HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-4-01B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APR IL 1, 2009
9:00 A.M., LAN E AU DITORIU M
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recogniz ing April 3 – 11, 2009 as Pres erv ation W eek 2009.
b. Proclamation recogniz ing April, 2009 as Fair Housing Month.
c . Proclamation recogniz ing the 30th Anniversary of The Green Olive Tree.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. – 10:10 a.m. A ction Items
8. Appeal: SUB 2008240. Little Yellow Mountain. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of a private
s treet in conjunc tion with a preliminary subdiv ision plat to create 2 lots on approximately 76 ac res. The
properties are z oned R A, Rural Areas, described as Tax Map 55 Parcels 40D and 44, are loc ated on Mint
Springs Road [Route 684] approx imately 0.45 miles southeas t of the inters ection with Railroad Ave. [Route
788]. The Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. W hite Hall
Magisterial Dis tric t.
9. Appeal: SDP200800012. South Pantops C ondominiums – Preliminary. Appeal of a condition impos ed
by the Planning Commission as sociated with a critical slopes waiver. The critical slopes waiver request is
in conjunction with a request for a preliminary s ite plan approval for construction of 125 dwelling units on
13.12 acres zoned R15 Res idential. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 20, is located on South
Pantops Drive approximately 800 feet from its intersection with State Farm Blv d. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Urban Density in Urban Area 4. Rivanna Magisterial District.
10:10 a.m. – Public H earings:
10. Parks and R ecreation Fees. Proposed ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 11, Section 11
105 to allow the charging of picnic shelter fees during the period that park entry fees are charged and
to better clarify authority for setting park fees.
11. Concurrent Resolution to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Water and
Sewer A uthority to increase the membership of the Authority Board from five to seven members by the
addition of one member of the Charlottesville C ity Council and one member of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County.
12. Concurrent Resolution to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Solid
W aste A uthority to increase the membership of the Authority Board from five to seven members by the
addition of one member of the Charlottesville C ity Council and one member of the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, and to allow for the appointment of an Albemarle County Department head in place of the
Albemarle County Engineer, if desired by the Board of Supervisors.
10:30 a.m. – Transportation Matters
13. a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
c . Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
11:30 a.m.
14. Discussion: Follow up on Outstanding FY 200910 County Budget Issues .
15. Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies /Appointments.
18. From the Board: C ommittee R eports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
Recess
Reconvene at 6:00 p.m. – LANE AU DITOR IUM
19. Call to Order.
POSTING OF COLORS
Monticello High School AFJROTC, Unit VA20023, Honor Guard
20. Pledge of Allegiance.
21. Moment of Silence.
22. PUB LIC HEAR ING to receive comments on Recommended Operating and C apital Budgets for FY
2009/2010, and the Proposed FY 2009 Tax Rates.
23. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to April 8, 2009, 4:00 p.m.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: April 9, J une 11 and June 18, 2008; and February 4, 2009.
7.2 Resolution of Intent to Amend Section 4.2 Critical Slopes Regulations in the Zoning Ordinance.
7.3 FY 2009 Appropriations.
7.4 Set public hearing for proposed lease agreement between the County and the Field School of
C harlottesville for portion of Old Crozet Elementary School.
7.5 Amend Section 1830.3.05.1.1. of the Zoning Ordinance to include R ivanna Water and Sewer Authority
w ater and sewer lines as a by right use within the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis tric t.
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.5 Department of Social Services W orkload Update.
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
PRESERVATION WEEK 2009
WHEREAS, our historic buildings and historic places are defining elements of our
community, our well-being and our future development; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of historic buildings and historic places can be accomplished in
an environmentally sustainable manner; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is an effective tool for managing growth, revitalizing
neighborhoods, fostering local pride, and enhancing livability; and
WHEREAS, “Preservation and Sustainability: Piecing it all Together” is the theme for
Preservation Week 2009 in our community, sponsored by the Piedmont Area
Preservation Alliance, and organized this year by Preservation Piedmont;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
proclaim
April 3 – 11, 2009 as Preservation Week 2009
and call upon the citizens of the County of Albemarle to join their fellow citizens
across the Piedmont area in celebrating and participating in this special week of
activities.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of April, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2009, marks the fortyfirst anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of 1968,
which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further
housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of
the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than Federal
efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2009
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle
County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of April, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
The Green Olive Tree
30th Anniversary
WHEREAS, seven Crozet ladies came together in 1979 for Bible Study and fellowship, and out of this gathering
grew the idea of starting a used clothing store to serve Crozet; and
WHEREAS, June Andrews, NancyVirginia Bain, Ruby Garnett, Sarah Rogers, Mary Shirlen Willets, Evelyn
Doyle, and Grace Waller were blessed with good sense, compassionate hearts, and total dedication
to their project, named “The Green Olive Tree;” and
WHEREAS, The Green Olive Tree took root, thrived, and outgrew each of its succeeding locations, supported
by a large group of loyal volunteers over the years; and
WHEREAS, from its modest beginning The Green Olive Tree came to share its proceeds with over a hundred
different ministries and organizations around the world, giving away well over $500,000; and
WHEREAS, not only have tons of clothing been exchanged, but The Green Olive Tree has become a
community center where people can share love and support, ideas and worries, and come away
refreshed and uplifted; and
WHEREAS, The Green Olive Tree has served our community faithfully for thirty wonderful and generous
years, and continues to prosper with the help of numerous volunteers and board members, all who
serve without compensation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recognize the
many valuable contributions of The Green Olive Tree during its thirty years of service to the
Albemarle County community and extend its’ appreciation and heartfelt thanks for their
continued service and commitment to helping to make this a better community.
Signed and sealed this 1st day of April, 2009.
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent to Amend Section 4.2
Critical Slopes Regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adopt a R esolution of Intent to amend the critical
slopes regulations to provide additional
administrative w aivers and exemptions
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, and Ms. McC ulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On May 2, 2007, the Dev elopment Review Task Force (DR TF) presented its recommendations to the Board. One
of the rec ommendations was “to establis h staff authority for waivers and modifications in development areas.” The
zoning text amendment for the first phase of these w aivers was adopted by the Board on January 14, 2009. In the
initial disc ussion of the amendment on January 7th, the Board indicated that the regulations delineating the
circums tances under w hich the agent may authorize the disturbance of critical slopes in the D evelopment Areas
should be broadened.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance the Quality of Life for all C itizens Affordable Housing
Goal One: Enhance the Quality of Life for all C itizens – Economic Vitality
Goal Four: Effectively Manage Growth & Development
DISCU SSION :
The zoning text amendment adopted by the Board on J anuary 14, 2009 authorized the agent to waiv e the prohibition
of disturbing critical slopes in the those zoning districts ty pically found in the Development Areas in two
circums tances: (1) the c ritical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a site plan
approved by the County; or (2) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an exis ting structure located on critic al
slopes under specified c ircumstances.
The proposed zoning text amendment w ould broaden the authority granted to the agent to grant waivers. For
example, w hen the disturbed area would be less than an established threshold, or when the developer obtained
approval of a mitigation plan addressing the impacts of disturbance. This authority would continue to extend to only
those c ritic al slopes not identified as resources in the Open Space Plan. The proposed zoning text amendment also
could reconsider whether c ertain minor dis turbances c urrently requiring a waiver, suc h as the disturbance of
manmade critical slopes resulting from development allowed under a previously approv ed site plan, should be
exempt from the waiv er requirement, or be exempt s ubject to complianc e w ith established performance standards.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates that adoption of the proposed ordinance would reduc e s taff time and costs associated w ith
preparing s taff reports and making pres entations at Planning Commis sion meetings. The proposed ordinance
would als o reduce the time spent by the Commission in review and deliberation on waiv ers.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution of Intent (Attachment A).
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachmen t A: Resoluti on of Intent
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Sec tions 4.2, Critic a l Slope s, through 4.2.6, Exe mptions, of the Zoning
O rdina nc e a re to dire ct de velopment a w a y from c ritic al slopes to more suita ble te rra in in order to prote c t a nd
conserve c ritic a l slopes, public drinking w a te r supplie s a nd flood plain a re a s, a nd to reduce soil e rosion,
sedimentation, wate r pollution a nd se ptic disposa l problems a ssociate d with the de ve lopme nt of c ritic a l slope s;
and
WHEREAS, in order to a chieve these sta te d purpose s, Se c tions 4.2 through 4.2.6 e stablish minimum
re quirements for building site s and the loc ation of structure s a nd improve me nts, inc luding septic systems,
esta blish a proce dure for modifying those re gulations in pa rtic ula r ca se s, a nd de linea te a limite d numbe r of
exe mptions; a nd
WHEREAS, the current regula tions in Se ctions 4.2 through 4.2.6 have fa ile d to a llow the purpose s of
the se sec tions to be fully re alize d for various rea sons inc luding, but not limite d to, their fa ilure to a dequate ly
distinguish the Compre he nsive Pla n’s va rying goals for de ve lopme nt and pre se rva tion in diffe re nt pa rts of the
County; the ir failure to ac knowle dge tha t c ritic a l slopes ma y ha ve diffe re nt value s de pending on the ir loc ation,
inc luding the ir proximity to wate rwa ys; and, the ir failure to provide sta nda rds for slope grading a nd re taining
w a lls that w ould provide longterm sa fe ty, struc tura l a nd surfa c e sta bility, e a se of mainte nanc e, pre vent e rosion,
be ae sthe tic , a nd be c omple me nta ry to a djoining prope rtie s; a nd
WHEREAS, a lthough Se c tion 4.2.5 w a s a me nde d on Ja nuary 14, 2009 to authoriz e the a gent to a pprove
the disturbanc e of critic a l slope s in limite d c ircumstanc es on parce ls outside of the Rura l Are as, Village
Re side ntial, a nd Montic ello Historic z oning districts, the c urre nt regula tions in Se c tion 4.2.5, pe rtaining to
modifica tions a nd wa ive rs, a nd Se ction 4.2.6, pe rta ining to e xe mptions, still impose impe dime nts to the purpose s
of Sec tions 4.2 through 4.2.6 be ing fully re alize d, and the Boa rd de sires to, among othe r things, broade n the
circ umsta nce s under which the a gent ma y a uthorize the disturbance of c ritic a l slopes on parce ls outside of those
thre e z oning districts a nd to further c la rify those disturba nce s tha t are e xe mpt from the re quire me nts of Sec tion
4.2 through Se c tion 4.2.4.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, conve nie nce ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a resolution of inte nt to ame nd
Se ctions 4.2 through 4.2.6 and a ny other regula tions of the Zoning Ordinanc e dee me d a ppropriate to a chieve the
purpose s de sc ribe d herein.
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Return to executive summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009 Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Appropriations #2009052, #2009053,
#2009054, #2009055, and #2009056 for various
local government and sc hool programs and
projects
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Code of Virginia § 15.22507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount
to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. H owever, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished
by firs t publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School SelfSustaining, etc.
The total of this requested FY 2009 appropriation is $960,328.62. A budget amendment public hearing is not required
because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs
DISCU SSION :
This request involves the approval of five (5) new FY 2009 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2009052) totaling $9,593.00 for two Circ uit Court Clerk’s Preservation Grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2009053) totaling $206,256.27 for various Education programs and projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2009054) providing $12,500.00 in funding from the Board’s contingency for Public
Rec reational Facility Authority ’s legal services;
One (1) appropriation (#2009055) for a Virginia Department Housing and Community D evelopment
Community Improvement Grant totaling $700,000.00; and
One (1) appropriation (#2009056) allocating the prior y ear refund from Health Department operations, totaling
$44,479.35, to purc hase modular furniture units to improve deliv ery of services at the Health D epartment
building
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the budget amendment in the amount of $960,328.62 and the approval of
Appropriations #2009052, #2009053, #2009054, #2009055, and #2009056.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2009052
$ 9,593.00
Revenue Source: State Rev enue $ 9,593.00
The Library of Virginia has awarded the Albemarle County C ircuit Court Clerk’s Office grants in the amount of
$4,650.00 and $4,943.00. The purpose of these grants is to preserve court documents in paper form until
such time as they are able to be provided in a suitable reformatted media. Funds associated with the first
grant, in the amount of $4,650.00, were received in August 2008 and erroneously recorded as revenue into the
capital improvements fund for FY 07/08. This appropriation requests the transfer of thes e funds from the
capital improvements fund balance to the appropriate grant fund and the appropriation of the second grant
award in the amount of $4,943.00.
Appropriation #2009053
$ 206,256.27
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 18,411.27
School Fund Balance 187,845.00
At its meeting on Marc h 12, 2009, the Sc hool Board approved the following appropriation requests:
Following completion of the FY 07/08 audit and evaluation of current year revenues, reappropriation of school
carryov er funds takes place and portions of building rental funds are returned to schools. This request
reappropriates $187,845.00 from the School fund balance.
Cale Elementary received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from the WalMart Foundation. The donor
has reques ted that their contribution be used to help pay expenses incurred w hen C ale’s Destination
Imagination (D I) team went to DI finals last May.
V.L. Murray Elementary School receiv ed a donation in the amount of $4,211.47 from the V.L. Murray PTO.
The donor has reques ted that their contribution be used to help fund a teacher and TA support for V.L.
Murray ’s afterschool c lass es from January 12 – March 3, 2009.
Jack Jouett Middle School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $2,000.00 from the Bama W ork s Fund
of Dave Matthew s Band, administered by the Charlottesv ille Area Community Foundation. These funds will
be used to support the s chool’s Year of Giving Initiative, w hich is designed to raise env ironmental awareness
in students and the understanding of the role of good c itizenship through participation in community service
learning projects.
Stony Point Elementary School has been aw arded a grant in the amount of $1,600.00 from the Bama Works
Fund of D ave Matthews Band, adminis tered by the C harlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds
will be us ed for a music al program foc used on writing, singing and literacy for atrisk students.
StoneRobinson Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,500.00 from the Bama
Works Fund of D ave Matthews Band, administered by the C harlottes ville Area Community Foundation.
These funds will be used to support the continuation of the Lyrics Aliv e Program for fourth grade students.
The Freas Foundation has awarded Carrie Finnegan, Orchestra Director for Albemarle High, Jack Jouett
Middle, and Sutherland Middle Schools, with a grant in the amount of $4,000.00. These grant funds w ill be
used towards the purc has e of four cellos and one bass.
Cale Elementary School has been awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the WalMart Foundation.
These funds will be used to purchase new educational supplies that will assist with the teaching of
measurement concepts in both scienc e and math.
Broadus Wood Elementary School has been aw arded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the WalMart
Foundation. These funds w ill be used towards the purc hase of a W eatherbug Station.
Target has awarded three (3) Albemarle County elementary schools with Field Trip Grants. Recipients include
Greer, in the amount of $800.00; Scotts ville, in the amount of $800.00; and Yancey , in the amount of $500.00.
Appropriation #2009054
$ 12,500.00
Revenue Source: Board Contingency $ 12,500.00
On March 5, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved up to $5,000.00 to pursue an independent legal opinion
on the potential violation of the Harris openspace eas ement on Turner Mountain. Invoic es totaling $5,000.00
have been paid from the Board’s operating budget.
On November 5, 2008, the Board of Supervisors reaffirmed its commitment to protec ting conservation
easements and authorized the appropriation of up to $7,500.00 for this legal matter subject to the approval of
the County Executive. To date, invoic es totaling $7,222.50 have been paid from the Board’s operating
budget.
This request appropriates $12,500.00 from the Board’s contingency to fund these expenses.
Appropriation #2009055
$ 700,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Rev enue $ 700,000.00
The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has awarded Albemarle C ounty a
Community Improvement grant in the amount of $700,000.00, of which $644,000.00 is for direct project costs
and $56,000.00 is for the cost of administration. This grant will be us ed to improve the living conditions of
sixtysix low to moderate income hous eholds through housing rehabilitation and infrastructure improv ements in
the Crozet Meadows area. This project includes installation of sanitary sew er lines, water and serv ice lines,
site grading, pavement, and sidewalks.
Appropriation #2009056
$ 44,479.35
Revenue Source: Local Rev enue $ 44,479.35
The FY 2008 year end settlement process for the CharlottesvilleAlbemarle Health Department resulted in a
$44,479.35 surplus for the C ounty. This s urplus was due to the Health D epartment rec eiving onetime grant
funds for their refugee health program and for reimbursement for contrac eptive methods . The Health
Department has requested that these funds be used to purchase modular units to better maximize the use of
the Health Department space. A similar request has been made to the City of Charlottesville.
Over the past year, several changes hav e occurred in s ervices delivered at the Health Department building.
The Jefferson Area CH IP became a separate entity and vacated its space at the H ealth D epartment building.
