have to show that the connection will be there when his site plan is
approved. He noted that Phase IV may not be a good location because of the grades, but they would like
to have the discretion to decide where either or both connections would be built.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the most likely placement would be. Mr. Wood replied that the one on
Camelot Drive, from a cost standpoint, would be most likely.
Mr. Rooker said that he wants to be certain that when Phase I-A is done, the connection be
made, and not held back while there is a decision on Phase IV. Mr. Wood responded that the traffic
would not be there until the houses are built, and they will have to provide for that road to come through.
Mr. Bowerman said that they would like to have the road done sooner than later, so that citizens
are not complaining to the Board about a lack of connection.
Mr. Rooker added that from a citizens' standpoint, it is easier to build the road before the houses
are built than after. He mentioned that Meadow Creek Parkway was shown on the Forest Lakes plans
long ago.
Mr. Bowerman commented that Mr. Wood is just hedging because he does not know what
housing type is going to sell. Mr. Wood responded that was correct.
Page 4
Mr. Rooker said that he would like for a decision to be made about where the connection will be
and build it whenever that phase is built out. Technically, the way it is worded right now, Mr. Wood could
build out Phase I-A and not make a decision on the connection. Mr. Rooker said that it's possible that
years could pass before the connection would be made, and people would already be living in the
subdivision.
Mr. Wood said that he would like to have the option to build either road, depending on how the
development goes.
Mr. Wyant suggested having the road built at a timeframe based on percentage of occupancy.
Mr. Wood said that he will retain control of the development.
Mr. Rooker stated that he does not understand why Mr. Wood cannot just commit to make the
connection off of Camelot when he develops Phase I-A. Regardless of how much help connections
provide, the people that live on the road where the connection is will oppose it. If it is put in before they
move in, there is no problem, because they've moved into an area and the road network is there.
Mr. Wood said he understood that the road would have to be approved before he can get the go
ahead for Phase I-A. He said that by the time the connection would need to be built, if he were to decide
not to put it at Camelot, he assumed he would have to show that it would have to be reserved as a right of
way.
Mr. Rooker asked where on the plan does it says Mr. Wood has to build a connection. Mr. Davis
said that it is a note on the plan. Mr. Cilimberg read the note: "The developer shall provide one inter-
parcel connection to the Camelot subdivision. The said connection shall be provided at Point A or B as
shown, and will be determined with final engineering design."
Mr. Davis added that Mr. Wood would have to elect which connection. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that
he has to provide it at one of those two locations, and it will be determined with final engineering design.
He thinks that would be interpreted as part of reviewing that particular phase.
Mr. Rooker said that if he does not elect the Camelot Drive option, he must make the other
connection.
Mr. Graham said that the way it was suggested by Mr. Wood, and acceptable to staff, was that
when he came in with Phase I-A, he would make the determination whether to connect at Camelot or St.
Ives. Mr. Rooker responded that if he does not make the Camelot connection, he has foreclosed that
option and must make it at St. Ives.
Mr. Graham said that when Mr. Wood comes in to build Phase IV, he must have the connection.
There was a difference in how staff interpreted it at first and what the language actually says. He does
not think the language preclude him from having the opportunity to come back to Camelot at a later date.
Mr. Wyant stated that there are a number of final engineering designs, and suggested that the
note say "final engineering design of I-A," so that it is not open to interpretation.
Mr. Rooker said that the issue is not where the connection is made, but when.
Mr. Graham clarified for Mr. Wood that that means he would not be able to get a subdivision plat
approved until the road plans are approved, and he would have to make that decision as part of the road
plans. Mr. Wood expressed concern with this option.
Mr. Bowerman said Mr. Woods needs to make it so he can make the decision up front when he is
selling the houses. Find out which one works, so he can do it in Phase IV or Phase I-A. He asked when
Mr. Wood is planning to start the development. Mr. Wood replied that he is going to start Phase I right
Page 5
away.
Mr. Rooker noted that the infrastructure for roads is built all the time ahead of the houses. Mr.
Tucker said that the road is going to be designed based on total number of units. Mr. Wood is not going
to lose any units.
Mr. Wyant suggested once Mr. Wood build 50 units anywhere in there, he has to make a
connection. Mr. Wood said that market forces change that will dictate what is built.
