HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700020 Correspondence Letter of Determination 2017-10-04COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Vying
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
August 24, 2017
Justin Shimp, PE
Shimp Engineering
201 E Main Street, Suite E
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: LOD2017-00016 — Hansen Road Church -- The By -Right use of a portion of the
property rezoned with ZMA2002-00008, South Pantops Office, now identified as
Parcel ID 078000000073AB.
Dear Mr. Shimp:
On behalf of your clients, you have asked for a determination regarding the By -Right use
of Parcel ID 078000000073AB (the "Parcel").
The following will outline the facts that are relevant in making the determination;
History of rezonings and site plans
On October 21, 1998, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") approved ZMA1998-
00020 Pantops PD-MC. The action letter signed October 28, 1998, states that the
approval is for "an application plan for the general development of 49.34 acres,
zoned PD-MC (Planned Development Mixed Commercial); HC (Highway
Commercial) and EC (Entrance Corridor Overlay District)" and includes "four
modifications for the application plan and four requirements for application plan
approval."
No use limitations were established with the approval of ZMA1998-00020 either through
the conditions or proffers.
The area shown on the above -noted application plan, in what is the Parcel, shows a
notation of "OFFICE SPACE #5 45,000 SQFT."
On February 12, 2003, the Board approved ZMA2002-00008 South Pantops Office.
The action letter signed February 25, 2003, states that the approval is "to amend the
application plan for ZMA 98-20 for the Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A as outlined below
and acceptance of the applicant's proffer..." The letter describes two portions of the
application plan approved with ZMA1998-00020. The first identified as the "HOTEL #7
- 100 ROOMS" and the second as the "OFFICE SPACE #5 - 45,000 SQFT".
August 24, 2017
LOD2017-00016
Page 2 of 3
The staff report presented to both the Planning Commission and the Board state the
applicant's proposal for rezoning the areas noted above as the "HOTEL #7 -100
ROOMS" and the "OFFICE SPACE #5 - 46,000 SOFT" to be "to allow for an office
use instead of the previously approved hotel use..." and "a reduction from 45,000
square feet to 20,000 square feet for the office space shown..."
The action taken, as identified in the above -noted letter, clearly describes the portions
of the application plan that were amended. The area designated as the "HOTEL #7 —
100 ROOMS" was amended to allow "Office Space," and was to be developed in
general accord with a preliminary site plan dated January 3, 2001, and revised January
7, 2003. The preliminary site plan showed the site to be developed with 43,200 Sqft of
office space, and that development has been determined to be in general accord with
the above -noted application plan.
The letter also states the area designated as the "OFFICE SPACE #5 - 45,000 SOFT"
was "amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use from
forty-five thousand (45,000) square feet to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet".
Multiple site plans have been approved for various uses within this PD-MC zoning
district between September 1999 and February 2003 and between February 2004 and
January 2015, all involving some portion of the properties rezoned in 1998 and 2003.
As stated in the staff report of ZMA1998-00020 and ZMA2002-00008 the analysis of the
proposal was for the form of development and traffic, and analyzing the proposal for
specific uses was not a large concern. Zoning officials are interpreting this to mean that
all uses in Section 25A of Chapter 18, of the Albemarle County Code, are permitted
either by -right or by special use permit.
Proposed development on the Parcel
The approvals of the multiple site plans noted above have been for various by -right,
and special use permit uses as outlined in the Section 25A. My interpretation is that
under Section 25A.2.1 (1), the proposal is for a Religious Assembly Use as defined in
Section 3.1 and permitted by Section 23.2.1 (4).
On January 9, 2017, staff held a pre -application meeting with Mr. Shimp and his team.
The proposed plan showed a layout for a 14,725 Sqft church building and associated
parking. At that time, it was believed to have been showing the building under the
20,000 Sqft limits approved with ZMA2002-00008.
On April 3, 2017, a site plan was submitted for review, SDP2017-00020, showing a
church building and two office buildings with associated parking. The site plan shows a
church building of 15,314 Sqft, and two office buildings totaling 35,840 Sqft. The review
of the plan concluded that the proposed plan was not complying with the zoning
approved with ZMA2002-00008.
August 24, 2017
LOD2017-00016
Page 3 of 3
It is determined that the conclusion regarding the site plan submitted for review,
SDP2017-00020, was correct, and that any future proposal for the development of the
Parcel may be any by -right use or special use permit use permitted in Section 25A, but
may not be more than a total of 20,000 Sqft of building on the Parcel.
The following options are available for the property owner to pursue
1. Appeal this determination to the Board of Zoning Appeals as noted below; or
2. Propose a Zoning Map Amendment to change the allowed square footage of
building in this area_
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30)
days of this notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2-2311. If you do not file a
timely appeal, this determination shall be final and un-appealable.
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the
Albemarle County Code, along with a fee of $258 plus the actual cost of advertising the
appeal for public hearing.
Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's Determination are available at the
Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia 22902 or online at www.albemarle.orglcdaDps. This form applies to the appeal of
a decision of the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the
Zoning Ordinance.
Regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals are
located in Chapter 18, Section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Code. They may be
reviewed online at www.albemarle.org/countycodebza.
(Please note that our online documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be
viewed with the Adobe Acrobat Reader or an equivalent. A link to download the free
plug-in is available at the bottom of www.albemarle.org/cdapps.)
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Francis H. MacCall
Principal Planner
Copy: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Owner: ALBEMARLE LAND LLC
John Blair, Deputy County Attorney 195 RIVERBEND DR
CHARLOTTESVILLE VA, 22911
.r
41
1199' P " " i
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To:
Justin Shimp
From:
David Benish, Chief of Planning
Division:
Planning
Date:
.
June 22, 2017
Subject:
SDP2017-20 Hansen Road Church - Initial Site Plan
Fax 434-9724126
This letter is to clarify the intent of condition number three of the Initial Site Plan approval with conditions for
SDP2017-20 Hansen Road Church (Updated on June 1, 2017) and to explain how that condition will be
interpreted as the project moves forward.
The intent of the condition is to ensure that the initial site plan meets all requirements and conditions of the
Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA). if an amendment to the rezoning is approved for over 20,000 square feet of
use in area #5 of the application plan, and the results of the amendment requires changes to the plan that are
significantly different from the initial site plan that has already been reviewed, then a new initial site plan will be
required.
If an amendment to the rezoning is requested and approved for uses above 20,000 square feet in area #5, and
the amendment does not necessitate changes to the plan that are significantly different from the previously
reviewed initial site plan, then a final site plan in general accord with that initial site plan will be able to be
submitted for review.
If a zoning determination finds that the limit of 20,000 square feet of use in area #5 is not a correct interpretation
of ZMA 2002-8 then the condition will no longer apply and will be considered addressed. Therefore, a final site
plan in general accord with the previously reviewed initial site plan will be able to be submitted for review as long
as the square footage of uses proposed in the final site plan are also within those specified by the
determination.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
David Benish
Chief of Planning
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 2%-5832 .. Fax (434) 972-4126
June 1, 2017
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering
201 E. Main Street, Suite M
Charlottesville VA 22902
SDP2017-20 Hansen Road —Initial Site Plan
Mr. Shimp,
The Agent for the Board of Supervisors hereby grants administrative conditional approval to the above referenced
site plan. This approval shall be valid for a period of five (5) years from the date of this letter, provided that the
developer submits a final site plan for all or a portion of the site within one (1) year after the date of this letter as
provided in section 32A.3.1 of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, and thereafter diligently pursues
approval of the final site plan.
In accordance with Chapter 18 Section 32.4.2.8 Early or Mass Grading may be permitted after the following
approvals are received:
1. Proffer condition to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit: Meet the requirements for proffer #1
from ZMA 98-20.
2. ARB conditions to be satished prior to issuance of a grading permit "Show tree protection fencing on the
landscape and grading plans. "
3. Engineering approval of a VSMP plan meeting the requirements of Chapter 17 of the Code of the County
of Albemarle.
4. Approval of all easements for facilities for stormwater management and drainage control.
The final site plan will not be considered to have been officially submitted until the following items are received:
1. A final site plan that satisfies all of the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A fee of $ 1,613.
Please submit 12 copies of the final plans to the Community Development Department. The assigned Lead Reviewer
will then distribute the plans to all reviewing agencies. Once you receive the first set of comments on the final site
plan, please work with each reviewer individually to satisfy their requirements.