In addition, the H ealth Department has recently discontinued its dental program and is allow ing the Free C linic
to utilize the existing dental clinic space. Over the last several months the Free Clinic and Health Department
have been working to design clinic and office space that w ould allow for better space utilization, partic ularly
as the cus tomer bases of both organizations continue to grow . The Board had prev ious ly approved, in
concept, the changes to the Health D epartment building to allow for expansion of the Free C linic space and a
new leas e w ill be forthcoming for the Board’s approv al. These surplus funds will be used to purchas e
modular units to replac e individual desks and w ill help to create ten additional work units for the Health
Department. The County w ould retain ownership of the units purchased w ith these funds.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
The Field School of Charlottesville Lease of the
Old Crozet Elementary School
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Schedule a public hearing for the proposed lease
agreement between the County and the Field
School of Charlottesville for a portion of the Old
Crozet Elementary School.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick,
Shadman, Freitas, Shepherd, and Ms. Ragsdale
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Old Crozet Elementary School was built in 1924 and was used as a public school until 1990. From 1991
through 2007 the Charlottesville W aldorf School leased the facility. The Old Crozet Elementary Sc hool has been
vacant sinc e September 2007 when the Charlottesville W aldorf School lease expired. A reuse study w as conducted
and the final report was presented to the Board on September 3, 2008. The Board directed staff to continue to
explore long term uses , as w ell as interim uses of the property, until a long term use of the building is determined.
Virginia Code § 15.21800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing Countyowned
property.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage the County ’s Grow th and D evelopment.
Master Planning Direc tional Statement: “Adapts and reuses sites rather than abandoning them.”
DISCU SSION :
In purs uing the Board’s request to explore an interim use of the Old Crozet Elementary School by the private sector,
staff s olicited and received five propos als. Staff evaluated those propos als based on the following criteria:
• use in relation to prox imity to elementary school and residential area
• R2 zoning compatibility
• propos ed space needs (square footage)
• compatibility w ith desires of community per reuse study
• maintenance responsibilities
• utility c osts
• subleasing proposed
• use of grounds
• propos ed term of lease
• propos ed rental fee
• compatibility w ith Crozet Master Plan
• facility upgrade needed/required
• full time vs. part time use
• timeliness to occupy building
Based on these criteria, tw o of the proposals were deemed potentially suitable and advantageous to the County’s
goals: the Field School of C harlottesville and the Old Crozet School of Arts. Because neither entity proposes to use
the entire facility, it may be possible to lease to both, maximizing the use of the facility.
After dis cussions with the Field School of Charlottesv ille, staff drafted the attached lease agreement to lease 11,210
square feet of building space and the use of the lower athletic field for an annual rent of $42,710.10. That figure is
based on an annual square footage rental rate of $2.79 plus a utility rate share of $1.02 per square foot. This rental
rate is equivalent to the prior Charlottesv ille W aldorf School’s lease rate increased by the rate of inflation to the
current year.
Highlights of the lease provisions are:
• one year term with option to renew
• landlord to provide w ater, sew er, electricity, and heating services
• tenant to provide telephone, janitorial, garbage disposal, grass cutting (lower athletic field), snow removal and all
other services
• tenant to provide routine maintenance and repairs, not to exceed $2,500.00 in any one year
• tenant may, with County permission, and at the expens e of the tenant, make minor alterations and aesthetic
improvements to the facility
• tenant may deduct from the rent during the first term of the lease certain preapproved costs incurred in
making alterations, additions, and improvements
The intended use of the facility is consistent with exis ting zoning.
Discussions with the Old Crozet School of Arts regarding its possible lease of a portion of the building are ongoing.
Because of zoning and other unresolved issues, a proposed lease for that potential tenant will be disc ussed with the
Board at a future meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approval and implementation of this leas e w ould result in a gross inc rease in revenue of $42,710.10. The
County currently spends approximately $29,214.25 annually from the Department of General Services operating
budget for routine maintenance and utilities.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends the Board schedule a public hearing on May 6, 2009 to receive public comment on the proposed
lease.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Field School Lease Agreement
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resolution of Intent for Zoning Text Amendment
– Flood Hazard Overlay District
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Amend Sec tion 1830.3.05.1.1. of the Zoning
Ordinance to include R ivanna Water and Sewer
Authority water and sewer lines as a by right use
within the Flood Hazard Overlay District
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner,
Graham, and Ms. McC ulley
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In reviewing a plan for the upgrade to the Meadowcreek Sew er Interceptor, staff found that w ater and sewer lines
owned and operated by the R ivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) are not a by right use within the Flood
Hazard Overlay District. Staff also found that RW SA’s water and sewer lines are a by right use within all zoning
districts outside of the Flood Hazard Overlay District and that water or sewer lines owned and operated by the
Albemarle County Serv ice Authority (ACSA) are a by right use within the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis tric t. Staff is
proposing a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to treat water and s ewer lines owned and operated
by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority the same as those owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service
Authority with respect to the Flood Hazard Overlay Dis trict.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs
DISCU SSION :
Given that the Zoning Ordinance specifically includes RWSA water and sewer lines as a by right use in all other
zoning districts and that AC SA water and sew er lines are a by right use in the Flood Hazard Overlay District, staff
believes it w as an overs ight that RW SA lines w ere not also made a by right use of the Flood Hazard Overlay
District. In addition, s taff believes that the County has an interest in the Meadow Creek Sew er Interceptor upgrade,
as the Interceptor is currently over capacity and sewage spills could occ ur as a res ult. Thus, staff is proposing to
expedite the processing of this Zoning Text Amendment with the goal of having it heard by the Planning
Commis sion on May 5th and the Board on May 13th. Finally, staff notes that as RWSA owns and operates
transmission lines rather than distribution lines, RWSA water or sewer line projects are subject to a finding of
consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This ass ures the County has the opportunity to review a RW SA project
and ass ure it is consistent with the purpose and intent of the County’s Comprehens ive Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No direc t budget impac t w ill result from this ordinance amendment. There is the potential of lost tax revenue if
development projects are delayed as a result of inadequate water or sewer lines.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached R esolution of Intent and direct staff and the Planning
Commis sion to expedite the processing of the Zoning Test Amendment.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Resolution of Intent
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
R ESOLU TION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the purposes of Sec tion 30.3, Flood H a za rd O ve rla y Distric t, of the Albe marle County
Zoning Ordina nc e a re to provide sa fe ty and protec tion from flooding and to restrict the unw ise use , de ve lopme nt
and occ upa ncy of la nds subje c t to inunda tion which may re sult in danger to life a nd prope rty, public c osts for
flood c ontrol me a sure s and resc ue and relief e fforts, soil e rosion, sedime nta tion and silta tion, pollution of wa ter
re sourc es, and ge ne ra l degra dation of the na tural and ma nma de environme nt; and
WHEREAS, Se c tion 30.3.03.1, Loca tion of U tilitie s a nd Fa cilities, provide s in pa rt that ne w or
re pla c e me nt sewer fa c ilitie s be loca te d a nd designe d to minimiz e or elimina te the infiltra tion of flood wate rs into
those fa cilities a nd the disc harge of e ffluent into flood wa ters, a nd to minimize da ma ge or impairment c a use d by
flooding; and
WHEREAS, in the Flood Ha z ard Ove rlay Distric t, w a te r distribution a nd sewerage c ollec tion line s
owne d a nd ope ra te d by the A lbe ma rle County Se rvic e Authority are a llow e d by right in the floodw a y a nd the
floodw ay fringe , but public se we r transmission, ma in or trunk line s, tre atme nt fa cilities, pumping sta tions a nd the
like, owne d a nd/or ope ra ted by the Riva nna Wate r a nd Se we r Authority are not a llowe d by right in eithe r the
floodw ay or the floodw a y fringe; and
WHEREAS, in a ll of the ba sic z oning distric ts in Albe marle County, wa te r distribution a nd se w e ra ge
colle ction lines ow ne d a nd ope ra ted by the Albema rle County Se rvic e Authority, and a ll “public se w e r
transmission, ma in or trunk line s, trea tme nt fa cilitie s, pumping stations and the like, owne d a nd/or operate d by the
Rivanna Wa te r a nd Sewer Authority” are c la ssified a s byright use s; a nd
WHEREAS, the re le vant gene ra l princ iples in the Land Use Plan, which is part of the Comprehe nsive
Plan, state that it is the polic y of the County to provide “a n e conomic al and sa fe public wa ter syste m of w a te r and
sewer to se rve the existing and future De velopment Area popula tion” a nd to “Serve U rba n Area s, Communitie s
and Villa ges with public wate r and se w e r”; a nd
WHEREAS, in order to more fully a c hie ve the re c ite d princ iples of the La nd U se Pla n, it is desire d to
amend the Zoning O rdina nc e to a llow the fac ilitie s of the Rivanna Wa te r a nd Sew er Authority desc ribed he re in
to be a byright use in the Flood Ha za rd O verla y District.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED THAT for purposes of public nec e ssity, conve nie nce ,
ge nera l welfa re and good z oning prac tic e s, the Board of Supe rvisors hereby a dopts a resolution of inte nt to ame nd
Se ction 30.3, Flood H a za rd O verla y District, a nd any othe r re gulations of the Albe ma rle County Zoning
O rdina nc e de emed appropria te to ac hie ve the purpose s de scribe d he re in.
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED THA T the Planning Commission sha ll hold a public he aring on the
zoning text a me ndme nt propose d by this resolution of inte nt, a nd ma ke its re comme nda tion to the Boa rd of
Supe rvisors, at the e arlie st possible da te .
Re turn to exec summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Department of Social Serv ices Workload Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Summary indicators of the Department of Social
Services’ W orkload
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Ms . R alston
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: x
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In the fall of 2008, the Board requested that the Department of Social Services (ACDSS) provide a periodic
summary of workload indic ators due to the continuing ec onomic conditions and resulting impact on the department’s
programs. The Board specifically requested to see c aseload information for Benefit Programs, as w ell as a multi
year trend of caseload growth and the impact of overtime resulting from this growth.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal One of the Strategic Plan – Enhance Quality of Life for all Citiz ens
Strategy 1.3 Increas e the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in low er income hous eholds, to
become selfsufficient.
DISCU SSION :
The following graphical information is provided:
Attachment A – Applications and case trends for Benefit programs as w ell as C hild Protec tive, Foster C are
and Adult and Adult Protection Services programs;
Attachment B – Workload Measures for Benefit programs, as well as Adult , C hild Care, Child Protection,
Foster Care and Adoption Servic es programs; and
Attachment C – Overtime hours and overtime payouts for selected programs
In terms of applications and case trends for Benefit programs as well as C hild Protec tive, Foster C are and Adult and
Adult Protection Services programs, both applications rec eived and ac tive cases are trending upwardly for the period
October 2007 – March 2009 with the exc eption of Medic aid applications. For the mos t part, employ ee caseloads
have als o increased during this period and remain abov e state standards . The only exc eption to these trends is the
Foster Care caseload whic h has dropped slightly below state standards in recent months.
Considering the period March of 2008 – March 2009, ACD SS has witnessed the follow ing changes in w orkload:
Food Stamp Applications: increase of 34%
TANF applications: increase of 15%
Food Stamp active cases: increase of 15.6%
TANF ac tive cases: increas e of 47%
Ongoing CPS cases: increase of 59%
As indicated to the Board during its FY09/10 budget work sessions, these caseload increases are occurring at the
same time that the County is expanding its hiring freeze to 55 positions through vacancies and retirements. To attain
this number of positions, the County is developing plans to reallocate staff across departments, being mindful of the
impact on workloads as well as public health and safety needs. As v acancies occur within ACDSS, the C ounty will
consider these factors to ensure that the most critical positions are addressed to ensure that services continue to be
delivered as efficiently and effectively as possible. Efforts are already underway to fill vacant Office Associate
positions in this manner; however, more technical pos itions requiring a specified college degree suc h as C hild
Protectiv e Service Social Worker may require external recruitment.
In addition to the information provided in this summary, staff provides annual reports to the Board s how ing fiveyear
trends in most program areas. The 2008 annual report was presented to the Board at its January 7, 2009 meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This ex ecutive summary is for the Board’s information only.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Applications and case trends
B – W ork load Measures
C Overtime
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Albemarle County Department of Social Services – Attachment A
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
March 10, 2009
Benefits (Food Stamps, Medicaid, TANF): Applications
Food Stamps: Applications Received
176
156
87
157
109
141
155
133 143
194
168 172
215
167 161
196
0
50
100
150
200
250
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09NumberMedicaid: Applications Received
149
102 94
137
107
118 125
103 101
128 125
114
139
97
87
103
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09NumberTANF: Applications Received
48
43
28
32
25
53
31
38 37
42
56 53 54
34
46
33
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Number
Albemarle County Department of Social Services – Attachment A
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
March 10, 2009
Benefits (Food Stamps, TANF): Active Cases
Food Stamps: Active Cases
1535 1551 1546 1552 1555 1548 1562 1586 1611 1663 1670 1701 1746 1775
1841 1858
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09NumberTANF: Active Cases
99 104
92 91
103 104 106 114
125 131
143 150 151 156
145
93
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09NumberBenefits (Medicaid): Active Clients
Medicaid Clients
4742
4812
4717 4726
4810 4826 4821
4943 4990 5014
5113 5066 5115
5271
5193 5210
4200
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
5400
Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Number
Albemarle County Department of Social Services – Attachment A
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
March 10, 2009
Child Protective Services
Valid Referrals
284633283630262537313320403132353335253222353331333129415319253232533928533237373929322732472939360
10
20
30
40
50
60
Jan-05Mar-05May-05Jul-05Sep-05Nov-05Jan-06Mar-06May-06Jul-06Sep-06Nov-06Jan-07Mar-07May-07Jul-07Sep-07Nov-07Jan-08Mar-08May-08Jul-08Sep-08Nov-08Jan-09Mar-09
On-going Cases
101111232323232219232524283132313228270
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09
Albemarle County Department of Social Services – Attachment A
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
March 10, 2009
Foster Care
Placement Type
28 27 27 27 26 27 23
74 70 69 69 68 64 66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Number of ChildrenCongregate Care Non-congregate Care
Congregate Care Trendline Non-congregate Care Trendline
Adult Services/Adult Protective Services
Open Cases
364
316
342 366 368 384 367 386 376 374 372 368 364 364
327 347 351 356 362
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
1
Workload Measures1
Adult Benefits Workload Measures
171.39159.39177.03169.78141.75158.28189.95188.22186.52216.81195.91177.61213.69189.51179.37213.96191.85201.47192.3192.21196.71208.57190.4204.23210.29170.98131.84130.25123.78147.80152.90166.34151.68152.55203.50184.76161.81211.17177.06180.14146.15129.17160.33180.13159.74171.36199.65150.76186.85201.250
50
100
150
200
250
12/1/20042/1/20054/1/20056/1/20058/1/200510/1/200512/1/20052/1/20064/1/20066/1/20068/1/200610/1/200612/1/20062/1/20074/1/20076/1/20078/1/200710/1/200712/1/20072/1/20084/1/20086/1/20088/1/200810/1/200812/1/2008Month
Average W orkload Target W orkload Average Workload Trendline
1 Workload Measures is a standard, expressed in the number of hours required to handle a case, applied to existing
caseloads. The standard was first developed for Virginia in 2000 and updated in 2008 by Hornby Zeller Associates
for the Virginia Department of Social Services. These graphs are based on the 2000 standard set at 104 hours
allocated for direct casework in a month. The new standards which ACDSS will use effective July 2009, allocate
108.5 hours/month to Benefit Program casework and 106.6 hours/month to Social Work casework. The exception to
this is SDM (Structured Decision Making) agencies of which Albemarle is one. SDM is a model for CPS that the
state intends to deploy statewide. The hours allocated per month using SDM criteria will significantly alter the
standard requiring a higher number of staff to follow the SDM model.