Mr. Rooker said that the only issue is this one point of connection, and he doesn't understand
why the decision is so difficult. He does not see the connection as dictating the type of house Mr. Wood
is selling in this community. He emphasized that the Board is not saying Mr. Wood has to build it at any
particular time. The Board is saying Mr. Wood has to make the election, and build it whenever he builds
that unit section out.
Mr. Graham stated that there is no intent that he has to build all the lots in Phase I-A, for
example, but he has to have to make that decision when he plats Phase IV where that connection is
going to go.
Mr. Rooker asked if staff was confident from the language on that plat that when he builds the
road back to Phase IV, he has to have made his decision.
Mr. Graham said that Mr. Wyant's suggestion to add the term "of Phase I-A" to "final engineering
design" would ensure that when he comes into plat Phase I-A, the decision would be made.
Mr. Wood said that he did not like that suggestion.
Mr. Rooker commented that most people, when they tender a plan, they show the roads and they
show the connections. Mr. Wood is getting more leeway than anybody he has ever seen come before a
board with an application plan on where his road connections are going to be.
Mr. Wyant suggested that when the lots are platted for Phase I-A, at that time Mr. Wood can
make the decision about the road.
Mr. Graham said that if Mr. Wood wants to build Phase IV first, he has to make the decision
where the connection is going to go as part of platting that phase. If he builds Phase I-A, he would have
the possibility of building the connection with I-A, or waiting and make the decision when Phase IV comes
in.
Mr. Wood said he has no trouble with making the decision when Phase IV is platted, because
they would not go to Phase IV first, unless the market says 'townhouses are dead and single family is
hot.'"
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he is saying that the connection will be made when the roads are
built back to Phase IV. Mr. Rooker said he is interested in when the connection is going to be made. The
way it's worded right now, Mr. Wood can build back to Phase IV and never build that connection.
Mr. Tucker told Mr. Wood that the Board is concerned he will build 90 percent of it, and won't
have a connection for people to get out. Mr. Rooker said nothing in Phase IV will be built until a
connection is made. Mr. Wood agreed to add that to the note.
Ms. Thomas said that would make the language read "....will be determined with final engineering
design of Phase IV." Mr. Wood said that it probably will already have been made, but that would be the
latest.
Page 6
Ms. Thomas asked about the term "will be provided" over "will be created." Mr. Davis suggested,
"built or bonded prior to any construction of housing in Phase IV."
Mr. Rooker said if it is a private road, he assumes Mr. Wood could build the road. It may not get
accepted into VDOT's system for a year or so.
Mr. Graham stated that it will be a public road. He asked if the Board is saying approved and
bonded - which means he can be under construction for it - or is the Board saying built. To him, built
means it is ready to be accepted by VDOT.
Mr. Rooker commented that every road in here is built before it's accepted by VDOT.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the "normal process" has roads approved by VDOT for their ultimate
acceptance and are bonded or built before the actual final plat is signed, and many times they're bonded.
The key is getting them approved and bonded.
Mr. Graham mentioned that routinely as part of the bonds, a schedule for completion is required,
which is typically one year.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Wood if he agreed to the statement: "Election will be made and the
connection will be approved and bonded before the construction of any homes in Phase IV."
Mr. Cilimberg suggested, "approved, built, or bonded."
Mr. Davis said, "The connection shall be approved and bonded prior to the construction of any
homes in Phase IV." He added that would mean when the Phase IV plans approved, it will be part of his
road plans which will be bonded prior to platting Phase IV.
Mr. Graham stated that the language should stipulate that the connection has to be approved and
bonded, or built, prior to platting of Phase IV which would treat it like any other road connection.
Mr. Wyant said he sees the first platted lot in Phase IV as the key deadline.
Mr. Davis repeated the suggested language again: 'The connection shall be approved and
bonded prior to the construction of any homes in Phase IV." He added that it could be approved and
bonded as part of Phase I-A, or as part of Phase IV. Before Mr. Wood build any homes in Phase IV, he
will have had to make an election that would have to be approved and bonded. He added that this allows
for it to be in either section Phase I-A or Phase IV.
Mr. Graham suggested, "prior to the issuance of any building permits in Phase IV." He said that
normally it would be "prior to approval of the Phase IV subdivision plat and the applicant obviously could
not get a building permit for any houses in Phase IV until the subdivision plat is approved.