The Department of Community Development shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until
tentative approvaIs for the attached conditions from the following agencies/reviewers have been obtained:
SRC Members:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) - 2 copies [Paty Saer aye ext. 3250)
Albemarle County Planning Services (ARB) - 1 copy [Margaret Maliszewski ext. 3276]
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) - I copy [Emily Cox ext. 3565]
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) - 1 copy [Elise Kiewra ext. 3030]
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue - 1 copy [Robbie Gilmer 434-296-5833]
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) - 2 copy [Adam Moore 434422-9894]
Albemarle County Building inspections — I copy [Michael Dellinger ext. 3228]
Albemarle County Planning Services (Zoning) — 1 copy [Francis MacCall ext. 34181
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — 3 copy [Alex Morrison 434-9774511 ext. 1161
If you have any questions about these conditions or the submittal requirements please feel free to contact me at
Extension 3250, psaternye@albemarle.org.
Sincerely
Senior d�anner
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-9724126
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp oustin@shimr)-engineering.com
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: May 16, 2017
UPDATED: June 1, 2017
Subject: SDP 201700020 Hansen Road Church — Initial Site Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the
following comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been
identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.):
[Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless
otherwise specified.]
1. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of ZMA1998-20 & ZMA2002-8.
3. [ZMA 2002-8 Modification B] Reduce the square footage of office space to below that specified
in ZMA2002-8. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA1998-20 located generally east of
Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated at "Office Space #5 — 45,0000 SQ FT", was
amended with ZMA2002-8 to reduce the permitted square footage of office space to 20,000
square feet. This plan shows the square footage of office uses at either of 34,000 or 35,840
square feet, both of which do not meet the ZMA proffer limitation.
UPDATED: ZMA2002-8 showed on the revised application plan "Office Space #5 — 20.0000
4. UPDATE: rNEW COMMENTAn early arading plan cannot be $ - roved until the
uirements of r ffer #1 of ZMA-98-20 Panto s PD-MC have been met.
5. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 11 A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings and
parking areas visible from Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval for all
development. The landscaping plan may preserve existing trees or provide plantings which shall
provide the necessary screening within 15 years. Note that this applies to the currently submitted
site plan and any impact this site plan would have on the existing screening of the previously
developed portions of the PD-MC development. The removal of the existing trees on this site will
have a major impact on the visibility of the Shopping Center portion of the PD-MC from Monticello.
Also note that there is a clarification and guideline for this ZMA proffer dated 1/19/2001
(Landscape Plans for the entire Pantops PD-MC zoned by ZMA 98-20).
Page l of 5
6. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 3] All buildings shall be designed to provide rooftop style, treatment
and color schemes which assure minimal visual impact on the Monticello viewshed. Assurance of
such style, treatment and color scheme shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Such
approval may be given by the Director of Planning and Community Development after providing
notice to the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and an opportunity for Foundation
comments to be considered.
7- [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 2] Include in the site plan street trees for the full length of the parcel
boundaries on both streets and both sides of the street where road improvements are proposed.
A street tree plan providing a visual buffer for Hansen Road and Rolkin Road shall be provided as
a condition of.site plan approval. Large street trees shall be planted on both sides of such roads
in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and shall be staggered on opposite sides of the road.
8. [ZMA 1998-20 Requirement 4] Provide a highlighted copy of the Four Party Road Improvement
Agreement dated 10/20/1998. Ensure that the highlights point out any reference to the subject
parcel and the responsibilities of its owners for private road improvements. Include the deed book
and page number for this agreement in a note on the site plan.
9. [32.5.1(c) & 32.5.2(d)] Provide the elevation of the existing contours on the existing conditions
sheet (C2 of 5) and the proposed contours on the grading sheet (C5 of 5).
10. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site data on
the cover sheet. Since Improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads, and the
property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the parcels that include the other side of
the road must be included.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Include all owners of parcels impacted by this site plan in the Zoning portion of the site
data on the cover sheet. Since improvements are shown on both sides of the road on both roads,
and the property lines appear to be at the center of the road, then the owners for the parcels on
the other side of the road must be included.
12. [32.5.2(a)] Include all parcel boundary information. The small straight property line in the
northeast comer of the triangular portion of the property does not appear to have any bearing or
distance provided.
13. [32.5.2(a)] Include the ZMA project numbers for all approve rezonings in the 'Zoning" portion of
the site data on the cover sheet (Cl of 5).
14. [32.5.2(a)] Include the steeps slopes overlay district in the "Zonings` portion of the site data on the
cover sheet (C1 of 5).
15. [32.5.2(a)] Provide a list of all proffers that affect the site in the site plan.
16. [32.5.2(a)] Clearly label the bench mark locations and information on the site plan.
17. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the setback lines, including minimum and maximum, on the site plan sheet.
Also, expand the setback information on the coversheet to include the full descriptions of the
setbacks. The side and rear setbacks are to more districts than the RA.
18. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the building locations so that they meet the setback requirement. At least one
building does not appear to be meeting the maximum setback requirements.
Page 2 of 5
1 g. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the:
• °Abutting Parcel Information" so that they show the correct Tax Map Parcel number, owner
and most recent Deed Book and page numbers.
+ "Abutting Parcel Information" to include TMP 78-73A4.
20. [32.5.2(a)] Provide all departing lot lines. The lot lines departing from the subject parcel and that
between parcels TMP 78-73A6, 78-73B'I and 78-73A4 are not yet shown in the site plan.
21. [32.5.2(b), 32.5.2(n) & 32.5.2(q)] Revise the Proposed Use, the ITE Trip Count and Parking
Schedule information on the coversheet so that they match. The square feet of office building
does not appear to be correct in at least one of these three places since they do not match. If the
square feet of the buildings in the parking schedule are corrected then update the parking
calculations based on the revised building area.
22. [32.5.2(b)] Revise the parking schedule to include the percentage of provided parking. Also,
include a note that specifies that the proposed parking includes street parking and shared parking
alternatives.
23. [32.5.2(b) & 32.5.2(n)] Provide information on how the church will be used during the hours of
office building use (typically Monday through Friday from 8AM to 5PM). Depending on the usage
of the church during the same hours as the office buildings a parking study may be required to be
submitted and approved prior to approval of the final site plan.
24. [32.5.2(b) &32.5.2(n)] Provide accurate calculations for open space and impervious surfaces.
Check the area of open space. 45% appears high and may not include the area of existing
improvements already on the site, such as roads and sidewalks.
25. [32.5.2(b)] Provide an accurate height for the proposed buildings. Check the height of the
buildings. 45' appears to be taller than necessary for a one story building when measured from
the front entry point.
site.
26. [32.5.2(d)] Provide the existing topography for at least 50' outside of the site. Because of the
road improvements the site includes portions of two adjoining parcels. The existing topography
must go 50' beyond any proposed improvements on the adjoining parcels.
27. [32.5.2(d)] Include the existing managed steep slopes hatching in at least one plan sheet that
shows all proposed improvements to the site. Ensure that the steep slopes design standards are
met for all improvements in the area of impacted steep slopes.
28. [32.5.2(e)] Provide labels, on all plan view sheets, identifying whether the existing wooded areas
are composed of evergreen, deciduous or a mix of types of trees.
29. [32.5.2(e)] Provide the proposed tree line on all proposed development sheets. There appears to
be a large area of existing woods that will not be impacted by the proposed development. Show
the extent of those trees that are to remain.
30. [32.5.2(e)] Provide the location of all existing individual trees along the existing road frontage and
that are not within the wooded areas. If any of these trees are to remain show them as such.
Page 3 of 5
31. [32.5.2(e)] Ensure that any trees that are to remain, and are to be used to meet requirements, are
preserved. There appear to be existing trees shown on the landscape sheet. Label these trees
as existing trees to remain. Provide all require tree protections items in the site plan including tree
protection fencing on all required sheets, the tree preservation checklist and a tree protection
detail.
32. [32.5,2(i)] Provide the width of all proposed parking travel and access ways.
33. [32.5.2(l)] Provide both pavement widths and travel lane widths for all existing and proposed
streets. Provide dimensions for the typical on -street parking space.
34. [32.5.20)] Provide the deed book and page references for any and all existing water, wastewater
or storm drainage systems easements that are located on the property. Also, provide all of the
required information on what appears to be an existing drainage easement that goes through the
property.
35. 132.5.20)] There are existing utilities that appear to not be located within their easements. Either
correct the site plan to show the correct locations of these utilities and their easement or show
proposed realignments for the easements. A plat for any proposed easement must be approved
and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
X 132.5.20)] There appears to be an existing drainage ways that is not located within what may be a
drainage way easement. Ensure that this existing drainage way and drainage easement are
shown correctly on the site plan
37. [32.5.2(k)] There is a proposed storm pipe that carries off site stormwater but easement is shown
for the proposed pipe. Show the proposed easement. A plat for the proposed drainage
easement, and the vacation of what appears to be the existing easement, must be approved and
recorded prior to final site plan approval.