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
2
Long Term Care Workload Measures
204.57199.61200.08215.41223.42196.99205.05214.5211.77187.91203.32199.8268.33215.14245.32207.21246.78238.64250.35208.95217.72227.17205.76224.9590
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Month
Average Workload Target W orkload Average Workload Trendline
Family and Children Benefits Workload Measures
156133.61149.18138.86123.7499.42118.18109.1123.43121.35122.8125.24135.94137.09137.83153.56131.96125.37135.26138.230
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Average Workload Target W orkload Average W orkload Trendline
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
3
Adult Services Workload Measures
202.14203.77199.84213.40204.12186.02197.51191.97192.91208.93197.49205.50202.40202.07194.38184.05184.05191.55186.73184.88205.07190.24183.04189.42192.580.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09Month
Average W orkload Target W orkload Average W orkload Trendline
Child Care Workload Measures
163.35148.83136.73127.05123.42121127.05134.31130.68121120.06133.1133.1133.1143.99152.46159.72164.56162.14156.09159.72165.77147.62143.99141.57141.57148.83148.83130.68129.47136.73139.15100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
Jul-06Aug-06Sep-06Oct-06Nov-06Dec-06Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Mar-09Apr-09Month
Average Workload Target Workload Average Workload Trendline
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
4
CPS Workload Measures
104.60125.29108.65144.07121.64109.26137.71123.22100.95115.96144.59107.84121.32116.33128.32152.13118.73133.31123.510.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
July 07Aug 07Sept 07Oct 07Nov 07Dec 07Jan 08Feb 08Mar 08April 08May 08June 08July 08August 08Sept 08October 08Nov 08Dec 08January-09Average W orkload Target W orkload
Foster Care and Adoption Workload Measures
108.19119.45116.01112.29112.88110.73133.93133.31131.41127.07122.35125.35125.96125.59125.59124.11122.20121.76132.35127.7384.1585.0783.7683.1981.4675.390.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
Jan-07Feb-07Mar-07Apr-07May-07Jun-07Jul-07Aug-07Sep-07Oct-07Nov-07Dec-07Jan-08Feb-08Mar-08Apr-08May-08Jun-08Jul-08Aug-08Sep-08Oct-08Nov-08Dec-08Jan-09Feb-09Month
Average W orkload Target W orkload
Overtime Hours - Social Work**
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09
MonthHours Adult Protective Services CPS Foster/Child Care/Adption
** Does not include on call hours for CPS
Overtime Hours - Benefits Programs
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jul-07 Aug-07 Sep-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09
Month
HoursAdult Benefits Families and Children Benefits
Attachment C
Overtime Payouts- July 2007-Feb 2009**
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Month
Amount ($)Finance Adult Benefits Adult Services F&C Benefits CPS
Foster Care Child Care FOCUS VIEW FUEL
** Does not include on call time for CPS
Attachment C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SUB2008240 Little Yellow Mountain
Preliminary Subdivision Plat
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of preliminary subdivision plat to create
2 lots on 75.65 acres; approval of a w aiver to
allow access to these lots and two existing lots
via a priv ate street.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Fritz,
Pflaum, and Ms. Yaniglos
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
April 1, 2009
A CTION: X IN FORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION : IN FORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
Richard Bowen submitted a request to divide and reconfigure two existing lots totaling approximately 76 acres
into three lots, w ith a proposed private s treet to serve these three lots, as well as another existing lot. The
new lots would be 27.0283, 25.666 and 23 acres in siz e. The Planning Commission considered this request
on February 3, 2009 and denied the applicant’s request for the private street approv al. The applicant has
appealed that decision to the Board.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth & Dev elopment
DISCU SSION :
The applicant applied for a private street under Section 14232(A)(1). This section allow s a private street to be
approved to alleviate significant degradation to the env ironment as the justification. The proposed private
street crosses over Powell’s Creek and uses an exis ting bridge to access the lots. If a public street is
required, s ignificantly more earthwork and more disturbance to the critical slopes and the Powell’s Creek
stream buffer w ould occur compared to the construction of a private street.
However, Section 14234(B) states that, in considering a request for approval of one or more private streets,
the agent and the commission shall consider that abs ent compelling c ircumstances, priv ate streets should not
cross over dams or bridges or involve other infrastructure that would be reasonably prohibitive to maintain.
The s taff review of this application resulted in mixed findings. Because staff could not make the required
favorable findings, staff recommended denial. The Planning Commiss ion denied the private street request for
the following reason: “The finding was bas ed on the factors in Section 14234(B) that states that absent
compelling circumstances, no private s treet shall cros s over dams or bridges. The Commission found no
compelling circumstance by the approv al of the private s treet to cross ov er an existing bridge.”
Since the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a letter agreeing to a condition that
would restrict the future development of Parcel A and TMP 5544 (Revised). As stated in the attached letter,
Parcel A and TMP 5544 (Revised) will only retain one development right each and will not be further divided.
In ess enc e, the applic ant is agreeing to the imposition of a condition that would limit the number of lots and
dwellings served by the private street. Parcel A is assigned five dev elopment rights and TMP 5544 (Revised)
is assigned three development rights. Therefore, the applicant is agreeing to a condition that would prevent
the use of six development rights while it remains in effect.
A condition limiting the number of lots and dwellings s erv ed by the private street, combined with the alleviation
of significant degradation to the environment by not disturbing critical slopes, or Powell’s C reek, may be
considered a “compelling circumstance” within the meaning of Section 14234(B) so as to justify the approval
of a private street over a bridge. Therefore, staff can now recommend approval of the private street with the
conditions recommended below .
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the private street request subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat shall be s ubject to the requirements of Section 14303 (Contents of final plat), as identified on
the “Final Subdiv ision Checklist” w hich is available from the Department of Planning and Community
Dev elopment;
2. The final plat s hall address all minimum requirements from Section 14410 (Standards for all streets
and alleys) and 14412 (Standards for private streets only);
3. Health director approval of indiv idual private wells and septic sys tems;
4. A maintenance agreement mus t be submitted and approved by the County Attorney, as specified in
Section 14317 of the Subdivis ion Ordinance.
5. Not more than one dwelling unit may be established on Parcel A and not more than one dwelling unit
may be establis hed on TMP 5544 (R evised), as the term “dwelling unit” is defined in the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance.
6. Neither Parcel A nor TMP 5544(Revised) shall be further div ided.
7. Conditions 5 and 6 shall be stated in the notes on the final plat.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – Planning C ommission Staff Report
B – Planning C ommission Action Letter
C – Applic ants Proposed C ondition
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
February 13, 2009
Kirk Hughes & Associates - Rob Cummings
220 East High Street
Charlottesville VA 22902
RE: SUB200800240 Little Yellow Mountain - Final Plat
Dear Mr. Cummings:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on, February 3, 2009 denied the above-noted
petition, by a vote of 6:0 based on staff’s recommendations.
The finding was based on the factors in Section 14-234(B) that state that absent compelling
circumstances, no private street shall cross over dams or bridges. The Commission found no
compelling circumstance by the approval of the private street to cross over an existing bridge.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors by filing a written request with the Director of
Community Development along with a fee of $240 within ten calendar days of the decision. (Subdivision
Ordinance Section 14-203(E)(3).
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Zoning & Current Development
cc:
Bowen, Richard H or Joan C
11 Fox Run Rd
Bedford MA 01730
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 3, 2009
SUB200800240 Little Yellow Mountain Final Plat
The request is for final subdivision plat approval to c reate 2 lots on 75.65 acres; associated with this request is a
request for a waiver to allow access to these lots, as well as 2 additional existing lots, via a private street. The
properties are zoned RA, Rural Areas described as Tax Map 55 Parcels 40D and 44 are located in the Whitehall
Magisterial Dis trict on Mint Springs Road [Route 684] approximately 0.45 miles s outheast of the intersection w ith
Railroad Ave. [Route 788]. The Comprehensive Plan designates these parcels as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3.
(Megan Yaniglos)
Ms. Yaniglos presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. She provided clarification on
what the ex isting parcels look like and how they are being proposed to be divided with the boundary line
adjustments. The proposed lot 40d is having property added form parcel 44. Lot 40E is staying the same shape and
the blue and purple colors are the proposed lots. She noted the location of the proposed private s treet. Parcel 40D
has an exis ting dwelling.
The applic ant provided jus tific ation for the approval of the private street under Section 14232A1 to alleviate
s ignificant degradation to the environment. The applicant provided sections and earth w ork computations
that showed the total volume of grading for the c onstruction of a public street w ould be 300 percent greater
than that of a priv ate s treet in the same alignment. Staff found that the construction of a public street would
require significantly more earth w ork and disturbanc e of critic al slopes to the Powell’s Creek stream buffer
than the construction of a priv ate street. How ever, the private street does c ros s over Pow ell’s C reek us ing
an existing bridge. Section 14234(B) states staff shall consider that absence a compelling circumstance
that private s treets should not cross over dams or bridges. Staff has found no compelling circumstance in
this case.
Factors Fav orable – A public street would require signific ant upgrades and grading in the Powell’s Creek
associated stream buffers and therefore a private road would alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of
s ignificant degradation to the env ironment. A private street does not permit more dev elopment than a public
s treet in the rural area.
Factors Unfavorable – The private street w ould cross a bridge over Powell’s Creek that would be
reasonably prohibitive to maintain. Therefore s taff recommends denial.
If the Commission grants approval staff recommends the conditions again listed in the staff report with a
c hange in condition 3 to omit the w ord “or” and just have “and.”
Mr. Struck o invited questions from the C ommission.
Mr. Edgerton as ked if their denial of this were to mandate that the only way the applicant can develop this land
would be to go with a public street, which the Commiss ion has not seen the alignment of, he was as suming that the
300 percent increase in impact was along the same alignment.
Mr. Yaniglos replied that the applicant provided information regarding the public street, which was in an attachment
to the staff report.
Mr. Edgerton asked if it goes in the s ame location.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that it goes further back and crosses the creek .
Mr. Edgerton asked if there would be a bridge, and Ms. Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was a favorable factor.
Mr. Edgerton as ked why the 300 percent would not be considered a compelling circumstance. He asked if there
was a definition as to w hat is allowed to be considered or is it discretionary.
Ms. Yaniglos pointed out that the referenced section said considering the request for the approval of a private street
that the private street s hould not cross ov er dams or bridges. That is what that is referencing.
Mr. Fritz noted that the s pecific answer to his question w as no that there is no definition to w hat a compelling reas on
is. As he had stated before staff takes a very cons erv ative view w hen they are looking at these and staff is look ing
to the Planning Commission for guidance. Staff has not had c ases like this. So what the Commission says here
will provide more guidance to staff for future decis ions. This w as a very diffic ult one for them. Staff noted it as a
favorable factor becaus e with the denial of this the applicant could still develop the property which w ould involve
some potential significant environmental degradation.
Mr. Edgerton said that the denial could force a more environmentally intrusive development of the property and then
a burden on the taxpayers to pay for the maintenance of it. That is the dow n side.
Ms. Porterfield asked w hat the weight limit is on the bridge, and Ms. Yaniglos replied s he had no idea.
Ms. Joseph noted that Attachment C shows a couple of different profiles of the roads . She asked if one side is a
private road and the other a public road.
Ms. Yaniglos replied y es.
Ms. Joseph ask ed which was the public street or the private street. It is showing 20 percent slopes in some areas,
which was a little confus ing.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that one that states the disturbed area of .45 acres is the private road.
Ms. Joseph noted that is only showing up to the turn around. So it is not showing all the way up to the culdesac.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that the culdesac is what the applicant would need to do for the public street.
Ms. Joseph asked why there are two of these with a culdesac and one that shows a 16 percent slope and the
others are showing 20 percent slopes. She questioned what she was looking asked.
Mr. Fritz replied that the one s how ing the disturbed area of 1.45 and is the one going w ith a private s treet meeting
the 3 to 5 lot s tandard all the way bac k. The applicant did not tak e advantage of the break point where the drivew ay
breaks off and he carried a 3 to 5 lot road standard all the w ay back to the same point as the public s treet.
Ms. Joseph noted that s he was surprised because s he did not know they allowed 20 percent slope.
Mr. Fritz replied that on the 3 to 5 lots under the current ordinance there is no maximum slope. It simply say s when
one goes over 7 percent it has to be paved. But there is actually no maximum slope for a 3 to 5 lot road right now .
That is in the proposed Subdivision Tex t Amendment.
Ms. Joseph asked if s taff has received any comments from Fire/Rescue on that one.
Mr. Fritz s aid w hat they are propos ing is an amendment to the ordinance. The Commission has recommended
approval on the proposed amendment and it is before the Board now. It w ent to the Board and they referred it to a
Round Table, w hich is going to be February 26. One of the things being proposed is that the maximum grade of 16
percent be put on for the 3 to 5 lot subdiv ision.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they did a public s treet they would have to bring that bridge up to public standard.
Mr. Loach asked if what staff was saying was that they were going to put more houses in there on 3 to 5 lots plus
the exis ting house and that bridge would not have to come up to a state standard. H e asked if the bridge c ould hold
emergency vehicles.
Mr. Fritz said that if they did it as a private street he did not know if they have a standard for the bridge as to what
the weight limit would be.
Mr. Loac h noted that they w ould be adding another 3 homes to an area that may not be accessible by emergency
vehicles
Ms. Yaniglos said that there w ere 2 ex isting residences , w hich mak es a total of four.
Ms. Joseph asked to clarify that there are still development rights available on thes e 2 parc els beyond what they are
asking.
Ms. Yaniglos replied y es that is correct.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Commiss ion.
Rob C ummings , project manager with Kirk Hughes & Associates , s aid that he was present to answer any
comments or questions regarding the property division they propose in a private street to be constructed along a 465’
portion.
This acces s is intended to c ontinue w here it has been since 1952 along Mint Spring Road and to serve not
only the 3 existing parcels but also the new parcel noted as parcel A on the preliminary plat. They have
looked at multiple designs regarding the improvement of the access to these parcels and what they have
before the Commission tonight is the best design with the least amount of impact as supported by the
engineering staff and VDOT. As shown in the staff report a public road w ould nearly increase the
disturbance by 300 percent. W hereas a priv ate road as they have demons trated while using an existing
farm road and recently improved bridge reduc es greatly not only the environmental impac t but will keep the
aesthetic impact at a minimum. The entrance and bridge crossing Powell’s Creek has been in place since
1952.
An engineering study was done on the bridge abutment in the stream bed by a s tructural engineering firm of
D unbar, Milby , W illiams, Pittman and Bond of Charlottesville on April 23, 2007. Their observation in report
on the then wooden bridge channel and abutments was the channels profile w as fairly level and display ed
little evidence of movement or undermining of the abutments. The substructure showed low evidence of
s ettlement and displacement. They further added that improving the bridge’s characteris tics would be a
s ubstantial undertaking poss ibly including adjusting the roadway grade and increasing the bridge span.
They further noted that the current configuration appears to be func tioning adequately . However, their
recommendation to replac e the wooden deck with a reinforced precas t c oncrete slab cons isting of four 3’ X
16’ slabs as shown on the attached plans. In that design the load would meet or exceed the Virginia legal
truck load. The installation was performed by R .V.I. Cons tructors of Madison, Virginia as per approv ed
plans. They further recommended continuing the monitoring of the channel around the abutments for any
s igns of damage or undermining especially after high water flow events and keeping debris clear of the
bridge.
It is with this recommendation that the ow ner will include provisions within the road maintenance agreement
that the expense for repair, replacement and monitoring will be borne equally among the members of the
home owner’s ass ociation. It will be further noted on the final plat that a priv ate street and bridge within this
s ubdivision may not meet the standards of acceptance into the secondary sys tem of state highway and will
not be maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the County of Albemarle. Again, the
bottom line is at the end of the day they would like to place a private road where a priv ate street exis ts and
c reate only one additional parcel to acc ess Mint Springs at the s ame point where it nearly has for almost 56
y ears with no impacts w ithin its s treams or its banks. The undertaking of a public street in this area will do
nothing but go against what ordinances are intended to protec t and that is the rural charac ter of Albemarle
C ounty. H e inv ited Mr. Bowling up to join him at this time to better answer questions regarding the historic
nature of his property or ques tions about the bridge and the bridge installation that recently oc curred.
Richard Bow ling s aid that he had been familiar with this property since he was five years old. His grandparents and
aunt owned the farm about 1/10 of a mile downstream along Powell’s Creek and on the oppos ite side of Mints
Spring. H is motive in acquiring this property when J ames Seal died was pres erv ation or to preserve the farm like
character along Mint Spring and restore the working pasture and maintain the hous es with their ex isting look and
feel. With res pect to the bridge he had to replace the deck. At that time he contacted a structural engineer to
inspect it. He gave s pec ific instructions that they wanted a bridge that would support the heaviest fire truck in use
in the state of Virginia, which is 81,000 pounds . The heaviest commercial vehicle permitted on Virginia highways is
54,000 pounds. So this bridge exceeds the c ommercial truck level as w ell as more than adequate for a fire truck .
The other part is about prohibited expens e. He has replaced the dec k of the bridge. He grandparents lived on a
property where the sole access is ac ross Powell’s Creek. So he certainly was familiar with that situation. He
pointed out that James Seal assessed the two houses on the property ov er this bridge for over 50 years. Therefore,
he felt that they have addressed to all practical extent the adequacy and functionality and of the bridge.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the decking has been replaced as recommended by Dunbar, Milby and Williams .
Mr. Bowling replied yes that w as done in 2007. There are two exis ting houses and he wanted to be able to access
them w ith a fire truck.
Mr. Edgerton asked if their analysis was based on the numbers that he just gave based on the weight of the trucks .
Mr. Bowling replied yes that the 81,000 pounds was the number that they bas ed their design on. The slab is 16”
thick with reinforced steel.
Ms. Porterfield noted that he w as basically showing a turn around at the end of the private street. She asked how
far distanc e are the hous es now going to be with their driveways from that point.
Mr. Bow ling replied that tw o of the houses will be within 100’ and possibly less . There are two houses further up at
the top of the mountain. If it is a requirement it makes plain common sense to have a turn around bas ed on the top
of the mountain. If that is a condition he had no problem with it. H e asked that it be w orked out at the s taff level
since he preferred not to do it now.
Mr. Cummings pointed out the topography does allow for a couple places for that actually to already happen.
Mr. Bowling noted that the top of the mountain was actually fairly level. There are slopes getting there. He had no
problem with putting in a proper turn around with a proper easement at the top.
Mr. Struck o invited public comment on this matter.