Mr. Davis said that this does not change the normal requirements for platting a subdivision, but
just says that if the applicant has not platted Phase I-A and made the election, he cannot build any homes
until the election is made.
In relation to the previous comment during the meeting about Southwood Mobile Home Park, Mr.
Wood invited Board members to visit Forest Springs, where he has built 100 units without any public
assistance. He said that the homes are as low as $29,000 and as much as $72,000, with lots rented at
$22,000, and homes owner-occupied.
Ms. Thomas asked if there was a community center there, and Mr. Wood indicated that they do
not have one at Forest Springs. Mr. Wood said that they do provide some financing for tenants.
Mr. Boyd asked about the half-courts and the language about sidewalks related to the Briarwood
Page 7
subdivision. Mr. Wood said that his plan was to run them from Route 29 all the way back to Route 29.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff asked the note on the plan to be changed, but Mr. Wood did not
want to do that at the time he met with staff.
Mr. Wood commented that he wanted the sidewalks to run the same way that had in the first half,
with sidewalks on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, down the commercial roads on both sides.
Mr. Cilimberg said the note says "curb and gutter streetscapes, and sidewalks will be provided
throughout the undeveloped sections of Briarwood in a manner which is consistent with existing
development in ZMA 79-32 and ZMA 91-13." He stated that staff wanted to say, ".. .in a manner which is
consistent with existing development and sidewalks be provided on a minimum of one side of the street
for the remaining phases of development."
Mr. Wood noted that the sidewalk now is on Austin Drive, Briarwood Drive, and all the way down
to Route 29.
Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear from the note which streets would get sidewalks or not. Mr.
Cilimberg said that it is not clear in the current language on the plan.
Mr. Davis stated that Proffer #5 which was carried over from a previous plan says "the southerly
side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood and along the westerly side of the entire length of
Briarwood."
Mr. Cilimberg said that between the note and the proffer would provide: sidewalk along Austin
Drive from Route 29 back to Dixon Road, and a sidewalk from Austin Drive on Briarwood Drive onto
Route 29. He added that they do not have sidewalks internal to any of the sections that are being built
residentially as required by the notes, and right now there are no sidewalks in these internal sections. Mr.
Cilimberg clarified that staff has recommended sidewalks on one side of the street throughout the new
sections, not just on Briarwood.
Mr. Davis emphasized that this would only provide for the new sections, not the existing ones.
Mr. Graham confirmed that the speed limit internally throughout the subdivision is 25 mph.
Mr. Rooker said that if this were a new plan, sidewalks would be requested, but this plan
represents changes to a previously approved plan.
Mr. Wyant commented that Mr. Wood has shown a commitment to affordable housing, and he
likes this request.
Ms. Thomas said that it is a largely established plan, but she would like to see more awareness
that there would be pedestrians who will be walking throughout.
There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed
before the Board.
Motion was then offered by Mr. Boyd to approve ZMA 2004-14 subject to the proffers presented
dated 02/01/05, and with the additional note to the application plan: "The connection shall be approved
and bonded prior to the issuance of any building permits for homes in Phase IV" and the approval of
setback modification to 20 feet. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Wyant and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
Page 8
Original Proffer ZMA 91-13
Amended Proffer ZMA 95-05
(Amendment # 2) (ZMA 2004-014)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 1/27/2005
ZMA #ZMA 2004-014
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 32G-1, 32G-3-A, 32G-3-83
123.612 Acres to be rezoned from PRD to PRD
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly
authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the
property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed
that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a
reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
1. Approval is for a maximum of 661 dwellings, exclusive of the Ray Beard lots identified on
the Application Plan, subject to conditions contained herein. The locations and acreages of various land
uses shall be as shown on the approved Application Plan. As part of the final site plan and/or subdivision
plat processes, the aggregate area of established open space shall at all times be at least proportional to
the aggregate number of dwelling units (site plans) or lots (subdivision plats) approved. After each
primary recreation area identified on the Application Plan is established, it shall be conveyed to a
homeowners association whose formation documents shall be reviewed and approved by the County
Attorney. Off street parking and access for the recreation area shall be limited as shown on the original
PRN plan for ZMA 79-32, as referenced on the Briarwood Application Plan most recently revised January
19, 2005 (hereinafter, the "Application Plan"). The means to limit such access shall be addressed as part
of the site plan or subdivision plat review.
