HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-04
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
9:00 A.M. A UDITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Richard Kast for service on the Route 250 West Task Force.
b. VDEQ Virginia Environmental Excellenc e Program (VEEP) Award, Larry Simmons, Deputy Director
Valley Regional Office, Department of Environmental Quality .
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).
9:45 a.m. Action Items:
8. SDP2009009. Arden Place – R equest acceptance of open space dedication.
9. Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) Grant U pdate and Memorandum of U nderstanding.
10:15 a.m. Presentations/Informational Items:
10. JAU NT Annual Report.
11. Board to Board Presentation, School Board Chairman.
12. Economic Indicators R eport for the First Quarter of FY 2010.
13. Defense Intelligence Agency Rivanna Station Survey Results .
14. Closed Meeting.
15. Certify Closed Meeting.
16. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies /Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Transportation Matters
17. a. VDOT Monthly Report.
b. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
2:45 p.m. – Public H earings:
18. Downtown Croz et Streetscape Enhancement Project – (TEA 21) Transportation Enhancement
Program Grant. To consider applying for up to $250,000 in funds under the Commonwealth of Virginia’s
Transportation Enhancement Program (TEA21) for streetscape improvements to both sides of Crozet
Av enue (Rt 240) between Tabor Street (Rt 691) and the Square.
19. FY 2010 Budget A mendment.
20. SP2008031. Old Dominion Equine Barn & R iding Ring (Signs 46&48). PROPOSED : R elocation of
barn and addition of riding ring for existing veterinary practice. ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL U SAGE:
R A Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development
lots; EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of historic, architec tural or cultural significance
from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2.18, veterinary
s ervices, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subject to performance standards in 4.14).
C OMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAN D U SE/DENSITY: Rural Areas preserve and protect agricultural, forestal,
open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots).
EN TR ANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOC ATION : 6539 Gordons ville Road (Route 231) at the intersection with St
J ohn Road (R oute 640). TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 50 Parcel 20D. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:
R ivanna.
Work Sessions:
21. Family Divisions /Private Streets.
22. Five Year Financial Plan.
23. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
24. Adjourn to November 11, 2009, 10:00 a.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
7.1 Approval of Minutes: September 2, 2009.
7.2 “W atch for Child Playing” Signage for Proffit R oad (R oute 649).
7.3 FY 2009 Appropriations.
7.4 Authorize County Executive to execute new Agreement with the Charlottesv ille/Albemarle Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to provide pound services for the County of Albemarle and the City of
C harlottesville.
7.5 Resolution to request the disc ontinuance of a portion of Carters Mountain Road (Route 627).
FOR IN FORMATION:
7.6 Proffer Management FY2010 First Quarter Cas h and NonC ash Proffer Report and 2009 Survey of
C ash Proffers for State.
7.7 Quarterly Resourc e Management Review U pdate.
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
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
“Watch for Child Playing” Signage for Proffit Road
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request from residents to install a “Watch for C hild
Playing” Signage on Proffit R oad (Route 649)
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Benish, and
Wade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
N ovember 4, 2009
ACTION : IN FORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The residents of properties along Proffit Road near the onelane bridge and one resident of property along Judge
Lane near its intersection with Proffit R oad (See map Attachment A) submitted the attached request to install
“W atch for Child Playing” signage on Proffit R oad Drive (Attachment B). VD OT requires that the Board of
Supervisors adopt a res olution approving the placement of a “Watch for Child Playing” s ign before it will install a
sign.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance the quality of life for all Albemarle County Res idents.
Goal Three: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improv ements to Address the County ’s Growing Needs.
DISC USSION:
The County has developed the following criteria for review ing a “Watch for C hild Play ing” sign installation request.
Staff has evaluated this request agains t these criteria:
“Watch for C hild Playing” signs shall be considered on secondary roads.
Proffit R oad is in the secondary road system (Route 649). This road has a daily traffic count of 4,000
v ehicle trips/day.
The request must come from a Homeowner’s Association where applicable.
There is no formal homeowners association for this area. The residents in a defined area of Proffit Road
and Judge Lane have submitted the request.
There must be a child activity attraction nearby for the sign to be considered.
There is no formal established child activity attraction such as a park or tot lot on Proffit R oad. H owever,
there are no sidewalks along this road and c hildren living in this neighborhood often walk or bike on the road
to visit other homes to play. In addition, the area just east of the railroad bridge consists of a number of
homes that are loc ated very c lose to the road. Staff believes that “W atch for Child Playing” signage would
properly notify drivers to watch for children playing along the road.
The installation of the sign shall not conflict with any existing traffic control devices:
The proposed location of the s ignage will not conflict w ith any existing traffic c ontrol devices.
This request meets three of the four criteria. There are no formal/central child activity attractions on the road. In
addition, Proffit Road functions as a collector road and is not considered a subdivis ion or neighborhood type street.