David W ayland, resident of Powell Creek and a member of the C rozet Community Advisory Committee appointed
by the Board of Superv isors said that he had lived in this area since 1935. Therefore, he was fairly familiar with the
property. He watched the bridge being built day after day. H e thought that they did a good job. They put in a new
mailbox anticipating a lot of new houses going acros s there. He noted that his conc ern is the critical slopes. That
property is very steep. They used to have an express ion in Crozet that there was land that if you plow ed it the dirt
would go down your shirt collar. This property is that s teep. It is so steep that the hillside is actually terraced.
There used to be apple trees or fruit trees of some nature on it and it was terrac ed so that the trees could be
maintained. They spent a lot of time worried about an electronic tower that w ould be visible. He ask ed what about
two houses built on the high side of Little Yellow Mountain that would be very vis ible. He asked why people built
houses on sides of mountain. Of course, it is for the views. H e voiced concern with the visibility of the propos ed
houses from Crozet because it was v ery close to being ridge top cons truction up on the side of Little Yellow
Mountain. H e urged the Commission to be very careful because onc e they allow this to happen it would be opening
up to future development. The people in Crozet have been backing the master plan because that is c ontaining new
development within a certain limit. This would be an invasion of the rural properties that many residents don’t want
to see happen.
Charles Mitc hell, resident of 1645 Mints Spring R oad, noted that this property w as diagonally across from the
subject property. If the property were to be developed leaving the tw o hous es and the property up at the top that
would be fine. But this is a change. This property abuts Mint Spring Park, which is a very special place. H e hated
to see development in this area. They know that the mail boxes have already been s et up across street. It looks
like it will hold as many as five mail boxes, but maybe as many as ten. That tells him that this property is being s et
up to be developed. This property is outside the growth area,
which s hould be part of this consideration. They would like to see this w aiver not granted becaus e it takes aw ay
from the area. The Albemarle County website shows this area having 25 percent slopes. H e did not s ee how these
houses c ould be developed sitting on top of a mountain given everything they have talked about regarding slopes,
growth area and Mint Spring Park. He asked the Commission not to grant the waiver.
Mr. Struck o asked Mr. Bowling to come forw ard and res pond.
Mr. Bowling asked to respond to some of the points and obvious concern. One of these parcels, parcel 44, has the
only tw o house sites on that property at the top of the mountain. Bas ically if they did nothing they would have to
build a driveway to access it, which would cross Powell’s C reek and would proceed up the hill. They have looked at
that alternative. But it did not make any sense. He suggested that they use the exis ting road that has served the
property for 50 years. The other is the slope of the road. The top of the mountain has been timbered for quite some
years. Part of his motive was to restore the timber at the top of the mountain. Cattle graz ed up there for a long
time. The mountain road was used by logging truck s on many occasions as w ell as farm vehicles. H e walked up
there. His neighbor jogs up there. It is steep, but accessible. Certainly c ons idering some of the other
developments in Albemarle County it is consistent. As far as are they going to get ten houses up there it is shown
there are actually three legal house sites at the top. That is the maximum. There are a total of 8 development
rights. If that is of interest to limit the number of housing up there he would be happy to acc ept that condition. There
are only a limited number of house sites at the top.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Commis sion.
Ms. Joseph asked if the white area s how n on the map w as in the Mountain Protection Overlay District and w as
where all of the house sites are, and Ms . Yaniglos replied yes.
Mr. Loac h said that they talked about what is going to be allowed in the new ordinanc es. W hat they had done in the
past with the Neighborhood Model before it was accepted was to us e that as a gold standard which they were
judging s ome of the developments coming before the Board and Planning C ommission.
If they applied those s ame standards now w hat would be the outcome.
Mr. Fritz replied that it w ould simply require that the road from the public street all the w ay to the house s ite
everything in between would meet the standard of Section 4.6.6, w hich is the driveway standard that they have for
maximum grade and minimum clearance zones.
Mr. Loach asked if the plan exceeds that now.
Mr. Fritz replied that the maximum grade showing now is 16 percent as shown on Attachment C for the private
street. The applicant is within the maximum grade.
Mr. Morris noted his only concern w as the heavy disturbance of critic al slopes in the rural areas, which is one of the
things they are trying to avoid.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Morris seconded for denial of the waiver reques t for SUB200800240, Little
Yellow Mountain – Final Plat. The denial is based on the recommendation from staff within the staff report.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it would be based upon s taff’s identification of the unfavorable factor that is set forth in
Section 14234b which dis courages the private streets crossing bridges or dams . In this case the Commiss ion
found no c ompelling reason to vary from that standard.
The motion for denial pas sed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Struck o said SUB200800240 Little Yellow Mountain – Final Plat was denied by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the applicant has the ability to appeal the decision within ten days to the Board of
Supervisors.
Return to executive summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP 2008 – 2 South Pantops C ondominiums
Critical Slopes Waiver
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of w aiver of 4.2.3.2 to allow ac tivity on
critical slopes.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Fritz,
Lawrence, C uster
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
April 1, 2009
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
The applicant has proposed to develop a 13.12 acre parcel located on South Pantops Drive zoned R15. The
proposed development would establis h 125 condominium residential units in 7 buildings and, in the process, would
require that 13% of the critical slopes on the site be disturbed. These disturbed critical slopes compos e 0.89 acres,
or 6.7%, of the total area of the 13.12 acre parcel. On J anuary 20, the Planning Commission approved the
applicant’s request for a c ritical slopes waiver with the following condition: “Fifteen (15) percent of the units shall
qualify as affordable housing as described in [Zoning Ordinance] Sec tion 18.4.3.” The applicant has appealed the
imposition of this condition of approval and is requesting that the critical slopes waiver be granted without the
condition.
After the s taff report was prepared for the January 20, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, Zoning Ordinance §
4.2.5, whic h establishes the criteria and findings for c ons idering and granting a critical slopes waiver, was
amended. The relevant substance of Section 4.2.5 did not change, though its subsec tions w ere reorganized.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively manage growth and development.
DISCU SSION :
A critical slopes waiver may be granted by the Planning C ommission or the Board if any one of four findings can be
made under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5(a)(3). (See Attachment D) The Planning Commis sion’s decision was based
on the finding now found in Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5(a)(3)(d): “Granting the modification or waiver would serve a
public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or
waived.” The staff report’s analysis of this finding identified the propos ed development’s inconsistency with various
provisions of the Comprehensive Plan dis cussed below , and advised that staff could “identify no public purpose that
can be served by the approval” of the w aiver. Staff als o considered the other findings , but concluded that none of
them w ere satisfied by the applicant’s request.
The Pantops Master Plan adopted on March 17, 2008 designates the parcel as Green Space to protect sensitive
environmental features inc luding stream buffers, flood plain and adjac ent slopes. The Master Plan rec ommends that
no intensification of dev elopment should take place along the southern portion of South Pantops Drive past a trail
connection shown on the Parks and Green Systems Map, including this entire parcel. The C omposite Map of the
Open Space Plan, which is part of the Comprehensive Plan, shows major and locally important stream valleys and
adjacent critical slopes on the site, and the accompanying inventory maps show areas recommended for open space
protection. Staff advis ed that the proposed development w ould impact important resources and encroach into the
critical s lopes system of the Rivanna R iver as show n on the Open Spac e Plan and would result in the loss of
important aesthetic resources.
At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated that the stream valley on the parcel was on the
downstream side of the s ite closest to the State Farm Insurance Company property and that it would be
undisturbed. He added that the critic al s lopes that w ould be disturbed w as to allow it to cut in the garages that
would be underneath the buildings, and that by cutting the buildings into the slopes, the slopes would actually be a
little more stabilized. H e further added that the stormwater management facility would be located at the lower point
on the site. Acknowledging an earlier dis cussion regarding affordable housing, the applicant stated bas ed on the
nature of the project, by definition there would be a proportion of affordable units and als o units that were moderately
priced that would be needed for employees of Martha J efferson Hospital.
The parcel could be developed without a c ritical slopes waiver. How ever, the critic al s lopes waiver allow s a greater
portion of the parcel, i.e., the portion that contains critical slopes, to be disturbed and, therefore, allow s the parcel to
be developed more intensively and at a greater density than would otherwise be allowed by right w ithout a critical
slopes w aiver.
Based upon the foregoing, and in the absence of any public purpose s erv ed by the applicant’s reques t that would
allow the Planning Commission to mak e the finding under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5(a)(3)(D), it would have been
appropriate for the Planning Commission to deny the applicant’s reques t for a critical slopes waiver. Thus, for the
Planning C ommission or the Board to approve the critical slopes waiver, either a “public purpose of greater import”
must be found under Zoning Ordinanc e § 4.2.5(a)(3)(d), or evidence to support one of the other findings under Zoning
Ordinanc e § 4.2.5(a)(3) must be provided. In this cas e, the Planning C ommission found that the condition allowed it
to find that a critical s lopes w aiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of the regulations being w aived. In other w ords, the condition was imposed merely to as sure that the
finding c ould be made.
Conditions imposed on c ritical slopes waivers typically address the environmental impacts resulting from the
disturbance of the critical slopes. The C ounty Attorney’s Office is concerned that this appears to be the first critical
slopes w aiver w here a c ondition has been imposed w ithout the conc urrence of the applicant to assure that a “public
purpose of greater import” finding can be made. A public purpose of greater import was found for a prior critical
slopes w aiver granted in 2005 for this site. The neverbuilt project would have prov ided 95 low and moderate income
housing units for elderly residents and the condition to that effect was imposed with the agreement of the applicant.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Unless the applicant presents new evidence to allow the Board to make a finding under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5(a)
(3) without the condition imposed by the Planning Commission, staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision
of the Planning Commiss ion. If there is no new evidence and the Board determines that the affordable housing
condition should not be required, staff recommends that the critical slopes waiver be denied.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A – South Pantops Staff R eport
B – South Pantops Planning Commiss ion Action Letter
C – Applic ant’s Appeal Letter
D – Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5
View PC minutes of Augus t 12, 2008 and January 20, 2009
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
January 30, 2009
Dominion Development Resources/Justin Shimp
172 South Pantops Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: SDP200800012 South Pantops Condominiums - Preliminary
Tax Map 78, Parcel 20
To Whom It May Concern:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on, January 20, 2009 approved the
above-noted petition, by a vote of 6:0 to allow the disturbance of critical slopes as shown in the
plan with conditions.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Fifteen (15) percent of the units shall qualify as affordable housing as described in Section
18.4.3.
• With the addition of Condition 1, above, the Commission made the finding under Section 4.2.3(a)
(3) that the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by strict
application of Section 4.2.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Patrick Lawrence
Planner
Zoning and Current Development Division
Cc:
Virginia Land Company
195 Riverbend Drive
Charlottesville VA 22911
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
CHAPTER 18
ZONING
SECTION 4
GENERAL REGULATIONS
4.2.5 MODIFICATION OR WAIVER
Any requirement of section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 may be modified or waived as provided herein:
a. Modification or waiver by the commission. The commission may modify or waive any requirement
that is not subject to an administrative waiver as provided in subsection (b), as follows:
1. Request. A developer or subdivider requesting a modification or waiver shall file a written request
in accordance with section 32.3.10(d) of this chapter and identify and state how the request would
satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3). If the request pertains to a
modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or
greater (hereinafter, “critical slopes”), the request also shall state the reason for the modification or
waiver, explaining how the modification or waiver, if granted, would address the rapid and/or
large-scale movement of soil and rock, excessive stormwater run-off, siltation of natural and man-
made bodies of water, loss of aesthetic resources, and, in the event of septic system failure, a
greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as the “public health, safety, and
welfare factors”) that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical slopes.
2. Consideration of recommendation; determination by county engineer. In reviewing a request for a
modification or waiver, the commission shall consider the recommendation of the agent as to
whether any of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3) can be made by the commission. If
the request pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes, the
commission shall consider the determination by the county engineer as to whether the developer or
subdivider will address each of the public health, safety and welfare factors so that the disturbance
of the critical slopes will not pose a threat to the public drinking water supplies and flood plain
areas, and that soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal issues will be
mitigated to the satisfaction of the county engineer. The county engineer shall evaluate the
potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution that might result from the disturbance
of slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater in accordance with the current provisions of the
Virginia Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook and Virginia State Water Control Board best management
practices, and where applicable, Chapter 17, Water Protection, of the Code.
3. Findings. The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification or
waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development
of the area, or to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; and at
least one of the following:
a. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this
chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
c. Due to the property’s unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance
of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or
would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
4. Conditions. In granting a modification or waiver, the commission may impose conditions deemed
necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that the development will be
consistent with the intent and purposes of section 4.2.
5. Appeal. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver as follows:
a. The denial by the commission of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a modification
or waiver by the commission with conditions objectionable to the developer or subdivider,
may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in
section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in section 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to
which the modification or waiver pertains. A modification or waiver considered by the
commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to
review by the board of supervisors.
b. In considering a modification or waiver, the board may grant or deny the modification or
waiver based upon the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(3), amend any condition
imposed by the commission, and impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set
forth in subsection 4.2.5(a)(4).
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent
may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not within the Rural Areas (RA),
Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR) zoning districts in the following
circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a
site plan approved by the county; or (ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing
structure located on the critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to
replace the existing structure with a new structure whose footprint does not exceed the footprint of the
existing structure. The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a
field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property
identified for protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an
erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten
thousand (10,000) square feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a
plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural
and man-made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element
of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface
drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through design,
construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management
practices.
(12-10-80, § 4.2.5; ; 11-15-89; Ord. 01-18(4), 5-9-01; Ord. 09-18(1), 1-14-09)
Albemarle County Planning Commission
August 12, 2008
Items Requesting Deferral:
SDP200800012 South Pantops Condos – Preliminary
The request is for preliminary site plan approval for construction of 125 dwelling units on 13.116
acres zoned R15 Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 20 is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on South Pantops Drive approximately 800 feet from its
intersection with State Farm Blvd. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban
Density in Urban Area 3. (Patrick Lawrence)
Mr. Morris noted that the applicant has requested indefinite deferral of the request.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Loach seconded to approve the applicant’s request for
indefinite deferral of SDP200800012, South Pantops Condos – Preliminary as recommended
by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:0.
Mr. Morris said that SDP200800012, South Pantops Condos Preliminary was indefinitely
deferred.
Mr. Fritz noted that there may be several members of the public interested in the South
Pantops project who may have come not knowing that it was going to be deferred.
Mr. Morris reopened the public hearing and invited public comment. Several individuals were
present for informational purposes. There being no public comment, the public hearing was
closed. He noted that the matter was indefinitely deferred and would be readvertised.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 20, 2009
Regular Item:
SDP200800012 South Pantops Condominiums – Preliminary
The request is for preliminary site plan approval for construction of 125 dwelling units on 13.116
acres zoned R15 Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 78 Parcel 20 is located in
the Rivanna Magisterial District on South Pantops Drive approximately 800 feet from its
intersection with State Farm Blvd. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban
Density in Urban Area 4. (Patrick Lawrence)
Mr. Lawrence presented a Powerpoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant requests a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 to allow activity on critical slopes on a
13.12 acre parcel. The property is zoned R15, which allows up to 20 units per acre.
The proposal is for a 125unit condominium project contained within 7 condominium
buildings with parking underneath. The waiver request is for critical slopes in areas
adjacent to where the property would be developed in the meadow regions of the
property.
Factors Favorable:
o Design measures satisfy the technical requirements of the ordinance.
o The County stands to gain walking trails to and from the Rivanna River.
Factors Unfavorable:
o Approval is inconsistent with the Pantops Master Plan.
o The County Open Space Plan provides that critical slope disturbance in
“important stream valleys” should be avoided.
o Retaining walls on the perimeter of the project will diminish aesthetics of the
natural greenspace.
o Formal planning and maintenance of trails, trailheads and walkways has not been
finalized.
o This evening Monticello has brought forth their opinion in a letter distributed to the
Planning Commission that, “With respect to your specific project, we feel that its
distance from Monticello, its relatively small size and low profile, and its
extensivelydeveloped setting keep it from having an impact on the view from
Monticello.” (Attachment A – Letter dated January 16, 2009 addressed to Kelly
Strickland, Dominion Development Resources, LLC from Natasha Sienitsky,
Thomas Jefferson Foundation.)
o Parks and Recreation are working to finalize the trails and amenities along the
river.
Staff recommends denial of the request.
Mr. Fritz pointed out this area was actually shown in the Open Space Plan as a significant
wooded area and shown as green in the Comprehensive Plan. Another area on site is shown
as blue in the Open Space Plan, which contains major significantly important stream valleys
and associated critical slopes.
Mr. Edgerton said that the area is currently zoned for 20 dwelling units per acre. The total
parcel is 13 acres. He asked if they are able to count the areas that can’t be built on in
calculating byright development rights for the number of units that can be built.
Mr. Fritz replied yes.
Mr. Edgerton noted that what the applicant is proposing is considerably less under that
interpretation even though a very small portion of the property is not in critical slopes.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct. He pointed out to achieve the 20 units per acre they would
have to take advantage of the bonus provisions, low to moderate cost housing, preservation of
wooded areas and use a variety of different standards to get to the bonus levels. The byright
level is 15 units per acres.