38. [32.5.2(k)] Revise the site plan to include the location of the proposed water lines.
39. [32.5.2(1)] Provide the location and width of any existing or proposed utilities and utility
easements including telephone, cable, electric and gas. Indicate the deed book and page
reference for all exiting utility easements located on the property.
40. [32.5.2(1)) Provide the location, width and deed book and page number for the existing gas
easements.
Page 4 of 5
41, [32.5.2(n)] Provide:
Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]. If there
will be any external lighting fixtures a photometric plan will be required for Final Site Plan
approval. In addition to meeting all lighting requirements a standard lighting note will be
required.
+ If there is to be a sign for the proposed use, on the final site plan depict and label the sign
location. (Depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign location or type).
Information on the proposed paving material types for all walkways, access ways and parking
lots.
• The location of loading and service areas.
• The location of trash containers.
• A location for a pedestrian connection to all parking areas.
o There appears to be no pedestrian connections from the parking area and building
directly to Hansen Road. Since there are 50 proposed parking spaces along Hansen
Road, that are being specified as meeting the required parking requirements, a direct
pedestrian connection should be provided.
o Provide a pedestrian connections internal to the site. Extend the sidewalks, and
handicapped access, so that it connects between the church and office buildings.
42. [32.5.2(p)] Provide a complete landscape plan that meets all requirements of section 32.7.9 with
the Final Site Plan.
43. [32.5.2(o)] Ensure that all symbols and abbreviations in the legend match those shown in the site
plan. The sewer lines do not appear to be represented correctly. -
44. [Comment] Label the maximum height of all retaining walls. Ensure that all walls impacting the
managed steep slopes meet the design requirements for the steep slopes overlay district.
45. [Comment] Provide copies of off -site easements, or letters of intent to grant them from off -site
owners. These must be received prior to final site plan approval.
46. [Comment] See the attached comments from the other SRC reviewers.
Please contact Paty in the Planning Division by using psaternyeftalbemarle.org or 434-296-5532 ext.
3250 for further info m ion
Page 5 of
Review Comments for SDP201700020 Initial site Plan-
Project NamelHansen Road Church -Digital
Date Completed: Friday, May 12, 2017 DepartmenVDivision/Agency: review Status:
Emi Cax + p C>]D Engineering•] Requested Changes
Revlewer:�. IY __._ _-..__..__ f.� ._....-..._ ineer....�._—._1._t
WPO VSMP plan must be approved before final site plan can be approved.
-Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 must have ground cover (not grass) specified on the plans.
Please provide a detail for the proposed retaining walls.
-Provide the deed book and page for all wasting easements-
-Ensure that there are no trees shown within the drainage easements.
Please provide sight distance profiles.
-Please provide a rrunimum of 12.5 R on all entrances (one 10.5 R was shown).
Please label all curbing and entrances with VDOT designations (CG-6, etc.) and provide applicable details.
-Nate that no loading spaces or dumpster pads were shown- Please provide if necessary and shave all applicable details.
Please provide crass section details for the pavement and sidewalk.
-Please provide a proposed roadway section detail (showing the dimensions and slopes, etc).
-Ensure there is adequate striping to provide safe pedestrian access to the site from all parking areas-
-Parking spaces appear to be blocking the existing stormwater maintenance access road on Rolkin Rd. Please ensure there is
access to the existing stormwater maintenance road.
Page: ^1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 16C1161H17
Review Comments for
SDP201700020 Initial site Plan
Project Name: lHansen Road Church -Digital
Date Completed: I Monday, May 15, 2017
Reviewer: Margaret Maliszewski
JDepartment0ivisioNAgency: Review Status.
CDD ARB Requested Changes
_ l .- _.. _T ..._. __�._.. .._. .
ARB-2017-34: Hansen Road Church Initial Plan - Initial Site flan Review (TMIParce1078000000073AB)
Proposal: To construct a church and two office buildings with associated site improvements.
Location. Along Hansen and Rolkin Roads, behind and to the west of the Rivanna Ridge (Pantops Giant) shopping center
Motion to Approve Consent Agenda:
Motion- Mr. Van Der Werf moved to approve the consent agenda and forward the recommendations outlined in the staff report for
the Initial Site Plan to the Agent for the Site Review Committee
• Regarding requirements to satisfy the design guidelines as per § 18-30 6.4c(2), (3) and (5) and recommended
conditions of initial plan approval:
1. ACertificate of Appropriateness is required prior to final site plan approval.
Regarding recommendations on the plan as it relates to the guidelines:
None
• Regarding conditions to be satisfied prior to issuance of a grading permit:
i. Show tree protection fencing on the landscape and grading plans.
• Regarding the final site plan submittal: In addition to all final site plan checklist requirements. revise the plan to
address these issues-
1- Indicate on the plans the location of all proposed accessory structures and equipment. Show how visibility of these
items from the EC will be eliminated
2. Add the standard mechanical equipment .note to both the site and architectural plans. Wisibility of all mechanical
equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated.'
3. Add trees east of the eastern site entrance along Rolkin Road, minimum 2W caliper at planting and 40' on center.
4. Add trees along the north side of Building A, 2W caliper at planting, 25' on center.
5_ Revise the planting size of the 13 interior parking lot trees to 2W caliper minimum.
6. Revise the plan to provide sufficient space for large shade trees along the north side of the parking lot, 2'rz caliper
minimum at planting, 40` on center, and show the trees on the plan_
7. Add the standard plant health note to the plan. 'AII site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and
be maintained at, mature height, the topping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to
support the overall health of the plant.'
8_ Show tree protection fencing on the landscape and grading plans.
Mr. Binsted seconded the motion.
The motion camed by a vote of4:0_ (Missal absent)
page: R1 �~ County of Albemarle Printed an: r 05Ji6J2017
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
t601 ararVe Bmd
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Gorpoper. %Vnla 22701
Commissioner
April 19, 2017
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Patricia Saternye
Re: SDP-2017-00020-Hansen Road Church- Site Plan
Review #1
Dear Ms. Saternye:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated
April 3, 2017, and offers the following comment:
1. Hansen Road and Rolkin Load will remain private indefinitely, and no permit will be
required for work within road way.
2. Recommend the appropriate sign coverage for Hansen and Rolkin Road, e.g. (speed limit,
no parking).
If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
Sincerely,
a&t' . q-0x-1
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Patricia Satern e
Front. Alexander Morrison <amorrison@serviceauthority.org>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2017 7:15 AM
TO: Patricia Saternye
Subject: SDP201700020: Hanse Road Church Digital
Paty,
I have reviewed the above referenced application. i hereby recommend approval with the following conditions:
• Water and Sewer Construction Plan Review by the ACSA will be required at the final site plan stage. Submit 3
copies of the plan along with water and sewer data sheets to the ACSA, Attn: Michael Vieira, PE, to start the
review.
• Manholes are not permitted in parking spaces.
• Show all of the existing water and sewer utilities and call -out size and material.
Alexander J. Morrison, P.E.
Civil Engineer
Albemarle County Service Authority
168 Spotnap Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22911
(0) 434-977-4511 Ext. 116
(C) 434-981-5577
(F) 434-979-0698
County of Albemarle 1
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911
APPLICATION#: SDP201700020
TMP: 07800-00-00-073AB
DATE: 4/26/2017
FROM: Elise Kiewra
ekiewra@albem,arle.org
Geographic Data Services (GDS)
www.albemarle.org/ods
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3030
This site will require a one (1) new private road name. Per Sec. 7-200-B of the County's Road
Naming n P party Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF).
"It is intended by this article that all roads within the county which serve or are designed
to serve three (3) or more dwelling units or business structures shall be named."
Please review the procedures in the Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual to decide upon
a road name for the road accessing the property between Rolkin Rd and Hansen Rd.
We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for
review, in case your first choices are not acceptable.
A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here:
s: //www.a I berna rle.or u p log ! mage.91ft rms Center D s/ Geog ra phic Data Service
s/Forms/Road Naming and Pronertv Numbering Ordinance and Manual.ndf
Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The
Index can be found here: http://www.albemarle.org/albemarle/upload/images/webapps/roads/
Parcel and mapping information can be found here: httl2://glsweb.albemarle.org[
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Review Comments for SDP201700020 initial Site Plan
Project Name: Hansen Road Church - Digital
Date Completed: Tuesday. . April 25, 2017 Department0ivision/Agency: Review Status:
lZevieuaer: Robbie Gilmer Fire Rescue Requested trbant�es
.__--_ __.._ �_—___. _ _ ._._._ _ a._..__.