2. No grading permit or building permit shall be issued by the County in any phase until the
owner obtains final site plan and/or subdivision plat approval for that phase, with the exception that
necessary permits for the construction of Briarwood Drive may be issued by the County once the owner
obtains VDOT approval of the road plans for Briarwood Drive.
3. Critical slopes may be disturbed for the construction of roads only with the prior approval
of the County Engineer. Otherwise, the disturbance of critical slopes is permitted only as authorized by
the applicable Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulations as provided by Zoning Ordinance §
8.5.5.2.
4. The owner shall obtain County approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot lot
with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase 1 B; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4
and 5 for the passive recreational area which shall include the construction of walking/jogging trails; and,
the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat
approval of Phase 4. This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist
of a baseball/multi-purpose field, two half basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All
recreation facilities shall be installed by the owner. The walking/jogging trails shall be constructed and
maintained by the owner as a primitive path in accordance with the applicable design and construction
standards in the County's Design Standards Manual.
5. Sidewalks shall be constructed at the time of corresponding road construction along the
southerly side of Austin Drive from Route 29 North to Briarwood Drive and along the westerly side of the
entire length of Briarwood Drive. The sidewalks shall be constructed to VDOT standards.
Page 9
6. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, pedestrian ways, recreation areas, roads,
and other improvements are to be located, as shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat,
shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. This proffer does not apply to individual
residential lots.
7. Lots along Camelot Drive may be developed with townhouse units as shown on the
Application Plan.
8. The unconstructed portion of Briarwood Drive through the commercial areas shown on
the Application Plan shall be built as approved by VDOT and bonded to County.
9. The mix of units permitted in each phase is as follows:
Existina Lot Mix
Phase Tvee of Dwellinc Unit Totals
SFD Duplex Townhouse
1A - 98 - 98
1B - - 53 53
2 - 96 - 96
3(ABC) - 72 37 109*
4 - 66 - 66
5 - 70 - 70
6 - 30 - 30
7 - 78 - 78
8 32 20 - 52
TOTALS 32 530 90 652
Lots to be added by
Ray Beard Property TM-32-E-2
4
656
Lots to be added in final engineering
5
661
Totals
661
*Lots 97 & 98 are included in the Phase 3 total but will be platted at a later date.
Proposed Lot Mix
Phase Type of Dwellina Unit Totals
SFD SFA Townhouse
Lots Lots Lots
1A 28 - 22 50
1 A (Existing - 48 - 48
Subphase 1 and
2)
1B 15 - 31 46
2 (ExistinQ) - 96 - 96
3, 3A, 3B, 3C - 70 37 107
(ExistinQ)
4 52 - - 52
5 18 - - 18
6 31 - - 31
Page 10
Phase Type of Dwelling Unit Totals
7 (ExistinQ) - 78 - 78
8 - - 135 135
TOTALS 144 292 225 661
10. Landscaping to provide screening shall be provided as required by Albemarle County
Code § 18-32.7.9.8 along the rear of all townhouse units located on double frontage lots.
11. The owner shall provide 25 units of affordable housing (for sale townhouses) with the
construction of Phases 1A (subphases 3 and 4), 1 B, and 8 as identified on the Application Plan. The
owner shall convey the responsibility of constructing the affordable units to the subsequent purchaser of
the subject property. The current owner or the subsequent owner shall create units affordable to
households with incomes less than 80% of the area median income such that housing costs consisting of
principal, interest, real estate taxes and homeowners insurance (PITI) do not exceed 30% of the gross
household income. All purchasers of these units shall be approved by the Albemarle County Housing
Office or its designee. The owner/builder shall provide the County or its designee a period of 90 days to
identify and prequalify an eligible purchaser for the affordable units. The 90 day period shall commence
upon written notice from the owner that the units will be available for sale. This notice shall not be given
more than 60 days prior to the anticipated receipt of the certificate of occupancy. If the County or its
designee does not provide a qualified purchaser during this period, the owner shall have the right to sell
the unit(s) without any restriction on sales price or income of purchaser.
For the lands subject to this rezoning, these proffers supersede the proffers accepted by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for ZMA 91-13 and ZMA 95-05.