Mr. Edgerton said that proffers were noted as yes, but there was a suggestion of some trails
that have not been finalized. Therefore, they don’t have any formal proffers.
Mr. Fritz noted that there were actually no proffers. If the Commission chose to approve the
waiver they could place conditions on it that were directly relevant to the granting of the waiver
to mitigate the impact of activity on the critical slopes.
Mr. Morris said that they were looking at a byright authorization to go to about 195 units as
opposed to 20 units per acre, which would be 260 units.
Mr. Fritz said that there were 125 units proposed as shown on the plan. If they wanted more
units they would be looking at a different plan, which would be back before the Commission in a
modified request. The property is zoned R15 and staff tries to provide the maximum
theoretical development on the property using the bonus provisions.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the staff report indicates that if any of this site was developed that it
would be in conflict with the Pantops Master Plan.
Mr. Loach asked what percentage of the site was recommended for green space in the Pantops
Master Plan.
Mr. Fritz replied that it includes the entire parcel.
Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Kelly Strickland, of Dominion Development Resources representing the applicant, passed out a
Critical Slopes Exhibit dated 5/28/08. (Attachment B) He presented a PowerPoint presentation
and explained the proposal. He pointed out that there were a couple of discrepancies in the
staff report. In the second paragraph of the critical slopes modification it talks about 22 percent
of the 6.76 acres of the site proposed for disturbance being in critical slopes. But, it is actually
13 percent.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was correctly shown at the bottom of the page.
Mr. Strickland agreed that it was shown correctly in the table on the bottom of the page. The
map shown did not show their parcel, but the river corridor that continues down to the
Riverbend area. The site in reference here is about a quarter mile further up South Pantops
Drive.
Mr. Fritz noted that the parcel is shown on page 13 of the staff report.
Mr. Strickland continued his presentation.
One of the comments was that the disturbances of the critical slopes identified in the
County Open Space Plan is major and locally important stream valleys, adjacent critical
slopes and Pantops Master Plan Parks and Green Systems Map should be avoided.
One slide shows the stream valley that is on the downstream side of the site closest to
the State Farm Insurance property. That stream valley is proposed to be completely
undisturbed. The Neighborhood Model recommends that development conform as best
possible to the existing terrain where the extensive grading is needed. To achieve other
principles of the Neighborhood Model large expansions of 2:1 regraded slopes are to be
avoided was another staff comment. He pointed out there was more detail in the map
they were presenting.
What they are proposing is not so much grading of the critical slopes, but actually cutting
in the garages underneath the buildings. The engineering department had no conflicts
with this plan. By cutting the buildings into the slopes they are actually stabilizing those
slopes a little more. They have a storm water facility at the lower point of the site. The
slopes are shaped so that there are approximately 24 pockets of critical slopes in the
area they propose to disturb. The retaining wall would essentially be invisible with some
evergreens planted at the base.
While this plan is not coming before the Commission as a rezoning application with
proffers for affordable housing it is a condominium plan showing 7 buildings with a
relatively simple lay out of buildings that would provide 125 condominium units. By
definition there is going to be a proportion of affordable units in this site plan. In addition,
it is going to have moderate housing that is going to be needed for the Martha Jefferson
Hospital.
In regards to the view shed from Monticello, they did get a letter from Monticello saying
that this was in conformance with what they were looking for. In regards to constructing
greenways along the Rivanna River it is substantial to note that this is a critical element.
Dan Mahone, of Parks and Rec, is present to address concerns about the greenway
connections. It will provide opportunities for river oriented development. This is a site
where a bridge would be built across that main tributary as part of the Neighborhood III
Plan.
They are in support of all four major conclusions as noted in the staff report as reasons
for the Commission to support the critical slopes waiver and approve it.
Mr. Strucko invited other public comment. There being none, he closed the public hearing to
bring the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the Commission could agree with two affordable units per 7 buildings
making a total of 14 affordable units.
Mr. Edgerton replied that he was not interested in allowing the applicant to provide less than 15
percent affordable housing because the applicant could place buildings on the site by right if
they stayed outside the critical slopes area. He noted that the Board of Supervisors has set 15
percent affordable housing as the standard and the Planning Commission should not vary from
that.
Mr. Strucko noted that they could do fewer buildings without having to disturb critical slopes.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Mr. Morris seconded to grant the request for the disturbance
of critical slopes as shown on the plan for SDP200800012, South Pantops Condominiums –
Preliminary with the following condition.
1. Fifteen (15) percent of the units shall qualify as affordable housing as described in
Section 18.4.3.
Mr. Kamptner suggested for the record that the Commission state that the condition allows the
Commission to make the finding that the waiver with conditions would serve a public purpose of
greater import than would be served by strict application of Section 4.2.3.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Kamptner’s suggestion. He noted that if the applicant did not
agree with the condition to provide 15 percent of affordable housing that they would have to
either come back with a different design or appeal the decision.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Cannon absent)
Mr. Strucko said that SDP200800012 South Pantops Condominiums – Preliminary was
approved with conditions, as follows.
Conditions of Approval SDP200800012 South Pantops Condominiums Preliminary
1. Fifteen (15) percent of the units shall qualify as affordable housing as described in
Section 18.4.3.
With the addition of Condition 1, above, the Commission made the finding under Section
4.2.3(a)(3) that the waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of Section 4.2.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Public H earing – Parks and Recreation Fees
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider a proposed ordinance
to amend C ounty Code Chapter 11, Sec tion 11
105 to allow the charging of picnic shelter fees
during the period that park entry fees are c harged
and to better clarify authority for setting park
fees.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Mullaney
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: X INFOR MA TION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In October of 2008, the Parks and Recreation D epartment conducted a study of fees charged for c omparable
facilities and services by Virginia State Parks and other local parks and recreation departments in Virginia. Based
on the res ults of that study , the Director of Parks and Recreation has determined that fees for picnic shelter
reservations in the County should be increased from $25 per day to $50 per day and, due to the ex tra service
provided for picnic shelter reservations , the fee should be charged y earround. Currently the County Code prohibits
the charging of the pic nic shelter reservation fee during the period that park entry fees are charged. In addition, in
recent years the variety of activities and park uses hav e continued to increase whic h requires flexibility in the ability
to assess new charges and adjust fees to increase revenues or recapture costs which may be specific to a park
usage request. Some examples of new activities include triathlons, mountain bike rac es, television commercials,
and field and court res erv ations by private groups. W hile it has been the historic practice for the Board of
Supervisors to establish park entry fees as required by the County C ode and for staff to establish all other fees, the
current County C ode does not clearly des ignate this authority for setting all other fees to staff. The process to
amend the County Code requires a public hearing. At its March 4, 2009 meeting, the Board set the public hearing
for April 1, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
Goal 5: Fund the County ’s Future Needs.
DISCU SSION :
The attac hed proposed ordinance retains the requirement for the Board of Supervisors to establish fees for entry and
use of parks, recreation areas, and swimming facilities under the County’s jurisdiction as well as the public hearing
requirement for all entry fee changes. In addition, the proposed ordinanc e clearly establishes the authority for all
other fees to be set by the County Exec utive or his des ignee. Finally, the proposed ordinance eliminates the
prohibition against charging the picnic shelter fee during the period that park entry fees are also being charged and
clarifies other existing regulations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If this ordinance is adopted, additional rev enues totaling approximately $6,750 to $9,000 are anticipated for
shelter res ervations oc curring during the time period when park entry fees are also collected.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance after the public hearing.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Proposed Ordinanc e
Ret urn t o regular agenda
OR DINA N CE N O. 0911(1)
A N ORDIN ANCE TO A MEN D AN D REO RD AIN CH A PTER 11, PARKS A ND RECREATIO N
FACILITIES, BY AMEN DIN G ARTICLE I IN G EN ERA L, DIV ISION 1 PARK S GENERALLY.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Boa rd of Supe rvisors of the County of Albemarle , Virginia , tha t Cha pte r 11, Parks
and Rec re a tion Fa c ilities, is hereby a me nde d a nd re orda ine d by a me nding A rticle I In Ge neral, Division 1 Parks
G e ne ra lly, Se c tion 11105 Fe e s.
AR TIC LE I. IN GEN ERA L
D IVISION 1. PAR KS GENERALLY
Se c. 11105 Fee s.
A. The board of supervisors sha ll, from time to time by re solution, e sta blish fee s for da ily a nd
sea sona l pa sses for e ntry to a nd use of pa rks, re c re ational a rea s and sw imming fa cilities unde r the c ounty’s
jurisdic tion. The boa rd of supervisors shall hold a public he aring to re ce ive public c omme nt on a ny proposed fe e
cha nges. Ten da ys’ public Public notic e a nd a public he aring sha ll be provide d for such public hea ring a t le a st
te n da ys prior to the he a ring date a ll fe e c ha nge s. A c opy of the a dopte d fe e sche dule sha ll be poste d in the park
at points whe re suc h fe e s a re to be c olle cte d.
B. Fe e s for progra ms or ac tivitie s, a nd the re nta l of c ountyow ned property, to include but not
limited to boa ts a nd picnic she lte rs, shall be e stablishe d by the c ounty exe cutive or his de signee . Sea son pa sses
w ill be honore d from Me moria l D a y we eke nd through Labor D a y. The direc tor of pa rks a nd rec re ation sha ll
ma inta in a sc hedule of e sta blished fee s.
C. No fe e will be c ha rged for pic nic she lte r rese rva tions during the period tha t pa rk e ntry fe es are
be ing c ha rged. She lte rs must be re se rved on a first c ome , first se rve ba sis. Rese rvations a nd pa yment of fee s for
the use of re serve d pic nic she lte rs sha ll be made in a dva nc e of suc h use unde r proc e dure s e stablishe d by the
dire c tor of parks a nd rec re ation or his de signee . Any pic nic she lte r tha t is not ma rked a s re serve d shall be
ava ilable a t no c ha rge on a first c ome , first se rved ba sis.
D. A copy of the fe e sc he dule sha ll be poste d a t points whe re suc h fe es a re to be c ollec ted.
E. N otwithsta nding pa ra gra ph A, a bove , fe es for re nta l of c ountyowne d boats a nd re crea tion
progra ms or a c tivities sha ll be e sta blishe d by the dire c t of pa rks and re c re ation.
DF. N o person shall be permitted to use suc h fa c ilitie s for w hic h fe e s a re c ha rged w ithout first pa ying
the fee .
EG. Fee s may be suspe nded by orde r of the c ounty exec utive or his de signee for good ca use.
FH . No fee s pa id for under pa ra graphs A a nd B, above , da ily pa rk entry or se ason pa sse s sha ll be
re funded w ithout the approva l of the direc tor of pa rks and re cre a tion or his de signee . D a ily pa rk pa sse s a nd
sea son pa sse s Passe s issued upon pa yme nt of suc h fe es shall not be transfe ra ble to a ny othe r pe rson.
(42072; 51575; 42176; 41278; 61781; 41483; 5786; 41388; Code 1988, § 1411; Ord. 98A(1), 8598)
State law reference—Va. Code § 15.21806
Re turn to exe cutive summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Amendment of Articles of Incorporation for the
Rivanna W ater and Sew er Authority and the
Rivanna Solid W aste Authority
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Concurrent Resolutions to Amend and Restate
Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna
Authorities to increase the number of members
on the boards
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The Riv anna W ater and Sew er Authority (“R WSA”) w as created in 1972 and the Riv anna Solid W as te Authority
(“RSW A”) was created in 1990 by concurrent resolutions adopted by the C harlottes ville City Council and the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors . Each Conc urrent Resolution s et forth the legal framework for the authority
being created by establishing Articles of Incorporation that included the qualifications and number of members of the
Board of Directors. The RWSA Articles of Incorporation was subsequently amended in 1986, again by adoption by
the City Council and the Board of Superv isors of a C onc urrent Resolution. The Articles of Incorporation for each
Authority are filed with the State Corporation C ommission and remain effective until such time that they are
superseded by the filing of properly adopted amended articles of incorporation.
The current Articles of Incorporation provide that each Authority is governed by a five member Board consisting of
the following members:
RW SA:
Charlottesville City Manager
Charlottesville Director of Public W orks
County Executive of Albemarle County
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Servic e Authority, or such Albemarle C ounty department head as
the Board of Superv isors may appoint
A fifth person appointed by concurrent action of the City Council and Board of Supervisors
RSW A:
Charlottesville City Manager
Charlottesville Director of Public W orks
County Executive of Albemarle County
County Engineer of Albemarle County
A fifth person appointed by concurrent action of the City Council and Board of Supervisors
Both the City C ouncil and the Board of Supervisors ex pressed an interes t in expanding the membership of the
Boards of the two Authorities to include one member of the City Council and one member of the Board of
Supervisors.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
County Mis sion: To enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest
level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCU SSION :
The state enabling legis lation for local authorities such as the RW SA and RSWA provides that “one or more
members of the governing body of a loc ality may be appointed board members of the authority”. Virginia Code §15.2
5113 (A). The procedure for changing the membership of the RW SA and RSWA Boards , including providing for the
appointment of a member of C ity Counc il and a member of the County Board of Supervisors to each Board, is the
adoption of concurrent resolutions or ordinances by the two governing bodies following an advertised public hearing.
If the concurrent resolutions or ordinanc es are adopted by the two governing bodies, the amended Articles of
Incorporation approved in the concurrent resolutions or ordinances mus t be filed with the State Corporation
Commis sion.
The proposed Articles of Incorporation ex pands the membership of the Boards of the two Authorities to include one
member of the City C ouncil and one member of the Board of Superv isors. In addition, clarification is provided that
the terms of all ex officio members shall not exceed four years. How ever, it provides that such ex officio members
may be eligible for reappointment for additional four y ear terms so long as they hold their appointed or elected
offices. The proposed R esolution for the R SWA would also allow the Board of Supervis ors to appoint another
County department head to the RSW A Board in place of the County Engineer. After the County reorganized
departments and created the C ommunity D evelopment Department, Mark Graham has continued to be designated
the County Engineer for purposes of s erv ing on the R SWA Board. The proposed change w ould allow for the direct
appointment of the Director of Community Development or any other County department head in the place of the
County Engineer.
The City C ouncil held its public hearings on March 16, 2009 and adopted the attached c oncurrent resolutions.
Attachment A is the Concurrent Resolution for the RWSA and Attac hment B is the Concurrent Res olution for the
RSW A. A separate public hearing has been advertis ed and should be held for each Concurrent Resolution.
Likewise, separate votes s hould be tak en on the two Concurrent Res olutions. The adoption of the Resolutions is a
matter of the Board of Supervisor’s dis cretion. However, if any substantive changes in the Resolutions are desired it
would be necessary to adv ertise the new changes and to hold another public hearing before adopting any amended
resolution. In addition, the C ity would need to repeat this process to reconsider and approve any changes.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is anticipated.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board hold the advertised public hearings and adopt the attached Resolutions if the
Board wants to expand the membership of the Boards of the two Authorities to include one member of the C ity
Council and one member of the Board of Supervisors.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Conc urrent Resolution to amend the R WSA Artic les of Incorporation
B – Conc urrent Resolution to amend the R SWA Artic les of Incorporation
Ret urn t o regular agenda
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA TO
AMEND AND RESTATE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE RIVANNA
WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, by concurrent resolution of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia
(the City) and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the County) and a
certificate of incorporation issued by the State Corporation Commission pursuant to the Virginia Water
and Sewer Authorities Act (currently enacted as the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Virginia
Code Section 15.25100 et seq.), the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (the Authority) was
incorporated as a public body politic and corporate in 1972; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the County amended and restated the Articles of Incorporation of the
Authority in December 1985 to limit its powers regarding the treatment and transmission of potable
water and the treatment and disposal of sewage; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the County further amended and restated the Articles of Incorporation
of the Authority in August 1986 to place the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
may appoint, on the Board of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in lieu of the County Engineer of
Albemarle County; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of
the Authority to increase the number of members of the Board of the Authority from five (5) to seven (7)
through the addition of one (1) member of the Charlottesville City Council, to be appointed by the City
Council and to serve as an ex officio member of the Board, and one (1) member of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and to serve as an ex officio member
of the Board; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.25104 the City and the County caused to be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and the County a descriptive summary of this
Concurrent Resolution and the proposed change to the Authority’s Articles of Incorporation with a
reference to the location in the City and the County where a copy of the Resolution could be obtained,
and giving notice of the date on which public hearings would be held on the proposed Concurrent
Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, public hearings on the proposed Concurrent Resolution were held by the
Charlottesville City Council on March 16, 2009 and by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on
April 1, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that:
(1) The proposed amendment to the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority which increases the number of members of the Board of the Authority from five (5) to seven
(7) through the addition of one (1) member of the Charlottesville City Council, to be appointed by the
City Council and to serve as an ex officio member of the Board, and one (1) member of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and to serve as an ex officio
member of the Board, is hereby approved.
(2) Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.25107, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors
shall cause a certified copy of this Concurrent Resolution to be filed with the State Corporation
Commission.