Based on plans dated 4l3117.
1_ Fire flaw test required before final approval. Please attach a copy to the final plans.
2. Show FDC locations an the parking lot side of the buildings and within 100 ft of a fire hydrant.
3. Any buildings over 30' in height require a 2F unobstructed travel way that shall not be greater than 30' from the building. This
lane is only required on one side of each building.
4. Hydrant spacing shall be 400' per travel way.
5-Please add a note Knox box required on each building -
Page: 1 Count}, of Albemarle Printed On: 05A612017
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperairm with the
Mom= Jef)"emon Health Distriet
&BEMARLE CMARLOrI MLLF
State Departrwl of Health
FLUVANNA COUNTY IPAI IAVRA)
1138 Rose Rill Drive
GREENEOOUNTV tSTANARDSWltE3
Phone (434) 972.6218
P. 0. Box 7.546
iOUISACOUNVY&OUISAI
NELSON COUNTY 1LOVINGStONj
Fax (434) M-4310
Charlottesville, Virginia 229D6
May 5, 2017
Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Hansen Road Church
Initial Site Development Plan
SDP2017-20
Ms. Saternye:
As requested, I've reviewed the Initial Site Development Plan (4/3/17) for the subject
facility, referenced above. Since both water and sewer will be provided by ACSA, VDH
will have no involvement.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski(-a,vdh.vir inia
Review Comments for
ProJectName,
. lHansen Road Church -Digital
Date Completed: IThursday April 20, 2017
Reviewer: IMichael Bellinger
SDP201700020
DepartmentlDivisionftency: Review Status:
E[CDO Inspections E" 'See Recommendations
Page, ;,1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 105A—BjFoil
Review Comments for
SDP201700020 Jnitiai Site Pian
ProjectName: jHansen Roan Church - Digital
Date Completed_ IWednesday, May 17, 2017
Reviewer: Vicioria Fort
DepartmentlDivision/Agency: Review Status:
No Ob ec#ion
Page: �.1 County of Albemarle Printed On: Oi3�0112017
HIMPROJECT MANAGEMENT
CIVIL ENGINEERING
LAND PLANNING
ENGINEERINGa
June 12, 2016
Ms. Paty Satemye, Senior Planner
Albemarle County
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Regarding: SDP 201700020 — Hansen Road Church
Appeal of Condition of Approval for Initial Site Plan
Dear Ms Satemye,
In regard to SDP 201700020 (Hansen Road Church), you provided a memorandum, dated May 16,
2017 and updated on June 1st with the following comment:
03. [ZMA 2002-8 Modification B1 Reduce the square footage of office space to below that
specified in ZMA2002-8. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 1998-20 located generally east of
Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated at "Office Space #5 — 45, 000 SQ F77, was amended
with ZMA 2002-8 to reduce the permitted square footage of office space to 20, 000 square feet. This plan
shows the square footage of once uses at either of 34, 000 or 35,840 square feet, both of which do not meet
the ZMA proffer limitation.
UPDATED, ZUA2002.8 showed on the revised application pplan "Office Space #5— 20,0000 (sic) SQ
FT". 20,000 SQ FT is the maximum total square footage allowed on the site of any use based on that
rezoning, including unfinished basements. Reduce the proposed total square fottage of uses to
20,000 or less. Any square footage above 20,000 will require an amendment to the rezoning and a new
initial site plan. The amendment to the rezoning would have to be approved prior to the new initiat site
plan being approved."
In our research of the approvals for ZMA 1998-20 and ZMA 2002-8, we have learned that a church is a By -
Right use of the property (this was confirmed by Francis MacCall in an e-mail dated December 16, 2016
(attached herein)). We have also discovered that there is no restriction, other than physical limitations,
governing the size of a by -right church on the site. In accordance with Section 32.4.2,6(a) of the Zoning
Ordinance, we are appealing this condition of approval for SDP 201700020, Please consider the following
justification.
As outlined in the Staff Report from the October 21,1998 Board of Supervisors hearing:
...This petition (ZMA-98-20) has been reviewed under these criteria as they relate to the physical
development of the property as opposed to uses. And other aspects. established when the zoning was
placed on the land in 1980. While uses are not proffered, the five -party agreement incorporates a
schedule of traffic generation which will ensure that internal private roads are adequately designed and
that impacts to external public roads are not exceeded."
At this time, under Section 8.5.4 of the Zoning Ordinance, this petition is forwarded to the Planning
Commission which "shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors" and
specifically, recommendations of the Commission shall include the findings as to:
a. The suitability of the tract for the general type of Planned Development district proposed in terms
of. relations to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation to
surrounding area;
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services;
a Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts,
deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other instruments, or the
need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and
d Specific modification in Planned Development or general regulations as applied to the particular
case, based on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration
that the public purpose of Planned Development or general regulations as applied would be
satisfied to at least an equivalent degree by such modifications.
This is re -iterated in the summary of the 1998 Staff Report as follows:
„The uses suggested on the Application Plan comply with rises recommended for Regional
Service, areas by the Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, staff opinion is that these uses were
extended to this property in 1980 when the PD-MC zoning was established by the Board of
Supervisors. No rezoning as to uses or zoning categories has been requested, therefore, staff has
restricted its review of this petition to physical aspects of development. The applicant has
incorporated all public road improvements as recommended by VDOT as well as traffic generation
Limits into the five party agreement to ensure adequacy of these improvements.. ;"
It is clear in reading the staff report and meeting minutes from the October 21, 1998 Board of Supervisors
hearing that the sole intent of labeling uses and square footages was to provide an estimate of traffic
generation by the development, not to impose limits on uses in the Planned Development district. When
the staff report for ZMA 2002a was presented to the Board of Supervisors on February 12, 2003, it begins
with a general statement about the zoning action mentioned above, "... There is specific mention In the ZMA
98-20 staff report that the focus of the rezoning was not the uses per se, but on the impacts caused by
those uses. For this reason, staffs review of this rezoning application has and will focus more on this
proposal's impacts and compliance with the neighborhood Model. In short; the proposed change in use in
this ZMA is not a large concern to staff per se..."
However, the 2003 staff report contradicts itself later when describing by -right use of the property:
"...Development on Parcel 73A is still governed by the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan. Therefore, the
areas under consideration, Areas 1 and 2 on Attachment A, have only the uses shown on the ZMA
98-20 Application Plan, 100-room hotel and 45,000 square feet of office, respectively..."
The meeting minutes of the February 12, 2003 Board of Supervisors hearing attempts to explain this
contradiction as follows:
"...Mr. Cilimberg said since the time when the Planning Commission recommended approval on
January 14, 2003, staff realized that if the petition were approved as recommended, it would not
accomplish what was requested in this rezoning. Staff has a change based on what was proffered
because the effect of the proffers would have been unintentional. This is not a substantive change.
The second proffer for the shopping center property would have removed everything that was
shown on that parcel under the original Application Plan. In fact, there would have been no office
building, and no retail use as a result of accepting that proffer. That was completely unintentional.
Staff now has a recommendation as to how to accomplish what is needed, but in a little different
way than what was originally recommended by the Commission. He said the proffers have
changed, but the design of what's happening is not changing. The way Is was amended into the
Application Plan would change by virtue of this set of recommendations..."
In approving a change to a proffer just prior to the 2003 public hearing, that was not necessary in the first
place, the site in question is now limited to 20,000 square feet of office use:
"B. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B) outlined in blue, located
generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Otflce Space #5 —
45,000 SQ Fr. is amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use from forty-
five thousand (45, 000) square feet to twenty thousand (20, 000) square. (sic)..."
While a misinterpretation of the Application Plan and Approval of ZMA 98-20 made during the County
review and approval of ZMA 2002 08 has unfairly limited the ability of the Applicant to develop an office use
on his property in accordance with the by -right zoning, ZMA 2002-08 provides no restriction of church uses
developed on the property in accordance with by -right zoning. It is our opinion that proposed uses (never
proffered) and square footages (never proffered) have been labeled on application plans associated with
ZMA 1998-20 and ZMA 2002-08 are provided for the sole purpose of providing traffic generation figures in
accordance with ITE practices. Further restriction of the church use on the site would serve no purpose in
relation to the approved zoning.