Typically , s taff w ould discourage “Watc h for Child Playing” signage on this type of road. How ever, giv en the
presenc e of children in this area, the lack of sidewalks , the proximity of the homes/yards to the road, and the
volume and speed of the traffic in this area, staff opinion is that this request for the installation of a “Watch for Child
Playing” s ign has merit in this location.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost to install a “W atch for Child Playing” sign is approximately $125 per sign, and VDOT will determine how
many s igns are appropriate. Typically , VD OT has installed one or two signs for each designated area. This cost
will be paid from the County’s Six Year County Road Maintenance Fund.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached resolution (Attachment C ) approv ing the
installation of “Watch for C hild Playing” signage on Proffit Road (Route 649).
ATTAC HMENTS:
Attachment A Location Map
Attachment B – Letter Requesting Sign
Attachment C Resolution
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
PROFFIT RDJUDGE L N
GLEN EC H O F A R M
M O S S ING FORD RDPOLO GROUNDS RD¡819
¡649
Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, October 2009.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2008 ±Proffit RoadWatch for Child Playing Request
0 400 800200Feet
Roads
Railroads
2366Proffit Rd.
R ESOLU TION TO A UTHOR IZE
VIRGIN IA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA TION
TO INSTALL WATC H FOR CHILD PLA YING SIGN
ON PROFFIT ROA D (ROU TE 649)
WH ER EA S, the residents of Proffit R oad (R t. 649) are concerned about traffic in their
neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children that live and play in the
neighborhood; and
WH ER EA S, many children live and play on Proffit R oad and the residents believe that “Watch for
C hild Playing” signage would help alleviate some of the safety concerns; and
WH ER EA S, the residents of Proffit R oad have requested that the County take the necessary
steps to have “Watch for C hild Playing” signage installed;
NOW, TH ER EFOR E, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby
approves the community’s request for VD OT to install “Watch for Child Playing” signage on Proffit Road
(Rt. 649).
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2009 Appropriations
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Appropriation #2009069 for various general
government programs
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Virginia Code § 15.22507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjus t the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fis cal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. Howev er, any such amendment whic h
exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first
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 08/09 appropriation is $817,436.34. A budget amendment public hearing is not
required because the c umulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted BY 08/09
budget.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5. Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the C ounty’s grow ing needs.
DISCU SSION :
This request involves the approval of one (1) new FY 08/09 appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2009069) for General Fund over expenditures in the amount of $817,436.34.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends the approval of the FY 08/09 Appropriation #2009069 totaling $817,436.34.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Desc ription of Appropriation
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Appropriation #2009069
$817,436.34
R evenue Sourc e: Fund Balance $817,436.34
Several general government departments and programs will require an additional appropriation to cover FY 08/09
expenditures. This reques t w ill appropriate $817,436.34 from the General Fund Balance to the follow ing
departments:
Human R esources Early R etirement $ 430,489.35
Circuit Court Temporary H elp $ 6,676.79
Magistrate $ 8,862.00
Forest Fire Ex tinguishment $ 4,405.10
City Fire Contract $ 52,220.54
Tax Relief for the Elderly & D isabled $ 268,048.62
Tax Refunds $ 46,733.94
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGEN D A TITLE:
Agreement for the Provision of Pound Services
SU B JECT/PR OPOSAL/R EQUEST:
Authorize the County Executive to execute a new
Agreement with the Charlottesville/Albemarle Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to provide
pound services for the County of Albemarle and the
City of Charlottesville
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mess rs. Tucker, Elliott, and Davis, and Ms. Kim
LEGAL R EVIEW : Yes
A GENDA DATE:
N ovember 4, 2009
A C TION: IN FORMATION:
C ON SENT A GENDA:
ACTION : X INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
B A C K GR OU N D :
The Charlottesv ille/Albemarle Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CASPCA) ow ns and operates an
animal shelter in the County and has served as the County’s pound since 1956. The current Agreement was
negotiated in 2003 and prov ides that C ASPA w ill be compensated $100 per dog or c at brought to the animal shelter
by Animal Control officers and $100 per stray dog and $50 per s tray cat brought to the animal shelter by residents
w ho are not the owners of the animals. Bec ause this funding arrangement is no longer acceptable to C ASPC A, it
has notified the City and County that the 2003 Agreement will not be extended beyond D ecember of 2009. In order
for the County and City to have C ASPC A continue to serve as the C ounty and City pound, a new Agreement is
required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
W hile there is no direc t impact to the goals and objectives included in the current Strategic Plan, CASPCA serves
the County as both the animal shelter and the County’s pound. C ASPC A’s efforts support the c ommunity ’s quality of
life as envisioned in the County’s Strategic Plan’s mis sion and vision statements.