(3) The Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as amended and
restated shall be substantially as follows:
THIRD RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY
The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act
(Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate,
and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation pursuant to the
Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (Chapter 51 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended), hereby certify:
(a) The name of the Authority is “Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority” and the address of its
principal office shall be Charlottesville, Virginia.
(b) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle.
(c) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a Board of Directors of seven members
consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of
Public Works of the City of Charlottesville, County Executive of the County of Albemarle and
Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or such Albemarle County Department
head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County may appoint in the Executive Director’s place;
one member of the Charlottesville City Council to be appointed by the City Council; one member of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors; and a seventh
person appointed by the concurrent action of the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors. The names and addresses of the current members of the Authority Board are as
follows:
Name Address
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. 401 McIntire Road
(Albemarle County Executive) Charlottesville, VA 22902
Gary Fern 168 Spotnap Road
(Executive Director, Albemarle County Charlottesville, VA 22911
Service Authority)
Gary B. O’Connell 605 East Main Street
(Charlottesville City Manager) Charlottesville, VA 22902
Judith M. Mueller 305 4th Street, N.W.
(Charlottesville Director of Public Works) Charlottesville, VA 22903
Michael A. Gaffney 119 Morgan Court
(Concurrent City / County Appointee) Charlottesville, VA 22903
The terms of the members of the Board serving as such by virtue of their appointed offices with
the City, the County and the Albemarle County Service Authority shall expire upon the earlier of their
ceasing to hold such appointed offices, or after four years from the recordation of these Restated Articles
of Incorporation by the State Corporation Commission; provided that such members shall be eligible for
reappointment for terms not in excess of four years for so long as they hold their appointed offices. The
terms of the City Councilor appointed by the City Council and the Supervisor appointed by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shall expire upon the earlier of their ceasing to hold such offices
or expiration of their term of office as a Councilor or Supervisor; however, if they are reelected to those
offices they may be reappointed to the Board. Any person hereafter holding the office of Albemarle
County Executive, Charlottesville City Manager or Charlottesville Director of Public Works shall
automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the Board of the
Authority. The term of the member of the Board serving as such by virtue of his office with the
Albemarle County Service Authority shall also expire upon the decision of the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on the Board in the Executive Director’s
place. Any person hereafter holding the office of Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service
Authority (or, if a County Department head has been appointed by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors to serve in the place of the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority,
any person holding the office of such Department head) shall automatically succeed to the membership
of his predecessor in such office on the Board of the Authority. The current term of the member of the
Board appointed by the concurrent action of the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors shall expire on December 31, 2010, and his successor shall be appointed for a term
of two years, except that a vacancy shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member
shall hold office until his successor has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for
reappointment to succeed himself. The appointed member shall receive such compensation not to exceed
$1,800.00 per year as the Board of the Authority may determine, but those members who are employees
or officials of the City or the County or the Albemarle County Service Authority shall serve without
compensation. Each member shall be reimbursed the amount of his actual expenses necessarily incurred
in the performance of his duties.
(d) The purpose for which the Authority is formed is to acquire, finance, construct, operate and
maintain facilities for developing a supply of potable water for the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle
County and for the abatement of pollution resulting from sewage in the Rivanna River Basin, by the
impoundment, treatment and transmission of potable water and the interception, treatment and discharge
of wastewater, together with all appurtenant equipment and appliances necessary or suitable therefore
and all properties, rights, easements or franchises relating thereto and deemed necessary or convenient by
the Authority for their operation. Except to the extent of providing incidental services and the sale of
excess products, the Authority’s powers are limited to providing wholesale services to the City and the
County.
The Authority may contract with the City, the County, any sanitary district thereof or any
authority therein created pursuant to the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (or its predecessor,
the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act) to furnish water and to treat sewage delivered to its
facilities upon such terms as the Authority shall determine; provided, however, that any such contract
shall include as parties thereto the City and the County (or any agency of the County designated for that
purpose by its Board of Supervisors). The Authority is expressly prohibited from contracting with any
other party desiring service in the City or the County, except upon the written consent of the City or
County (or any agency of the County designated for that purpose by the Board of Supervisors),
respectively.
(e) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by the State
Auditor of Public Accounts or an independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year
and a certified copy therefore to be filed promptly with the City Council of the City of Charlottesville
and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle have caused these Third Restated and Amended Articles of
Incorporation to be executed in the name of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle,
respectively, by their presiding officers and attested by their Clerks this ____ day of April, 2009.
Return to exec summary
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA
AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA TO
AMEND AND RESTATE THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF THE RIVANNA SOLID
WASTE AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, by concurrent resolution of the City Council of the City of Charlottesville, Virginia
(the City) and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the County) and a
certificate of incorporation issued by the State Corporation Commission pursuant to the Virginia Water
and Sewer Authorities Act (currently enacted as the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, Virginia
Code Section 15.25100 et seq.), the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority (the Authority) was incorporated as
a public body politic and corporate in 1990; and,
WHEREAS, the City and the County desire to amend and restate the Articles of Incorporation of
the Authority to increase the number of members of the Board of the Authority from five (5) to seven (7)
through the addition of one (1) member of the Charlottesville City Council, to be appointed by the City
Council and to serve as an ex officio member of the Board, and one (1) member of the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and to serve as an ex officio member
of the Board; and to allow for the appointment of an Albemarle County Department head in place of the
Albemarle County Engineer, if desired by the Board of Supervisors; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.25104 the City and the County caused to be
advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and the County a descriptive summary of this
Concurrent Resolution and the proposed change to the Authority’s Articles of Incorporation with a
reference to the location in the City and the County where a copy of the Resolution could be obtained,
and giving notice of the date on which public hearings would be held on the proposed Concurrent
Resolution; and,
WHEREAS, public hearings on the proposed Concurrent Resolution were held by the
Charlottesville City Council on March 16, 2009 and by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on
April 1, 2009.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville,
Virginia and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that:
(1) The proposed amendment to the Articles of Incorporation for the Rivanna Solid Waste
Authority which increases the number of members of the Board of the Authority from five (5) to seven
(7) through the addition of one (1) member of the Charlottesville City Council, to be appointed by the
City Council and to serve as an ex officio member of the Board, and one (1) member of the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors, to be appointed by the Board of Supervisors and to serve as an ex officio
member of the Board, and allows for the appointment of an Albemarle County Department head in place
of the Albemarle County Engineer, if desired by the Board of Supervisors, is hereby approved.
(2) Pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.25107, the City Council and the Board of Supervisors
shall cause a certified copy of this Concurrent Resolution to be filed with the State Corporation
Commission.
(3) The Articles of Incorporation of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority as amended and restated
shall be substantially as follows:
RESTATED ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
OF RIVANNA SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY
The Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Albemarle having created an Authority pursuant to the Virginia Water and Sewer Authorities Act
(Chapter 28, Title 15.1, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended), as a public body politic and corporate,
and having signified their intention to amend and restate its Articles of Incorporation pursuant to the
Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act (Chapter 51 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended), hereby certify:
(1) The name of the Authority is “Rivanna Solid Waste Authority” and the address of its
principal office shall be Charlottesville, Virginia.
(2) The names of the incorporating political subdivisions are the City of Charlottesville and the
County of Albemarle.
(3) The powers of the Authority shall be exercised by a Board of Directors of seven members
consisting of the four persons holding the offices, from time to time, of City Manager and Director of
Public Works of the City of Charlottesville and County Executive and the County Engineer of Albemarle
County, or such Albemarle County Department head as the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County
may appoint in the County Engineer’s place; one member of the Charlottesville City Council to be
appointed by the City Council; one member of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to be
appointed by the Board of Supervisors; and a seventh person appointed by the concurrent action of the
Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The names and addresses
of the current members of the Authority Board are as follows:
Name Address
Robert W. Tucker, Jr. 401 McIntire Road
(Albemarle County Executive) Charlottesville, VA 22902
Mark B. Graham, P.E. 401 McIntire Road
(County Engineer / Director of Charlottesville, VA 22902
Community Development)
Gary B. O’Connell 605 East Main Street
(Charlottesville City Manager) Charlottesville, VA 22902
Judith M. Mueller 305 4th Street, N.W.
(Charlottesville Director of Public Works) Charlottesville, VA 22903
Michael A. Gaffney 119 Morgan Court
(Concurrent City / County Appointee) Charlottesville, VA 22903
The terms of the members of the Board serving as such by virtue of their appointed offices with
the City and the County shall expire upon the earlier of their ceasing to hold such appointed offices, or
after four years from the recordation of these restated Articles of Incorporation by the State Corporation
Commission; provided that such members shall be eligible for reappointment for terms not in excess of
four years for so long as they hold their appointed offices. The terms of the City Councilor appointed by
the City Council and the Supervisor appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shall
expire upon the earlier of their ceasing to hold such offices or expiration of their term of office as a
Councilor or Supervisor; however, if they are reelected to those offices they may be reappointed to the
Board. Any person hereafter holding the office of Albemarle County Executive, Charlottesville City
Manager or Charlottesville Director of Public Works shall automatically succeed to the membership of
his predecessor in such office on the Board of the Authority. The term of the member of the Board
serving as such by virtue of his position as County Engineer for Albemarle County shall also expire upon
the decision of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that a County Department head shall serve on
the Board in the County Engineer’s place. Any person hereafter holding the office of County Engineer
of Albemarle County (or, if a County Department head has been appointed by the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors to serve in the place of the County Engineer, any person holding the office of such
Department head) shall automatically succeed to the membership of his predecessor in such office on the
Board of the Authority. The current term of the member of the Board appointed by the concurrent action
of the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors shall expire on
December 31, 2010, and his successor shall be appointed for a term of two years, except that a vacancy
shall be filled only for the unexpired term. The appointed member shall hold office until his successor
has been appointed and qualifies and he shall be eligible for reappointment to succeed himself. Board
members other than the member appointed by concurrent action of the City and the County shall receive
no compensation from the Authority for serving as members of the Board. The member appointed by the
concurrent action of the City and the County shall be compensated by the Authority for serving as such
in an amount to be determined from time to time. Each member shall be reimbursed by the Authority for
any actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties.
(4) The purposes for which the Authority has been formed are to develop a regional refuse
collection and disposal system, as such terms are defined in Virginia Code Section 15.25101 of the
Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act, including development of systems and facilities for recycling,
waste reduction and disposal alternatives with the ultimate goal of acquiring, financing, constructing, and
/ or operating and maintaining regional solid waste disposal areas, systems and facilities, all pursuant to
the Virginia Water and Waste Authorities Act.
(5) Since its inception the Authority has assumed all responsibility for the operation of the
existing landfill which has served the City and the County. Additional projects will be identified by the
Authority and implemented through agreements with and among the City and the County. It is not
practical to set forth herein any estimates of the Authority’s capital costs, project proposals and project
service rates.
(6) The Authority shall cause an annual audit of its books and records to be made by an
independent certified public accountant at the end of each fiscal year and a certified copy thereof to be
filed promptly with the governing bodies of the City and the County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Albemarle have caused these Restated and Amended Articles of
Incorporation to be executed in the name of the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle,
respectively, by their presiding officers and attested by their Clerks this ____ day of April, 2009.
Return to exec summary
Page 1 of 4
Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT
APRIL 1, 2009
MONTHLY MEETING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS
Ken Boyd
• Traffic Calming in Ashcroft Subdivision - Implementation of traffic calming measures,
including installation of a traffic circle on Lego Drive was rescheduled to this month due to
weather.
Dennis Rooker
• Broomley Road Bridge – Research is still ongoing to determine if a way can be determined to
mill the asphalt of the deck surface to improve rideability and allow deck repairs. An issue is
finding equipment that can perform this work and not exceed the weight limit of the bridge.
• Concrete Repairs – Sidewalk repairs on Route 1460, Georgetown Green were rescheduled due
to weather. Work is expected to begin the week of April 6th. Other concrete work to address
pedestrian improvements previously discussed will be performed at the intersection of
Georgetown/Hydraulic Roads while this crew is in the area.
Ann Mallek
• St. George Avenue (Route 1202) – A preliminary evaluation is underway to see if this road is a
candidate for traffic calming. If so, County staff will need to initiate steps to begin the process
including obtaining signatures of support by 75% of residents.
Sally Thomas
• Litter Removal on Route 250 – A litter pick up was completed by state forces on March 5,
2009. It should be noted that many of the Adopt-a-Highway groups throughout the County are
engaged in completing spring pick ups. There has been a significant increase in requests by
groups for trash bags and safety vests in recent weeks.
• Speed Study, Rosemont Drive, Route 1660 – A review of this roadway has been completed and
the road was posted at 25 MPH on March 19th.
Lindsay Dorrier
• Rural Rustic on Route 722, Old Green Mountain Road – Pipe installations are complete. Work
has been done to improve the deep drop off midway through the project as much as possible.
This has included extending pipes and building the ditch up with rip-rap. Next steps in April
will include placement of base stone in anticipation of application of the tar and gravel surface
later in the spring.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 2 of 4
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
• Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
A public hearing was held on Tuesday, March 24, 2009. Fifty-one people registered as
attendees. Comments received thus far have been positive about the proposed design. The
comment period closes on Friday, April 3, 2009. Afterwards, input received will be evaluated
and, if necessary, minor modifications made to the plans. This will lead to approval of the plans
to begin right-of-way acquisition in winter 2009.
• Route 743 Advance Mills Bridge, 0743-002-282 P101, R201, C501, B658 (Permanent
Replacement Project) An award recommendation has been made by VDOT’s Contract
Engineer to Commissioner Ekern. At the time of this report the approval was awaiting his
signature.
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
(NFO) PM07-002-351, N501 I-64 Pavement Overlay and Guardrail Upgrades
Contractor requested a final inspection on March 26, 2009.
0631-002-128, C502, 612, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and Bridges
Clearing and associated operations within limits of construction are nearly complete.
Grade work has begun and will be ongoing throughout this month.
Cofferdam will be installed at the proposed Bridge over Meadowcreek.
Contractor has rescheduled to install concrete barriers on the Rte. 631 Bridge over the Norfolk
Southern Railroad within the next two weeks.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fiscal
Year
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 1 34
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 3 62
New Entrance Plan Reviews 5 42
Total Permits Processed 39 466
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 21 173
Inspection of new entrance conducted 109 918
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0 5.86
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 3 of 4
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Patching operations completed on Routes 29/250, 250, 622 (Albevanna Springs), 662 (Bleakhouse),
665(Buck Mtn), 726 (James River), 1015 (Ivy Farm), and 1063 (Hunt Country Store).
• Graded and replaced stone on Routes 606 (Dickerson), 613 (Giannini ), 637 (Dickwoods), 639
(Harrington), 643 (Rio Mills), 645 (Magnolia), 646 (Lovers Ln), 655 (Christmas Hill Ln), 668
(Fox Mtn), 671 (Wesley Chapel), 673 (Breakheart), 688 (Midway), 689 (Burchs Creek), 701
(Alberene Church), 703 (Pocket Ln), 712 (Coles Rolling), 714 (Riding Club), 717 (Old Sand), 720
(Harris Creek), 722 (Old Greene Mtn), 723 (Sharon), 725 (Dawsons Mill), 745 (Arrowhead Valley),
753 (Paces Store), 761 (Briery Creek), 782 (Stribling Extd), 787 (Gillums Ridge), 793 (Serene Ln),
812 (Jim Lane), and 818 (Locust Hollow).
Cleared pipes and ditch work on Routes 250, 639 (Harrington), 641 (Burnley Station), 747 (Preddy
Creek), 1270 (Redfields) and 1427 (Northfield).
Completed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Rosemont Dr (Rt
1660) Entire Route Speed study 25 mph speed limit posted 3/19/09
Owensville Rd
(Rt 676) Rt 614 to Rt 250 Safety review
Field review completed; no
additional traffic devices are
necessary at this time.
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250) Pantops
Two way left turn lane
(Safety, access and
pavement marking review)
Developing logistics of installation.
Intersection of
Rio and
Hydraulic
Rt 631/743 Pedestrian study Field modifications being drafted.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Commonwealth
Rts 743/1315 Pedestrian study
Installation plans being developed,
utilizing the Regional Signal
Contract.
Intersection of
Rio & Berkmar Rts 631/1403 Pedestrian study
Installation plans being developed,
utilizing the Regional Signal
Contract.
Intersection of
Hydraulic &
Lambs
Rts 743/667 Pedestrian study Developing logistics for installation.
Scottsville Rd
(Rt 20) I-64 to Scottsville Corridor safety study Field review underway.
Greentree Park
Rd (Rt 1490)
Greentree Park Rd cul-
de-sac Parking review Field review complete.
Recommendations under review.
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Rt 20 to Nelson County
line Safety review Field modifications underway
Old Ballard Rd
(Rt 677) Entire Route Speed study Preliminary review underway.