Please consider this justification and forward it to the Planning Commission for their consideration if
necessary. I would be happy to meet and discuss our opinion further if this is helpful.
31himp, PE
Engineering, P.C.
Kelly Strickland
From:
Francis MacCall
Sent:
Friday, December 16, 201610:34 AM
To:
Kelly Strickland
Subject:
RE: Voicemail about church use in PDMC
Correct. It is a by right use and may be developed via a site plan,
Francis
From: Kelly Strickland mailto:kell shim -en ineerin .com
Sent: Friday, December 16, 201610:27 AM
To: Francis MacCall cFMACCALL aibemarle.or >
Cc: justin@shimp-engineerina.com
Subject: RE: Voicemail about church use in PDMC
Francis,
Just to clarify, no public hearings are needed to construct a church on parcel 73AB. Is this correct?
Thanks,
Kelly
From: Francis MacCall [mailto:FMACCALL@albemarie.org1
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 9:00 AM
To: Kelly Strickland
Subject: Voicemail about church use in PDMC
Kelly,
The use of a church is a permitted use on 078000000073AR zoned PDMC per ZMA1998-020. Site plans are needed.
Possibly steep slopes to deal with. (looks like managed)
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Francis
�AAh 618�zn
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
_ -.. _401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia ZM-4596
(&X) 296.5823
October 28, 1998
Steve Melton
195 Riverbend Dr
Charlottesville, VA. 229 It
RE: ZMA►-98-20 Pantops PD-MC
Tax Map 78, Parcels 20A., 73, 73A., 75 and 76
Dear Mr_ Melton:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on October 21, 1999, approved the above -
noted request for approvalof an application plan for the general develoment of 49.34 acres, zoned PD-MC
(Planned Development Mixed Commercial); HC (Highway Commercial) and EC (Entrance Corridor
%erlay District). Please note that this approval is subject to four modifications for the appication plait
-Cd four requirements for application plan approval. The modifications and requirements are as follow:
Vlodiflc&dons for Applicoon Plan approval.
a. The Board granted a waiver of restrictions to development on critical slopes for and restricted to
the Kroger Shopping Center site, the DMV site and to those areas shown for roadways and other
infrastructure improvements on the Application Plan. Subsequent requests for other critical
slopes waivers as may be requested is other site plans are presented will be entertained by the
Planning Comrnision.
b. The Board did not find that the request for relief from stormwater detention requirements to be
contrary to general planning/policy issues. The Board will allow administrative determination by
the Engineering Departent subject to satisfaction of the Engineering Department concerns as to
adequacy of water quality measures as well as adequacy of downstrem channels;
C. The Hoard can detertrtine no compelling reason to xncoirpomw commercial roadways into the
public road netwoik. Private roads will generally allow more .flexibiuty in site design due to more
flexibiity in setbacks and improvements which may occur within Lite right-of-way. Therefore, the
Board approved usage of private roadways internal to the development. This should not be
viewed as a zoning restriction/prohibition to Board approval of these roads as pubii; roads at
some future date, and
d. The Board believes that PD-SC parking standard was intended to encourage a Planned
Development approach for shopping center development. The Board found that this intent has
been accomplished through this petition and that usage of the PD-SC parking standard would be
appropriate with this intent as well as with standards of the Comprehensive Plan.
W)
fta
uiremgnUication Pion rov :
1. A landscape plan providing fall screening of all buildings and parlang areas visible from
Monticello shall be provided as a condition of site plan approval for all development. 'Ile
landscape plan may preserve existing trees or provide plantings which shall provide the necessary
screening within 15 years.
2. A street tree plan providing a visual bufer for Hansen Road and Rolf Road shall be provided
as a condition of site plan or road plan approval. barge street trees shall be planted on both sides
of such roads in accordance with Section 32.7.9.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be staggered
on opposite sides of the road.
3 • All buildings shall be designed to provide rooftop style, treatment and color schemes which
1 assure minimal visual impact on the Monticello viewshed. Assurance of such style, trneat dad
color schemes shall be a condition of final site plan approval. Such approval may be given by the
Director of Planning and Community Development after providing
Jefferson Memorial Foundation and an opportunity for Foundationcaomments to be coousidered
tice to the lbomas
4. Approval and execution of the Four Party Road Improvement Agreement substantially in accord
with the document dated October 20, 1998, and attached hereto, shall be required prior to the
approval of any development plan.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
roe.
Sincerely,
Ronald S. Keeler
Chief of Planning
RSKljcf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey .
Tee Weaver
Steve Allshouse
Gordon Gledhill
-31
pF A
Y �►Rctt��r
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Balding Code and Zoning Services
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
FAX (804) 9724126 TELEPHONE (804) 246-5832 T D (8%) 972.4012
TO, The file, ZMA 98-20
FROM: Amelia McCulley, Zoning AdministraA
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development
DATE: 01119/01
r
RE: Landscape Plans for the entire Pantaps PD-MC zoned by ZMA 98-20
This document is a Memorandum of Agreement set forth in an effort to meet the Intent of the first "Requirements
for Application Plan Approval" from ZMA 98-20. On October 21, 1998 the Board of Supervisors approved the
Planned Development Mixed Commercial Appiieatirin flan with the following condition:
7. A landscape plan providing full screening of all buildings and parking areas visible fmm Monticello shall be
piuvided as a condition of site plan approval for all development, The landscape plan may preserve existing
trees or provide plantings which shall provide the necessary screening within 15 years.
�P The goal of "full screening" is not only to fully obscure but to provide the maximum screening through integration
with the existing character of the forested slopes within the viewshed of Monticello. The County, the Developer
and Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation all hereby agree that the following guidelines will be used in review of
all the pertinent site plans on a case -by -case basis:
The sites should appear as natural as possible after development. This may involve randomly placing trees on a
slope rather than having a large mowed area or a staggered row of evergreens. It may also provide for screening
evergreen trees to be mixed with deciduous trees so as not to create a "block of green" every winter when the
deciduous trees in the naturalized areas surrounding the development drop their leaves, The screening needs to
be substantial, but a softer silhouette than the standard, using indigenous trees wherever possible, and scattered
or in clumps, not in rovers. Consideration should be given to species that will grow to a substantial size and are
disease resistant so that they will survive and integrate Into the native habitat.
There will be different considerations on each site depending on the acreage of the site, the topography or terrain,
the visibility from Monticello, and the surrounding natural microcosm. The height, size, layout and colors usod an
the buildings to be constructed will also effect the required landscaping. Since cars and other vehicles reflect light
and draw attention to one spot in a field of vision, thorough landscaping of parking lots and accessways is also a
major consideration.
Planning staff in their professional capacity will review the landscape plans for all sites within the Pia -MC. In the
process, they must uphold the Zoning Ordinance, the conditions of the Application Plan, and help achieve the
goals set out above.
Agreed to by:
KatKat ZaF, for Thoma efferson M oriel Foundation Steve dAdlton, for Mort Investment Company
A•r"T A,CEAONT F%Z-
soil so that another commercial use, potentially a bank, can be put at the corner of Route 250 and
Hansen Road. The parcel also contains a steep, wooded slope that drops down towards Parcel 13
(Dennis Enterprises) and Parcel 13A (Michael Spooners vacant parcel) (See Environmental
Constraints Map --- Attachment 13).
The Dennis Enterprises car dealership comprises front half of Parcel 13. The rear of the property
is a wooded, undeveloped slope.
Both properties drain towards the Brown Auto Dealership to the west and Eventually under South
Pantops Drive to the Rivanna River. A large percentage of the area under rezoning consideration
contains critical slopes and will require a critical slopes waiver.
Zoning and Subdivision History:
In 1980, during the County's effort to comprehensively rezone the entire county, the County
rezoned the area that became the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center to PD-SC. In 1998, The
Virginia Land Company submitted an Application Plan for the shopping center (ZMA 98-20 --
see Attachxffent Q. At the time ZMA 98-20 was reviewed, staix the Commission, and theBoard
primarily focused on the proposal's traffic impacts, visual impacts to Monticello, loss of tree
cover, and stormwater management issues, -There is specific mention in the ZMA 98-20 staff
report that the focus of the rezoning was not the uses per se, but on the impacts caused by those
uses. For this reason, staffis review of this rezoning application has and will focus more on this
proposal's impacts and compliance with the Neighborhood Model. In short, the proposed
change in use in this ZMA is not a large concern to staff per se.