Saint George
Ave (Rt 1202) Entire Route Traffic Calming
Preliminary review underway to
determine if traffic calming is
warranted.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 4 of 4
• Tree cleanup on Routes 6, 20, 29/250, 602 (Howardsville Trnpk), 626 (Langhorne), 632 (Faber),
633 (Cove Garden), 761 (Briery Creek), 671 (Millington), 681 (Ragged Mtn), 682 (Broad Axe),
702 (Reservoir), 708 (Taylors Gap/Red Hill), 712 (Plank), 715 (Esmont), 717 (Secretarys Sand),
721 (Old Dominion), 723 (Sharon), 727 (Blenheim), 734 (Bishop Hill), 795 (Presidents), 800
(Schuyler), 803 (Goodloe), 810 (Blackwells Hollow), and 824 (Patterson Mill).
Trash pickup to include adopt-a highway pickups on Routes on 6, 20, 29/250, 29, 631 (Old
Lynchburg), 664 (Markwood), 712 (Plank), 717 (Secretary Sand), and 743 Earlysville).
• Cleaned bridge decks on Routes 606 (Dickerson), 614 (Sugar Hollow), 664 (Clark),
668 (Fox Mtn), 671 (Ballards Mill/Davis Shop), and 687 (Shiffletts Mill).
• Snow events worked on March 1-3 and March 13.
• Bridge work performed on Routes 603 (Bingham Mtn).
• Rural Rustic Road work on Route 722 (Old Green Mtn Rd).
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – APRIL 2009
• Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
o Pavement patching
o Machining gravel roads
o Installing new pipes
o Cleaning drop inlets and storm drains
o Tree trimming and removal
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
1 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 6 7 8 9
0
5
10
15
20
Jul-08 Aug -08 Sep-08 Oct-0 8 Nov-08 Dec-08 J an-09 Feb-09 M ar-09 Apr-0 9 M ay-0 9 Jun-09 MillionsMonths
TOTAL M AINT BUDGET
FORECASTED EXPENDIT URES
CUM ULATIVE ACTUAL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County Priority List of Sec ondary Road
Improvements
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work ses sion to discuss the update of the
County Priority List of Road Improvements and
the draft of VD OT’s SixYear Construc tion
Program.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Graham, Benish, and W ade
LEGAL R EVIEW: NO
AGENDA DA TE:
April 1, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION :
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this w ork session is to receive input from the Board of Supervisors on the C ounty’s Priority
List of Sec ondary Road Improvements. The Planning Commission held a work sess ion (Attachment A) on the
Priority List on Oc tober 21, 2008. Staff delayed the Board of Supervisors’ work s ess ion to allow VD OT to
finalize the transportation budget.
Since the Planning Commission’s review, VD OT has provided a more complete ass essment of the upcoming
budget and projected funding for the s ixyear planning period. This executive summary provides additional
background/information regarding one pos sible change proposed to the VDOT SixYear Cons truction Program
and pos sibly to the County ’s Priority List of Road Improvements.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
3. Dev elop policies and infrastructure to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
Use of Dickerson Road Paving Funds:
Based on VDOT’s forecasted statewide budget, there will be no allocations for paving of unpaved roads at
least through VDOT’s 2015 Fiscal Year. Last year, the Board directed that all unpaved road funds be placed
toward Dickerson Road, a project located within the designated Development Area of Hollymead, until that
project is complete. This direction was, in part, in response to the Planning Commission’s rec ommendation to
focus road funds on projects within (or serv ing) the Dev elopment Areas, and to deemphasize improvements in
the Rural Area that might facilitate growth in the RA.
Dickerson R oad is a pav ing project that includes replacing two bridges. Approximately $1.8 million in road
paving funds has prev ious ly been allocated to the D ickers on Road project. Since there w ill be es sentially no
additional road paving funds av ailable for allocation over the next six years of the Plan, no new funds will be
allocated to this project in the fores eeable future. With a total c ost for the project, including replac ing both
bridges, of $12 million, this projec t cannot be funded/constructed utilizing unpaved road funds . All available
regular construction funds available over the next s ix years are needed to fund higher priority projects:
Meadow C reek Parkway, Jarman’s Gap Road, and Georgetown R oad (and other maintenance projects).
Based on these conditions, D ickerson Road cannot be c ompleted using the unpav ed road funding, so the
Board should consider reallocating the $1.8 million now allocated to Dic kerson Road to other projects .
Staff would like direction on possible use of these funds . Staff has identified the following possible options:
A. Leave the funds allocated to D ickerson Road. As noted above, project c ost and inflation would erode
these funds over the years. Also, VDOT is not certain when additional funds will be av ailable to
alloc ate to the project (an additional $10 million w ould be needed to fully fund the project). Staff does
not believe this is a viable option because it is not an effective use of available funds ($1.8 million)
during a period of limited funding.
B. Allocate funds to a regular construction project (i.e., Meadow Creek Parkway, Jarman's Gap R oad,
Georgetown Road, Proffit Road, or bridge projects). There is a negative c ons equence in regards to
future road pav ing fund allocations if this option is purs ued by the Board of Superv isors. Please find on
Attachment B c orrespondence from VDOT outlining the impact of using these funds for nonpaving
projects. Essentially , the total miles of unpaved roads would be reduced by seven (7) miles if $1.8
million in road paving funds is reallocated to a nonroad pav ing project. This would effectiv ely reduce
all future allocations of road paving funds to the C ounty. Such an ac tion would require a resolution by
the Board of Superv isors.
All three strategic priority projec ts (Meadow Creek Parkway, J arman’s Gap Road, and Georgetow n
R oad) are either now fully funded, or are anticipated to be fully funded within the sixyear planning
period. The next project on the Priority List, Proffit Road, will require s ubstantially more funds than
the available $1.8 million. The next highest priority bridge projects (after Advance Mills Bridge) are
D ry Bridge and the Old Ballard R oad Bridge. It may be possible to make additional improvements
to these bridge projects with the $1.8 million, but it would require further evaluation by VD OT.
C. The funds could go toward other road paving projects. However these paving projects may not be
located in the Development Areas. The only other unpaved road project in the Development Area is R io
Mills Road, whic h is also too expensive to c omplete with available funds. VDOT estimates that it
would be able to pave approximately six (6) miles of road w ith $1.8 million using the rural rustic paving
program. Staff continues to rec eive numerous inquiries concerning paving projects. Staff has identified
the nex t paving projects on the Regular Paving Priority Lis t and the Rural Rus tic Road Priority List that
are options for the $1.8 million. Staff only listed the projects that the $1.8 million could potentially fund.
Staff has been informed by VDOT that a majority of Doctors Cros sing (R t. 784) could be paved using
rural rustic road program guidelines. VDOT w ill be evaluating this road in detail to determine precisely
what sections c an be done utiliz ing rural rustic road guidelines.
R egular Paving Projects Rural R ustic Road Projects Rural R ustic Road
Projects
Rt. 688 – Midway Road Rt. 784 D octors Crossing Rt. 787 – Gillums
Ridge Rd
Rt. 762 R ose Hill Lane Rt. 703 Poc ket Lane
R t. 704 Fortune Lane R t. 774 Bear C reek
Road
Rt. 672 Blufton Road R t. 608 Happy C reek
Road
Staff recommends reallocating the use of the $1.8 million currently allocated to Dickerson Road to the Dry
Bridge or Old Ballard Road bridges (Option B). If it is not practical to use these funds for bridge
improvements, then the funds should be reallocated to other paving projects, in partic ular, rural rustic paving
projects (Option C). This would utilize the funds for their original intended purpose (road paving). If supported
by the Board of Supervis ors, staff will w ork with VDOT to pave the roads in priority order.
Other Modifications:
D ickerson Road B ridges – Staff recommends that the two substandard bridges on the D ickerson
Road (over Jacobs Run and over the North Fork, Rivanna River) be inc luded on the Bridge Priority List, which
is part of the County’s Priority List of Road Improvements. The bridges were not previously included on the
Priority List because they were to be funded as part of the Dickerson Road paving project. Staff will make
this change to the County ’s Bridge Priority List for the upcoming public hearing.
Old Ivy Road and Southern Parkway Staff recommends that Old Iv y R oad and the Southern
Parkw ay be lowered in the C ounty’s Priority List from their current priority of 6 and 7 respectively, to below the
Hillsdale Drive project (currently priority 13). The SunsetFontaine Avenue Connector Road, Hills dale Drive
Bridge and Road Extens ion, and Priority Bridge Improvements are now seen as higher priority projects. The
MPO has recently recommended removing both of these projects from the Financ ially Constrained Long
Range Transportation Plan (and moved to the “vision list” for unfunded projects).
VD OT Six Year Construction Program VD OT is currently working on the final C ons truction
Program for FY 20102015 which will inc lude only viable projects due to decreased state revenues es timates
(this doc ument will be provided at the meeting). Therefore, projects s uch as Proffitt R oad, Old Iv y Road, and
the Southern Parkway will not be show n in VDOT’s program.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The SixYear Road Planning process es tablishes the County’s priorities for the expenditure of State/VD OT
secondary road construction funds. Additionally, funding is already earmarked in the C IP for revenue and
transportation projects to match the Revenue Sharing Program funding request for FY09.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors prov ide comments on the County’s Priority List of Secondary
Road Improvements and schedule a public hearing for May 13, 2009.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Staff Report to Planning, October 18, 2008
Attachment B – Correspondence form VDOT, Transfer of R oad Paving Funds
View Commis sion minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 21, 2008
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on Tuesday, October
21, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the C ounty Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending w ere Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Marc ia J oseph, Bill Edgerton, Eric Strucko and J on
Cannon, Vice C hairman. Calvin Morris, Chairman was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for
the Univ ers ity of Virginia was absent. Mr. Strucko arrived at 6:02 p.m. Mr. Loach arriv ed at 6:15 p.m.
Other officials present were Phil Custer, Engineer; Susan M. Stimart, Business D evelopment Facilitator; Elizabeth
Marotta, Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; Wayne C ilimberg, Director of Planning; D avid Benis h,
Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz , C hief of C ommunity Development and Greg Kamptner, D eputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Cannon called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
W ork Sessions:
Six Year Secondary Road Plan
The Six Year Secondary R oad Cons truction Plan is VDOT’s Plan for the alloc ation of road construction funds for
improvements to Secondary R oads (Route 600 and above) for a six year period. The purpose of the Planning
Commis sion w ork sess ion is to discuss the County’s other potential projects/issues not on the Priority List. Staff
will inc orporate the Planning C ommission recommendations to the Board of Superv isors for discus sion. (Juan W ade)
Mr. Benish summarized the staff report.
H e apologized that the map was omitted from the staff report. It is the same map from last year. Staff is
not recommending any changes . The Six Year Secondary Road Plan is VDOT’s plan for the allocation of
road construction funds for the s econdary road system. VD OT’s financial plan is based on a set of priorities
adopted by the Board of Supervis ors. Essentially that is what the Planning Commission is looking at, which
is the County’s priority list for improvements. At this point in time in the process VD OT has not ev en
developed a draft budget. That is something that they do now at the beginning of the year, which the Board
w ill receive tow ards the end of their review proc ess.
In summary, staff has not recommended any c hanges to the plan this year. Staff did not receive any public
requests. Staff did receive s everal project issue areas from Pupil Transportation in the Sc hool’s Divis ion
and Fire and Rescue. Those comments were forwarded to VDOT. Most of those reques ts are for pav ing
and all are within the rural areas . Staff will discuss that polic y, but is not recommending any paving projec ts
in the rural areas at this point in time. N one of the projects appear to have any significant safety iss ue
related to them. In fact, a number of the projects hav e v ery low counts. None of these projects were
deemed so unique or safety issue related enough that merited adding to the strategic list of improv ements.
Staff has forwarded these project areas to VDOT.
VDOT staff is looking at ways in which they can use maintenance funds in their existing forces to address
s ome of the issues , such as the narrow roadw ay and if there is some bush cutting and general grading and
maintenance on the roads that could improve the conditions. So that is the approach that they are taking.
The tw o bridge projects that Fire/Rescue identified were on the road that serves the Gleco Mills area. While
the weight limits are relatively low, the traffic volume on that roadway is pretty low. It is a loop road so one
c an access either side of the bridge if necessary in case of an emergency.
The status of unpaved road projects w as a big iss ue at last year’s discus sion. The Commiss ion
recommended that there be no new paving projec ts in the rural areas. The Board of Supervisors did discuss
the issue and directed staff to apply all funding of unpaved road funds to tw o road projects that are adjacent
to or serve the development area, being Dickerson R oad and R io Mills Road in the Hollymead development
area. Those projects will use a substantial amount of the unpaved road funding sourc e for the next six
y ears. In the current priority list for the unpaved road projects the list only consists of thos e tw o road
projects. The Board did say that they would cons ider or take a look at projects that perc eive to have a
s ignificant safety consideration to them. The Planning Commis sion also mentioned this in their action.
Staff provided some general guidelines as to how they would try to measure what a significant safety iss ue
is , which is provided in the staff report. They would look at c ras h data for the road segment and then look at
the type of crashes to see if it relates to the road surface. The daily volumes on the roadways and if there
is any unique traffic issues related to the volume would be considered. If there was a substantial amount of
w ide bodied equipment on the roadway and it was a farm route, then they might want to encourage the
paving of that road way for agricultural support. They would look at unique conditions. Staff w ould also
look at Fire/R escue requests to see if there was a signific ant ac cess issue with providing acc ess , suc h as
if there was an unpaved road in the center of a high response area. If there are s ignificant road geometric
is sues that might relate to significant erosion problems that create an unsafe surface it could be tak en into
c onsideration. The bottom line is that it is going to be kind of like you will know it when y ou see it. These
w ould be the criteria that staff will try to measure on a case by case basis.
This information has been provided for the Commission’s general input. The C ommission’s comments will
be provided to the Board of Supervisors when they review this in December for their initial w ork session.
Mr. Loac h questioned #18 regarding Main Street in C rozet. He noted that the entrance into the new library might
need to be extended off of Main Street. He questioned if there was money available for that.
Mr. Benish replied that at least a portion of Main Street will be built into the entrance to the library. It is a small
portion.
Mr. Loach noted that it was an entranc e off of Crozet Av enue and Crozet Main Street that will feed into the library.
Because of the site and the elevation for the library they felt that the entrance would hav e to be moved towards the
back of the parking lot, w hich meant that there would be more paving of that.
Mr. Benish said that will be looked at primarily as a c ounty project probably through C IP funding. Based on the
priorities and the available funds in VDOT’s allocations they are going to be hard pressed to keep Jarman’s Gap
Road on schedule. It looks like it is okay as of today. There is one potential option to use revenue sharing monies,
which are VDOT monies for that. But, right now they are anticipating just C IP money. He noted that they are now
discussing continuing that road back to Park Road so that it creates that loop. But, he did not k now if there has
been a dec ision on it.
Mr. Loach said that they had talked about bringing the trucks out from Barnes Lumber Company through that area.
Mr. Strucko noted that he was looking at the priority lis t and how they came up with the rank ing. H e asked to move
Eastern Avenue, #15, on the priority list up to the top ten after the Sunset Fontaine Connector. He felt that they
need to make at least a symbolic commitment to the designated growth areas and the planning for the road w ay
infrastructure that they have there. He thought that particular project would do a lot to improve the situation within
Crozet. But, he would put it after the Fontaine Sunset Connector because in just look ing at the traffic counts it
would have a bigger impact for that partic ular growth area. He felt that Eastern Avenue should be a higher priority
than it is.
Mr. Benish pointed out that one factor that was considered was that at this time Eastern Av enue does not qualify for
VDOT funding. It may in the future. But, it is a fair statement. This is used for creating priorities for VDOT’s
secondary plan. But, the county does us e it as our priority for roads in the c ounty w hether funded through the CIP
or VDOT. It is still a fair statement and issue if there is an agreement to move it up.
Mr. Strucko asked how proffers factor into staff’s determination in the rank ing. For ins tance, in look ing at Old
Lynchburg Road around the Bisc uit Run development the county did get a proffer from the developer for so many
dollars for road improv ements in and around the development.
Ms. Joseph noted that when that went to the Board of Supervisors they dec ided that funding would not go to these
specific roads, but it w ould go into the pot.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct. Those monies could be used for the Eastern Connector, Sunset Avenue or the
Southern Parkway.
Mr. Strucko noted that they have not collected proffers because they are contingent upon the certain number of
building permits issued. He thought that 830 was the threshold. He asked if there hav e been proffers paid that have
gone into the road pot yet in general.
Mr. Benish replied yes, there are proffers monies in the pot. In fact for the Route 22/250 intersection improvement
the county share of that private public partnership was proffer monies from the Glenmore proffers.
Mr. Struck o asked if s taff know s the balance of the pot.
Mr. Benish replied that he did not know the total amount off the top of his head. Staff can get that information
through the proffer planner.
Mr. Strucko said that at s ome point they could as a community, with the Board of Supervis ors being the
appropriation body, could dedicate those monies for a particular road project. The county could be in the road
building business on a case by case bas is.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct. As an example, the road proffers from Glenmore were proffered for improvements
to Route 250 east and/or other improvements that are deemed appropriate by the c ounty. When Luck Stone and
Williams Pav ing C ompany came with a proposal for a partnership with VDOT staff let the Board know that they
would want to enter into that project and us e this funding. The Board of Supervisors has to actually approve the use
of thos e proffers. That is typically the process they go through.
Mr. Edgerton asked how long ago thos e Glenmore proffers were made.
Mr. Benish replied that the original proffers were made in 1991 and 1992. The proffers were then modified w ith
several other rezonings for other areas added to Glenmore. Some of that money dates back for a long time.
Ms. Joseph asked if any of this money w as for bike trails and sidewalks. They hear about people really w anting to
get around in something other than an automobile. She asked if there was any w ay they could stretch our dollars by
focusing on those sorts of things for a while.
Mr. Loach pointed out that Jarman’s Gap design was for a bicycle lane and sidewalk.
Mr. Benish noted that almost all the road projects that they propose to build, particularly those in the urban area,
have bike lanes and sidewalks associated with them. The Profit R oad improvements w ould be just like Jarman’s
Gap. Other than geometrics Jarman’s Gap improvement is really bike lanes and sidewalk s. As a standard now,
which is a sea change from where VDOT was a dozen years ago, they are actually through their policies almost
mandated to provide for some level of bike and pedestrian facilities. It is much eas ier to get those incorporated into
the projects. The specific designs are somewhat debatable from time to time. The other thing that they have been
trying to do in the rural areas is strongly encourage with plant mix projects that shoulders be paved in rural routes .
He noted that a little of that took place on Garth Road/Barrac ks Road. There was a project that VDOT actually
received a grant for several years ago on Route 29 N orth to do shoulder paving. Our topography does not allow for
real great 4’ lanes, but to the extent that they can w iden the shoulders beyond the outside edging they are trying to
do that. Part of that is to make roads a little more accommodating to bikes in the rural areas.
Mr. Cannon noted that does help bikers. Even if the bik ers don’t ride on it they can get off on it if they need to.
Mr. Benish said otherwis e for the rural area those roads would not be s ubject to the s ame development standards for
bike lanes and sidewalks as the development area roads according to VDOT standards .
But, as an example, the Advance Mills Bridge is being constructed with shoulders for bike lanes and pedestrians.
Mr. Cannon asked if there is no money for rural road pav ing.
Mr. Benish replied that there is money for rural road paving that is an annual minimal allocation. The lis t of approv ed
road pav ing projects is on the second page of the attachment. It is es sentially those two roads that are located in
the urban area. That was the policy that w as agreed to by the Board of Supervisors to us e that funding on unpav ed
roads in the urban area. These are the only two roads.
Mr. Canon said that thes e are the only two unpaved roads in the rural area that are going to get done.
Mr. Benish replied that is correct. There used to be a list, which s taff will continue to keep as an inventory of
roads. Staff had a list of about 20 to 30 projects that had been identified for road paving. But, they are no longer
roads that they have been identified on our priority lis t for paving. It now only includes these two road w ays.
Mr. Cannon asked if an action w as being requested from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Benish replied no, that this was just an opportunity for the C ommission to prov ide comment to the Board of
Supervisors if they want to act on it. There was a suggestion for a change in priorities. If there is a consens us from
the Commission for that, it would be good to have a clear direction from the whole Commission.
Ms. Porterfield noted that was the one that was not qualifying at this point for VDOT funding.
Mr. Benish replied that it does not qualify for VDOT funding.
Ms. Porterfield said that it would not be helpful to move it up at this point.
Mr. Benish noted that it is only helpful in the sense that this list is also used by staff when making CIP requests for
road improvement projects where it is identified for importance. It does have values if the Commis sion thinks it is
more important than other projects to move it up. But, for the VD OT process and the allocation of state funds it
would not make that muc h difference.
Mr. Cannon asked if there is a desire to resolve on that partic ular iss ue or is Mr. Strucko content with just to have
his comments noted in the record.
Mr. Strucko said that he offered a suggestion and the Planning Commission c an w eigh in. H is rationale w as that he
thought it was probably an importance after Sunset Fontaine. He thought that on the projects for Berkmar Drive
Extended and Old Lynchburg Road they c an handle it potentially through proffers. He stressed how important that
particular road, Eastern Avenue, is to the Crozet Mas ter Plan. Therefore, he would like to see it mov ed up.
Mr. C annon ask ed staff to convey that point of view to the Board of Supervis ors when they take this up as Mr.
Strucko’s point of view.
Mr. Loach supported Mr. Strucko.
Ms. Porterfield supported Mr. Struc ko, but w anted to be on the record to say that they need to figure out how to
bring some more money into the bottom line of Albemarle C ounty. This is a good example of it.
Mr. Strucko noted that with the proffers that they imposed and with the monies that they w ould collect when
development w ould happen they would have enough money for the infrastructure if the state can’t afford to abide by
its obligation to the great Commonwealth of Virginia.
Ms. Jos eph said that staff and the Board have really looked at this as the w hole county . So it appears as she looks
down this list that they are trying to provide improv ements all over instead of just in one area of the county. She
thought w hat they would be doing w hen moving up the Eastern Avenue is that they are focusing more on Croz et
than the rest of the c ommunity. She s upported staff explaining that Mr. Strucko and Mr. Loach think this is
important, but she could support the rest of the list in how it has been arranged because it looks like they have tried
to really address the needs of the entire community.
Mr. Benish noted that #12 was actually Scottsville’s request. Any request for secondary road improv ements for the
Town of Scottsville has to be in VDOT’s priority list for the county . That is the one project that they have
requested. Staff tries to keep that reasonably high in respect to a project that the Tow n of Scotts ville w ants to do.
He felt it was important to note that Scottsville does not have a separate process for improvements , but has to be
incorporated into the c ounty review.
Ms. Joseph noted that the county was working with the city to make the Hillsdale D rive project happen.
Mr. Benish said that the Hills dale Driv e is really reflec tive of the 29H 250 recommendations, which is w hy it was a
high priority . There is a very small segment in the county . That is why staff included it.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A GENDA TITLE:
Follow up on Outstanding FY 2010 C ounty Budget Issues
SUBJEC T/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information on Jaunt and Woods Edge funding requests for
Fiscal Year 2010.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Elliott and Davis
LEGAL REVIEW: No
A GENDA DATE:
April 1, 2009
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
A TTACH MENTS: No
R EVIEW ED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During the Board’s March 11, 2009 work session on its proposed fiscal year 09/10 operating budget, staff was requested to provide
clarification on funding requests for JAUNT and Woods Edge as well as the recommended Capital Improvement Plan. The Board
requested information from JAUN T on how the County’s annual funding allocation is determined, how this agency is addressing its
current year operational funding, and also sought data related to the County’s ridership and previous funding allocations. In terms of
Woods Edge, the Board was interested in knowing whether the County could continue its $40,000 annual allocation for rent subsidies
for this senior living facility. Finally, the Board requested that the CIP Oversight Committee take a second look at several capital
projects and clarify their previous recommendations.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs
DISCUSSION:
JAUNT
Annual JAU NT funding allocations are determined by calculating the percentage of County service hours, net of agency related hours,
to all JAU NT system service hours. This percentage is applied to JAUNT’s budget for administration, operations, and local match of
capital expenditures. Projected revenues are then subtracted from this calculation. Revenues are determined as follows:
o Fares generated from projected County trips
o Federal Revenues
Urban percentage of County urban trips to total urban trips is applied to anticipated revenue
Rural – onehalf of projected rural expenses minus projected fares
o State – service hour percentage is applied to anticipated State funding
o MPO – urban trips percentage is applied to anticipated funding
The County’s percentage of total system service hours for FY10 is projected to be 42.8% yielding the following funding allocation:
Administration $ 450,330 42.8% of JAUNT’s total budget
Public Operations 1,494,795 42.8% of JAUNT’s total budget
C apital 13,472 42.8% of local required match
Total $1,958,597
Less Revenues:
Fares $ 184,650
Federal 215,003 Urban (47.4% of allocation)
347,878 Rural (onehalf of expense less fares)
State 332,929 42.8% of total JAUNT allocation
MPO 1,695 47% of JAUNT allocation
C ounty Match: $ 876,442
The following table provides data related to the County’s growth in terms of trips and funding for the period FY04FY10. During this
period, the County has experienced a 37.9 percent increase in total trip hours while its funding commitment to JAUNT has increased
97.6 percent.
The rationale for JAUNT’s requested funding increase is largely grounded in this agency’s FY09 funding proposal. For FY09, JAUNT
anticipated an increase in ridership primarily in rural areas where federal funds cover half the cost. Ridership has expanded beyond
anticipated projections however this is primarily occurring in the urban area w here JAUNT receives no additional federal dollars.
In addition, the state indicated to JAUN T that it would receive an increase of $133,075; therefore, it requested only a 4.3 percent
increase in FY09 funding from all localities not seeking new services. As it turns out, the state actually reduced its funding to JAU NT
by $73,400 and will eliminate an additional $99,295 in FY 10 (Albemarle’s share of this cut is $42,697).
Another factor contributing to JAUNT’s increase in expenditures is a dramatic shift in its employee turnover. Historically, employee
turnover for JAUNT averaged 25 percent per year creating savings that were captured in its funding requests. Since the economic
dow nturn has occurred, JAUNT’s employee turnover rate has fallen to 8 percent. This decrease in turnover has increased salary and
fringe benefit costs by approximately $110,000.
JAUNT has addressed its FY09 shortfall through savings in budgeted fuel expenditures and through the reallocation of remaining state
funds from localities that are not realizing projected service increases to those that are, including Albemarle.
Woods Edge
On March 10, 2009 JABA submitted a request to the County of Albemarle to continue its $40,000/year rental assistance to Woods
Edge Senior Apartments. The assistance was pledged by the County in 2000 for eight years to enhance Fore Woods Edge L.L.L.P.’s
application for Housing Tax Credits in an application to the Virginia H ousing Development Authority. The County’s commitment for
rental assistance expires on June 30, 2009 and JABA has requested that the Board enter into a new agreement that could potentially
extend its funding commitment through the expiration of the federal tax credits (7 additional years).
Based upon the terms of the above contract, the County Executive’s FY10 budget did not include this $40,000 funding request;
how ever, the Board could fund this request through the FY10 H ousing Fund appropriation. This will reduce new funding available for
dow n payment assistance; how ever, it is anticipated that some funding will remain available from FY09 down payment assistance
which can be reappropriated for this use as demand warrants. While $280,000 is expected to be utilized in down payment assistance
in the current year, a balance should exist in the fund due to the use of cash proffers received for North Pointe.
Should the Board agree to fund JABA’s request, it is recommended that the County enter into a new agreement with the following
minimum terms and conditions:
The term of the agreement would be for seven years subject to annual appropriation and funding would be for up to
$40,000/year.
If an existing tenant w ere to move out of the unit, the County’s subsidy would no longer inure to the benefit of that unit and
the subsidy would be reduced and not transferred to another unit.
JABA would continue to file quarterly reports with the C ounty. In addition, JABA would file an annual financial report
(unaudited) to allow for reconciliation of funds disbursed/used. The reconciliation would be used to either recapture unused
funds or reduce a future year's appropriation.
A nonappropriation’s clause would be provided and JABA will notify each tenant receiving assistance that there is no
guarantee that assistance will continue beyond one year.
This proposal does not require finding additional funds in the budget and will likely have minimal impact on the County’s dow n
payment assistance program if funds can be reappropriated at the end of the current fiscal year. Also, phasing out the assistance as
tenants move and with JABA communicating and working with tenants to budget for future rent increases financial impacts should be
minimized when this assistance is no longer available.
CIP Oversight Committee
In accordance with the Board’s directive, staff convened a special meeting of the CIP Oversight Committee on March 24, 2009.
Pursuant to the Board’s request, the committee reviewed background information and engaged staff in discussion regarding the
following four project areas, 1) Fire apparatus replacement schedule and policy; 2) Neighborhood Plan Implementation program; 3)
School Gymnasium HVAC and Lighting replacement; and 4) School Maintenance/Replacement program. A brief summary of the
Committee’s findings is as follows:
Fire Apparatus:
While certain purchases may be deferred, it was acknowledged that such deferment would not impact FY 10 since the purchases
were debt financed. The committee also felt that any proposed adjustments must be considered within the context of the 5 year
replacement plan. Finally, it was suggested that the fire department reconsider its policy as regards rotation of equipment.
Neighborhood Plan Implementation:
The Committee acknowledged that the program is consistent with the Board’s commitment to accumulate funds to implement
approved master plans. One member of the committee suggested that funding proposed for FY 10 could be reduced, but there was
no general agreement among the committee to do so.
School Gymnasium HVAC/Lighting:
School staff described this effort as part of a multiyear, ongoing commitment to upgrade 11 facilities to provide suitable and safe
environments for students and for use by the County’s recreation programs. Some members acknowledged that these improvements
may be considered “enhancements”, but there was no general agreement among the members to discontinue or delay the projects.
School Maintenance:
School staff outlined the magnitude and details of the maintenance program, emphasizing that 27 school building remain in excellent
shape, despite age due to proper maintenance. The committee agreed that the maintenance program should not be reduced at this
time.
Other general comments of the committee:
Any proposed adjustments to the recommended C IP should be viewed and examined within the context of the entire FiveYear
CIP plan.
If the Board decides, following the recommendation of the Oversight committee, that a reduction in the CIP is necessary, then
the matter should be referred back to the County Executive with a specific target for such reductions.
It was the consensus of the committee that all CIP projects have been adequately reviewed and justified. Some members felt
that additional reductions in the overall plan were possible, but that such reductions must be considered in the context of the
entire plan and would be more efficiently addressed at this time by the County Executive or in the next CIP review process
that will begin again in August of this year.
Members of the committee acknowledged that the Oversight Committee is a nonvoting advisory committee whose principle
value is to assist staff and the Board by sharing perspectives and ensuring that the proposed CIP is adequately reviewed, well
balanced and consistent w ith the policies and objectives of the Board.
A full discussion of the CIP process and the specific role and structure of the Technical Review Team and the Oversight Committee
will be the subject matter of a Board Work Session to be scheduled this spring/summer.
BUDGET IMPACT:
JAUNT: As directed by the Board during its budget work session, $150,950 has been set aside in the Board’s contingency to
potentially fund JAUNT”s requested FY 2010 increase pending further review. Funding was made available through a reduction in the
capital transfer and a correlating offset in capital project funding for the VDOT Road Revenue Sharing project.
Woods Edge: Funding $40,000 to continue the Woods Edge rental subsidy can be realized through a reduction in the down payment
assistance funds as described above, having minimal impact on the assistance program, and requiring no additional funds.
Capital Improvements Plan: No additional reductions or changes were recommended by the C IP Oversight Committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based upon the above information, staff recommends the Board consider JAUNT’s full FY 2010 request of $876,442. This is
$150,950 more than currently in the proposed budget for JAUNT. Staff also recommends the Board approve the request to continue
the W oods Edge rental subsidy, with funding provided through a $40,000 reduction in the proposed budget for the down payment
assistance program.
Return t o regular agenda
1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?Advisory Council on Aging M. Waltine Eubanks 5/31/20095/31/2011Eligible Advisory Council on Aging William B. Harvey 5/31/20095/31/2011Eligible Agricltural and Forestal District Advisory CommRobin Mellen 4/17/20094/17/2013Yes Agricltural and Forestal District Advisory CommDavid vanRoijen4/17/20094/17/2013Eligible CACVBLarry Wilson6/30/20096/30/2011YesCACVB Greg MacDonald 6/30/20096/30/2011YesCommission on Children and FamiliesBrian Hemmert 6/30/20096/30/2012YesCommission on Children and FamiliesAmy Laufer6/30/20096/30/2012YesCrozet Community Advisory CouncilBverly Ergenbright 3/31/20093/31/2011NoCrozet Community Advisory CouncilRussell Lafferty 3/31/20093/31/2011NoCrozet Community Advisory CouncilDavid Wayland 3/31/20093/31/2011NoEqualization Board C. Marshall Thompson12/31/200812/31/2009NoHistoric Preservation CommitteeSara Lee Barns6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible Historic Preservation CommitteeChristine Devine 6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible Historic Preservation CommitteeBenjamin Ford6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible Historic Preservation CommitteeDavid Phillips 6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible Historic Preservation CommitteeJennifer Hallock 6/4/20096/4/2012Eligible Housing Committee Michael Peoples12/31/200812/31/2011Eligible JABAShirley Copeland 3/31/20093/31/2011No Jeff. Area Community Criminal Justice BoardCapt. John Parrent 6/30/20096/30/2012Eligible PVCC BoardDr. Donna Plasket 6/30/20096/30/2013Eligible Region Ten Community Services BoardConstance Samuels6/30/2009Resigned November 2008 Workforce Investment BoardRod Gentry 6/30/20096/30/2010Eligible Workforce Investment BoardSue Goldman 6/30/20096/30/2012Eligible Workforce Investment BoardEmily Bardeen 6/30/20096/30/2010Eligible Revised 3/26/09
DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTNo Action Required No Action Required Action Required No Action Required Action Required Action Required Action Required, joint w/ CityAction Required Action Required Action Required Action Required Rio, Advertised, none received No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required No Action Required AHIP Rep.Advertised, none received No Action Required No Action Required Advertised, 3 Interviews SetNo Action Required No Action Required No Action Required