The ZMA 98-20 Application Plan was specific as to the uses and layout of the uses in and
around the Giant Shopping Center, however, the outparcels along Route 250 and the area under
consideration were left relatively vague (Alt ub ment Q. The outparcels along Rouge 250 call
for "high volume retail with drive thru," The hatched areas 1 and 2 on Attachment A were listed
as "100-room hotel" and "45,000 square feet of office" respectively. Area 3 on Attachment A
was not given a specified use, but was labeled as a "tree conservation area."
Last year, Area 3 on Attachment A was subdivided off from the remainder of The Virginia Laud
Company's shopping center parcel (Parcel 73A) and added to the Dennis Enterprises' parcel
(Parcel 13) in a boWidary adjustment (SUB 01- ). Area 3 is still zoned as part of the Planned
Development District (i.e., it is still considered a tree conservation area). Thus, it will need to be
rezoned to allow for the proposed expansion of Dennis Enterprises and the special use permit for
outdoor display of the cars (SDP 02-34 and SP 02-13). Staffmade the proceedural
recommendatioh to the applicant that they propose that Area 3 should be taken out of the
Planned District and zoned. HC instead of amending the Application PIan to allow for automobile
sales.
B -ri ht Use of the Pro e :
Parcel 13 is zoned HC on the front half of the property and has no restrictions on any of the by -
right uses in an HC district. However, the rear of the property remains a part of the tree
conservation area in the Rivanna Ridge Shopping Center's PD-MC Application Plan. Therefore,
it has no development potential.
Development on Parcel 73A is still governed by the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan. Therefore,
the areas under consideration, Areas 1 and 2 on Attachment A, have only the uses shown on the
ZMA 98 20 Application Plan, 100-room hotel and 45,000 square feet of office, respectively.
CC
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
through the Computer Automated Dispatch (CAD) program. It is probable that with the opening of
Monticello Station 11 and with the changes made in CAD, the total number of City responses will continue
to decrease in FY 02-03. Starting with July, 2003, the City will not respond outside of the Automatic
Response District (ARD) unless for a working structure fire. This will reduce the overall responses by the
City, but will further Increase the responses made by County stations.
These changes described decrease overall City responses. However, a recent change to the Citys
response to the eastern portion of the County may negate the decrease in gross call load. Due to the lack
of available daytime volunteers at East Rivanna Fire Company, a City engine company has been added to
all daytime responses in East Rivenna's area. It is estimated that this could increase City responses by
more than 300 calls annually. It Is anticipated that the City's response in East Rivanna's area will continue
until Earl Rivenna Is staffed with daytime career firefighters. East Rtvanns's Board is considering asking the
Board of Supervisors for daytime career firefighters, but no formal decision has been made to date.
Memorandum, which Is on file in the Clerk's Office, was received as Information.
Item 5.5. Draft copy of Planning Commission minutes for January 14, 2003, was received for
Information.
(The following two agenda items were heard concurranily.)
Agenda item No. 6. ZMA-2002-08. South Pantops (Signs #83 & 84). Public hearing on a request
to rezone 24.07 acs from PD-MC to PD-MC & l ;C to amend a proffered plan to allow for an office use
instead of a hotel use & to allow for an expansion of Dennis Enterprises car dealership. TM 78, Ps 13 &
73A, Loc on Hanson lid in the Giant Shopping Center at Fentops on Rt 250. (The Comprehensive Plan
designates these properties located in Pantops as Regional Service,) Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public
hearing was advertised in the Daily progress on January 27 and February 3, 2003)
Agenda Item No. 7. SP 2002-013. Dennis Enterprises Exiianston - Outdoor Display (Sign #40).
Public hearing on a raquast to allow add'I vehicle display parking In accord wlSec 30.6.3.2.b of the Zoning
Ord, TM 7a, P 13, contains 3.74E acs. Loc on Richmond Rd (Rt 250) approx 1 ml from the intersec of
Richmond Rd & Stony Paint Rd. Znd HC & EC. Rlvanna Dist. (Notice of this pubitc hearing was advertised
in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 2003.)
Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staffs report which is on file the Clerk's Office with the pormanent
records of the Board of Supervisors. He said these two petitions are related and are covered by the same
report. The first applicant, the Virginia land Company, is requesting a rezoning amendment to the Rivanna
River Ridge Shopping Contar's PD-MC Application Plan to allow for office use instead or the previously
approved hotel use on Tax Map 78, Parcel 73. The properly also includes an area that has been designed
a conservallun area for the purprise of providing o screen to this development as it Is seen from Route 250.
Almost all of the Important trees aria the upper part of the hill. The Virginia Land Company is also
requesting a reduction from 45,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet for the office space shown In the
northeast comer at the intersection of Hansen Road and Rolkin Road. The second applicant, Dennis
Enterprises, Is requesting a rezoning from PD-MC to HC to allow for additional outdoor automobile display.
Proffers have been offered by the two applicants.
Mr. Cilimberg said these petitions were before the Planning Commission on two occasions. There
were some issues after the first review, so"requests were defarred so the applicants could work toward
resolving those issues which were addressed in a subsequent submittal. The oftics buildings were moved
toward Hansen Drive, a sidewalk proposed along Hansen Drive along with a bus stop, and the parking
relegated away from the road. Staff has now received information on traffic Impacts and is satisfied that tdie
impacts irorn ft ohange will ba less then that associated with a hotel. He said a recommendation came to
the Planning Commission, and now to the Board, for approval of &44-2002-Oe with two proffers oil the
shopping center site and one proffer on the Dennis Enterprises' ate, Also, 5P-2002-013 for Dennis
Enterprises carried a recommend abon; for approval sub ect to eight eondtdons.
Mr. Cilimberg said since the time whan the Planning Commission recommended approval an
January 14, 2003, staff realized that if the petition we, a approved as recommended, it would not
accomplish what was requested in this rezoning. Staff has a change based on what was proffered because
the effect of the proffers would have boon unintentional. This is not a substantive change, The second
proffer for the shopping center property would have removed everything that was shown on that parcel
under the original Application Plan. In fact, thers woutd have been no office building, and no retell use as a
result of accepting that proffer. That was completely unintentional. Staff now has a recommendation as to
how to accomplish what is needed, but In a liHie different way than what was originally recommended by the
Commission. He said the proffers have changed, but the design of What's happening is not changing. The
way it was amended Into the Application Plan would change by virtue of this set of recommendations.
Mr. Dorrier asked If the applicant has agreed to the staff's proposal, Air. Gilimberrg said 'yes." The
County Attorney helped with wording, and there was a lot of back and forth to get the words right, and to get
the signed proffers which staff now has. They are all in order.
Air. Cilimberg said that essentially, what the Board is being asked to do is covered in the
memorandum he passed out earlier (Titled - Recommended Action for Special Use Permit SP-02.13 and
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(page B)
Recommended Action for Zoning Map Amendment ZMA-42-08, marked'Recdved 2-12-03, EWC'). He
sald the recommendation for action on the special use permit has not changed. What did change was the
action the Board would take on the zoning map amendment which, in essence, through these steps would
amend the Application Plan by keeping the retail and reduce the office area as originally proposed in Area 2
(See Vicinity Map in packet, Area 2 shows as a yellow -hatched area at the intersection of Hansen Road and
Rolkin Road an Parcel 73A).
Ms. Thomas asked if it still allows for the ten-year option. Mr. Cilimberg said l still proffers the ten-
year reserve for a road should the County went to make the connection. Proffer f in each case stays the
same. Proffer 2 for the planned development mixed commercial is dropped, and instead, staff has outlined
In the memorandum distributed today, the steps the Board would take to amend the Plan to show what is
being requested.
Mr. Climberg said one other thing has come up from an adjacent owner. The property owner to
the west of the South Pantops rezoning area (to the west of that conservation area), is cDmmmed that if that
Is designated conservation, they would have to come back when they develop their property and request an
amendment to their zoning so they could fill in some of that area to make the grading work correctly. Thai
is a low area. The substantive part of that conservation area that meets the intent of the ARB in screening
part of tits development is up the hill. it is roughly 200 feet through that conservation area. That owner has
asked if the bottom 50 feet along the property line could be removed from the conservation area. The
applicant is agreeable, and staff does not think that has any substantive effect on the application. if the
Board decides to do that, he has another hand-out which shows the action that would be needed to
accomplish that
Mr. Rooker asked if there needs to he a change in the proffers. Mr_ Climberg said'W. it is a
change in the Application Plan. That conservation area would be referenced differently.
Ms. Thomas asked for an Idea of how much 50 feet Is. Mr. Bowerman said it is about 40 percent of
the site.
Mr. Rocker asked about the road connection which is being reserved. Mr. Cilimberg sold staff
looked at possible road connections In The pontoon area. One of the areas would be a connection between
Rolkin Drive behind the Giant Food Store and the property to the west tieing into the road that goes to the
Albemarle County Service Authority building.
Ms. Thomas said that is an important road the County cannot require because it is not shown in the
Comprehensive Plan at this time. This Just shows that the County Is behind in planning for this area.
At this time, Mr. Dorder asked the applicant to speak.
Mr. Katurah Roall, representing the applicant, said the Dennis Enterprises plan, Area 3 an the
central map, is a small triangle, so as It appears an his she plan there is a large parking lot being added to
the rear which is actually less than half of that being considered in this proposal. The front portion of that
triangle was previously approved by the Board about one and a -half years ago. Dennis than sought to
square off his lot, so bought some property to do that Secondly, for the office building complex, they will
put In turn lanes to facilitate traffic at that Intersection. He said In the original request, the square footage for
the front parcel was reduced because they desire to have a small branch bank with a drive -through window
on that parcel. He worked closely with the ARB on the landscaping, and what will be provided on this site is
one and one-half times the required coverage. There will be sufficient buffering.
Mr, Dorder opened the public hearing at this time.
Mr. Don Franco said he was present on behalf of Mr. Mika Spooner. His property is to the west of
this project, and is sandwiched between the bottom border of Dennis Enterprises. The property is a small
triangular place of about one acre in size_ It is a vacant lot, and that is their concern. They hope that when
action is taken on this request, they will have the ability to do same grading on the South Pantops project
that will not require a rezoning. They are the hole in the middle with land rising up to meet the developing
area of South Pantops. They would like to be able to make their grade transitions across the property line
and create a better aesthetic site so there Is not a big Swale between the two sites. They have no plan for
the site at this time, and that is the problem they are encountering. They did not want to just create a site
plan for the sake of having a site plan. But, they went to reserve the potential to create a uniform look,
Mr. Dorrier asked if the land is zoned for commercial use. Mr. Franco said it is zoned highway
commercial. They anticipate pursing an office use in the near future. Most of the development will
probably shield the area being discussed and buffer the slope created on South Pantops. The first 50 feet
of the grading they are asking for an the back of the properly, does not have screening trees to shield the
buildings proposed. Their property line looks up vertically about 45 feet to where the parking lot and the
bulldings begin on South Pantops. They ask for the abil'Qy to grade through that first 50 feet which would be
about 15 feet vertically to make the grades match. They are happy to leave that to the discretion of the
Director of Planning. They will be happy to come back during the site plan process and show their plan to
enhance landscaping an the property, or in the disturbed Brea. They are not trying to ruin the aesthetics,
but trying to make it so the grades work out and there would be a much better product between the two
sites.
Ms. Thomas said the plan the Board has of the property under consideration today shows a lot of
trees existing, not just in the conservation area, but in the area to the right of that area. She asked if he
e
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
would regard those as 'fair game". Mr. Franco said it is all scrub growth. If there is an aesthetic concern,
they would be happy to landscape back in that direction. When he says scrub, he means second growth
pines. He thinks if they killed those six-foot pines and built the dirt up 15 feet so the grades match, and
revegetate that slope, they would end up with a better visual product from Route 250. The net benefit for
them is that they don't and up with a slope coming down to the property Una from South Pontops, so they
would be able to grade across that area and then landscape across ft.
Ms. Thomas asked It those are critical slopes. Mr. Franco sold these are slopes which were
created by the construction that has taken place. If they are critical slopes, he would be happy to pursue a
waiver. They want to avoid a complate rezoning of the adjacent parcel in order to create this better product.
Mr. Rooker said what Mr. Franco Is asking for does not approve his plan, it simply enables his plan
to be approved later without having to go through a rezoning for the parcel again.
Mr. Davis said ft would also be subject to ARB approval because the property is visible from Route
2550. That would give the County the ability to capture a landscaping plan, and that would be appropriate.
Mr. Rooker said his office Is on Spotnap Road. There is a tremendous grade between these
properties. The last 50 feet of the property Mr. Franco is talking about would serve no screening benefit to
any other property. Mr, Rooker said he is In the area frequently and is interested in preserving the
aesthetics, and he does not think that what they are requesting would harm the aesthetics of the project. It
actually could improve the aesthetics because there would not be a need fors retaining wall.
Mr. Bowerman said he thinks when if is all finished, it will tie together very well. At this time it Is very
jumbled visually.
Mr. Franco said most of the trees along the front are on Mr. Spooner's property. As fill takes place,
that will be replaced with a building and parking lot.
Mr. Rooker said this is not a matter before the Board today, but there is a lot of wash -out between
the Carriage Gate Apartments property end this property. There is Rolkin Road and a path that runs
through there and the road kc startng to "bubble up" in some of those areas. He thinks the Engineering
Department should look at the situation.
Mr. Roell said the contractor who put in the storm sewer in that area did not compact the area
correctly, so if collapsed. ft has been dug up and will be repaired.
tVith no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed, and the matter
placed before the Board.
Mr. ClUmberg handed to the Board a different set of recommended actions (Marked by the Clerk
"Received 2-12-03, 6&7, t_WC, Hand-out #2").
Mr. Martin said he thinks all the Board members have looked at this request in depth. He thinks the
Planning Commission and staff did a good job of reviewing it. The question for him is not whether or
not to stake a motion to approve it, but whether he can make the motion at all because it has become so
complicated.
Ms. Thomas asked if this set of recommendations is different from those handed to the Board
earlier in the meeting, Mr. Cilimberg said "yes`, these conditions allow for the. 50-feet to be disturbed.
Mr. Martin said he would move that SP-2002-013, Dennis Enterprises, be approved subject to the
eight conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, as pfesentad to the Board In its packet of
materials for tonight's meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll wac called, and the motion
carried by the foilowing raccrded vote:
AYES: Mr. Dorder, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Rocker, h4s. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None,
(Note: The conditions of approval are set mot in full below.)
1, Vehicles shall not be elevated;
2. Vehicles shall be displayed only in tire areas indicated for dispiay shown on the
pier,;
3. The use shall not commence until a Certificate of Appropriateness i$ Issued by
the ARB, Including landscapb and lighting plans;
4. Provide screening trees to the east, south and west of the proposed parking area
to reduce the impact of the loss of trees and to soften the appearance of the
expanse of proposed pavement Provide a mixture of screening trees,
ornamental trees, and shrubs th. oughout the slope of the grading easement to
the east of the site. A landscape easement will be required for off -silo planting;
5. Provide the planting bed with the seven (7) Eastern Red Cedars In the central
portion of the parking area as shown on the Minor Site Plan Amendment (SDP-
02-34) dated March 8, 200'I., revised November 4, 2002;
S. Rather than alternate the screening trees along the eastern property line, cluster
a]
(February 12.2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
the same species in groups and alternate groups of screening trees to create a
more informal and naturalistic landscape;
Submit a landscape easement for off-sfte planting; and
Provfde screening trees that will grow to a height thatwill sufficiently screen the
proposed parking area. This will require a wider planting area, which will
necessitate the removal of most, if not all, of the eleven (11) display parldng
spaces in the first row.
Mr. Martin then offered motion to approve ZMA 2002-008 with the recommended proffers and
Application Plan which Includes A through F, and then the ter map rezoning tram PD-MC to HC which
Includes proffers A and B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rooker. Roll was called, and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Danier, Mr. Martin, Mr. Parldns, Mr, Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman.
NAYS: None.
PROFFER FORM
(For South Pantops Office)
Date: 1W &a003
ZMA # 2002-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number. 78T78A
6.96+ Acres to be rezoned from PDMC to PDMC
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 shell
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 ifsetf gives rise to the need for
the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation In the rezoning
request.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet oFthe
common property line with Carriage Gate (TMP 7820NN) for the purposes of
the possibility of extending a road through that portion of the property for a period
of TEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
Slonature of All Owners Printed Nigmes of All Offlers Date
(Signed)
Charles W. Hurt, Pres. Charles W. Hurt 2-12-03
Hurt Inivestinent Co.
Tax Map 73-73A: Modificsiion of the ZMA-98-20 Application Plan and Proffers:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-98 M (Attachment B), outlined in
red, located generally west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area
designated as "Hotel #7 -100 Roams" on the attached copy of the ZMA 98-20
Application Plan, is amended to allow "Office Space' instead of a hotel. The
development of this Office space area shall be in general accord with the
"Preliminary Site Development Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by
Rlvanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002, and revised January 7, 2003
(Attachment A).
B. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-98 20 (Attachment B) outlined in
blue, located generally east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area
designated as "Office Space #5 - 45,000 SO FT", is amended to reduce the
permitted square footage of office space use from forty-five thousand (45,000)
square feet to twenty thousand (20,000) square feet-
C. The tree conservation area depicted by dotted lines on the "Preliminary Site
Development Plans for Office at South Pantops", prepared by Rivanna
Engineering, dated January 3, 2002, and revised January 7, 2003 (Attachment
A), may be reduced in sae so that its western boundary Is moved in from the
common property line with Tax Map 78, parcel 13A, by up to fifty (50) feet
D. The three modifications listed in A, B and C above are in addition to those
previously approved, and in all other respects the previously approved
Application Plan and the modifications and requirements reflected In the October
26,1998, letter (Attachment C) apply.
E. The applicant shall provide the County with a modified Application Plan showing
the changes authorized by the modifications, listed in A, B and C above, per
section 8.5.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified
Application Plan can be limited to the area covered by this zoning request.
F. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
PROFFER FORM
(For Dennis Enterprises)
(February 12, 2003, Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Date: 02/1212003
ZMA # 2Q02-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number. 78-13
1+ Acres to be rezoned From PQMC to HC
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County. Zoning Ordinance, the ormer, or its
duty 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.
The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the
common property line with Cardege Gate (TMP 78-20NN) for the purposes of
the possibility of extending a road through that portion of the property for a period
of TEN years. After such time this, proffer will expire.
Sinnature'ofAll owners Printed Names_ of Ali Owners Date
(Signed)
Dennis Minetos Dennis Minstos 2-12-03
Tax Mao7i-1 �. Rezoning from PDMC to HQ:
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA-88-20 (Attachment B), outlined in
green, which was added to Tax Map 78, parcel 13, is rezoned to KC (Highway
Commercial) from PD-MC (Planned Development -Mired Commercial).
s. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-fool "no build zone" (Attachment D).
(Mote: All attachments mentioned above will be found filed with the permanent
records of the Board of Supervisors in the Clerks Office.)
Agenda Item No. S. Draft Statement for VDOTs Primary Road Plan Pre -allocation Hearing.
Mr. Tucker said staff will reword the statement the Board proposed when it was discussed earlier
today. That draft will be forwarded to the Board by a -mail one more time. Staff will also draft some .diking
points' for the Chairman to use when speaking to the State Highway Commission on March S. He said the
Pra-allocation Nearing this year Is being held in the County Office Building in the Auditorium at 10:00 a.m.
The Clark is prepadrig the agenda for that date to allow time so the Hoard mernbers can attend that
meeting.
Agenda Item No. 9. From the Hoard: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Ms. Thomas said there are fed young people in the audience tonight, and she wonders what
brought them here. Someone in the audience said these are Girt Scouts trying to fulfill their Citizenship
requirements.
Ms. 7liomas said that ki the Highway statement on gaga 17 there Is a paragraph saying the road
concepts have no standing in the Comprehensive Plan, therefore the County cannot ask for the roads in
any way, the applicant cannot be required to rassrvo the right-ol-way, and car' einly rannot ask for any
conttlbuticri twwerd these roads. She thinks this it just under planning, and asked that this happon as little
as possible.
Mr. Martin said he thinks Route 29 North will be done with the next master plan. Ms. Thomas said
that was the plan,, but the discussions about budget which are to occur soon, It looks like that is one of
tha things which is proposed to be cut.
Mr. Tucker said the developer will probably and up building those roads.
Mr. Tucker said the Board discussed on February 5, the invitation to meet with PVCC. They have
invited the Albemarle School Boa,W, tha Supervisors, and their own Piedmont College Board members to
meet. The Board has a joint meeting with the Planning Commission to discuss the Rural Areas at 3:30 p.m.
on March 5. He has suggested that the Board meet with the PVCC people for dinner at 5:00 p.m.
Ms. Thomas said they vAll probably want to discuss the letter asidng for the County's participation in
Their capital improvements program. Mr. Tucker said that Is possible. He asked the Board members to let
staff know if they can attend that dinner.
Ms. Thomas mentioned that she will miss the first meeting in July. She thinks it would help the r
01
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Depamnegt of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road., Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
(434) 296 - 5823
Fax (434) 972 - 4012
February 25, 2003
j1
Katurah Roell
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Dennis Minetos
1389 Richmond Road
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: ZMA-02-08 South Pantops Office; Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A and 13
Dear Mr. Roell and Mr. Minetos:
ZMA- 02 - 0 5
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on, February 12, 2003, approved by a vote of
1&6:0, to amend the application plan for ZMA 98-20 for the Tax Map 78, Parcel 73A as outlined below, and
with acceptance of the applicant's proffers (attached).
A. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment B), outlined in red, located generally
west of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as Hotel # 7 - 100 Rooms" on the
attached copy of the ZMA 98-20 Application Plan, is amended to allow "Office Space" instead of a
horel. The development of this Office Space area shall be in general accord with the "Preliminarl Site
Development Plans for Office at South'Pantops° prepared by Rivanne Engineering, dated January 3,
2002 and revised January 7, 2003 (Attachment A).
S. The portion of the Application Plan for ZMA 98-20 (Attachment 8) outlined in blue, located generally
east of Hansen Road, and comprised of the area designated as "Office Space # 5 - 45, 000 SQ FT". is
amended to reduce the permitted square footage of office space use fmm forty-five thousand
(46,000) square feet to twenty thousand (20,000) square.
C, The tree conservation area depicted by dotted lines on the "Preliminary Site Development Plans for
Office at South Pantops" prepared by Rivanna Engineering, dated January 3, 2002 and revised
January 7, 2003 (Attachment A) may be reduced in size so that its western boundary is moved in
from t�he common property line with Tax Map 78 parcel 13A by up to fitly (50) feet.
D. The three modifications listed in A, 8 and C above are in addition to those previously approved, and
in all other respects the previously approved Application Plan and tha modifications and requirements
reflected in the October 28, 1998 letter (Attachment C) apply.
E. The applicant shall provide the County with a modified application plan showing, the changes
authorized by the modifications, listed in A, B and C above. per section 8.5.5 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance. However, the modified application plan can be limited to the area covered by this
zoning request.
F Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no buld zone" (Attachment D).
4
(D-
Page 2
February 25, 2003
The Board also approved by a 6:0 vote to. rezone a portion of Tax Map 78, Parcel 13 from the Planned
Development Mixed Commercial District (PD-MC) to Highway Commercial (HC) as outlined below and
with acceptance of the applicants proffer (see attached).
Tax MaD 78-13: Rezoning from PDMC to HQ
A.) The portion of the Application Plan far ZMA 98-20 (Attachment 8), outlined in greon, which was
added to Tax Map 78 parcel 13, is rezoned to HC (Highway Commercial) from PDMC (Planned
Development -Mixed Commercial).
8. Accept the proffer pertaining to the 120-foot "no build zone" (Attachment D).
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above -noted action, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
V. WanCili rgy
Director of ing & 0
VWGI)cf
Cc: Amelia McCulley
Jack Kelsey
Tex Weaver
Steve AlIshouse
Hiatt Grimes, VDOT
6
s
�j
PROFFER FORM
Date: February 12.2003
(For South Pantops Office)
_
ZMA # 2OM-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 79-73A
6.96+ Acre to be rezoned from - KM . to pDMC
AITACHMI_NT D
Original noam _ if Ituz
Amended Proffer 2112/03
(Amendment # 3)
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
$roffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that. (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the
Conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning request.
(1) The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TW 79-20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion of
t (��pr r fro perk f�N' years. A$er sorb time this proffer will expire.
fie5 CAS u_ f`� r_
4
ign es of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners pate
OR
Signature of Attorney -in -Fact Printed Name of Attomeyin-Fact
(Attach Proper Power of Attorney)
Original Proffer _ j 02
Amended Proffer 2/12/03
PROFFER FORM (Amendment # 3
Date: February 12.2003 (For Decals Enterprises)
ZMA # 2M-008
Tax Map and Parcel Number(s) 7 ,13
1 + Acre to be rezoned from PDMC to HC
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 pnd 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) The Owner hereby proffers not to construct any building within 120 feet of the common property line with
Carriage Gate (TMP 78 20NN) for the purposes of the possibility of extending a road through that portion
of the property for a period of TEN years. After such time this proffer will expire.
is
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of Owners Date
Signature of Attorney -in -Fact
Printed Name of Attorney -in -Fact
J
EC Es' V
SEP 29 199i