D ISC U SSION:
A new Agreement has been negotiated that sets forth the operating terms and conditions and the compensation the
C ounty and the City agree to pay the CASPCA for pound services and the care of the animals on an annual formula,
rather than on a peranimal basis. This new Agreement was developed in c oordination w ith the C ounty Executiv e’s
Office, the City Manager’s Office, the City and County Animal Control officers, and the CASPCA. It has been
reviewed and approv ed by the City and C ounty Attorneys’ Offices. The new Agreement provides a compens ation
formula based on the County’s population (mos t recent U.S .Census projection) multiplied by a per capita amount (set
at $4 in FY 11 & $5 in FY 12). For eac h y ear aft er FY12, the rat e will be set by utiliz ing the rat e in ef fect for t he
immediately preceding y ear mult iplied by the Cons umer Price Index (C PI ). The initial t erm of t he Agreement is f or
three y ears and thereaf t er it renew s automat ic ally f or additional one y ear t erms unless terminated by twelv e months
prior writt en notic e.
The Agreement has been executed by the C ASPC A and is subject to approval by the County and City. The City
C ouncil is scheduled to consider this Agreement at its N ovember 2, 2009 meeting.
B U D GET IMPACT:
The funding formula in the new Agreement will hav e a significant budget impact starting in FY 2011.
The County’s FY 10 contribution to the CASPCA is $198,106 bas ed on the current peranimal compensation formula;
however, pursuant to the terms of the new Agreement, the County will make an additional $50,000 c apital
improvement pay ment prior to D ecember 31, 2009. The appropriation for this additional payment is included in the
FY10 Budget Amendment item being considered by the Board at its November 4, 2009 meeting. Under the new
Agreement, the County’s pay ment to CASPCA in FY10 will total $248,106.
The impact on the County for FY 11 and FY 12 based on the new annual funding formula is estimated to be as
The impact on the County for FY 11 and FY 12 based on the new annual funding formula is estimated to be as
follows:
FY 11 Contribution: $369,248 (49% increase over FY 10)
FY 12 Contribution: $471,560 (28% increase over FY 11)
R ECOMMEN D A TIONS:
It is recommended that the Board authorize the County Executive to exec ute the Agreement for the Provision of
Pound Services between the City of C harlottes ville, Albemarle County and C ASPC A (Attachment A).
A TTACHMENTS
A – Agreement for the provision of pound services
Ret urn to c ons ent agenda
Ret urn to regular agenda
The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in a regular meeting on
the 4th day of November, 2009, adopted the following:
R E S O L U T I O N
WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has provided the Board of County
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, with Form AM4.3 dated November 4, 2009,
depicting the additions, discontinuances and abandonments required in the secondary system
of state highways; and
WHEREAS, the portion of Route 627 (Carters Mountain Road) identified to be
discontinued, as part of Project #0020002126,c501,b608, is deemed to no longer serve
public convenience warranting maintenance at public expense.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors requests the
Virginia Department of Transportation to discontinue as part of the secondary system of state
highways those portions of Route 627 (Carters Mountain Road), identified as from the
intersection of Route 20 (Scottsville Road) to .01 of a mile north, at a distance of 0.01 miles,
pursuant to Section 33.1150, of the Code of Virginia; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the
Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation.
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY2010 1s t Quarter Cash and NonCas h Proffer Report
and 2009 Survey of Cash Proffers for State
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report of c ash proffer revenue, expenditures and non
cash improvements for July – September of 2009.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and H iggins,
and Ms. McCulley and Ms. Baldwin
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
This report includes proffer activity (both c ash and noncash improvements) for the months of July through
September of 2009 (FY2010 1s t quarter). Also attached (Attachment B) is the annual state cash proffer report (the
Commis sion on Local Government 2009 Survey of C ash Proffers Acc epted by Local Governments). This
information is mandated by the State whic h reports the amount of cas h proffers collected, pledged and expended
during each fiscal year for Virginia loc alities.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Develop Infras tructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
Goal 5: Fund the County ’s Future Needs.
DISCU SSION :
Cash Proffers July – September 2009 (1st Quarter Fiscal Year)
A. Proffered: N o rezonings were approved this quarter.
B. Total Obligated C ash Proffers: Since no rez onings were approved this quarter, the total obligated cash
proffer amount remains at $56,758,832.
C. Revenue: The County received $3,250 in cas h proffers slated for Affordable H ousing from Belvedere (ZMA
20047). In addition, the follow ing funds were rec eived for us e by the Capital Improvement Plan: $3,200 in
c ash proffers from Liberty Hall (ZMA 200714) and $9,667 c ontributed by W ickham Pond (ZMA 200417).
D. Total Interest Earnings: The total interest earned from collected cash proffers is $315,456.
E. Expenditures: N o funds were expended during this quarter; however, the Board can expect to see several
c ash proffer appropriations within the next few months.
F. C urrent Available Funds: As of June, there is $1,006,493 available in cas h proffers (see Attachment A).
NonC ash Proffers
As the Board may recall from the September 2, 2009 executive summary for the FY 09 4th quarter report, staff is
reporting quarterly on certain noncas h proffers to include Affordable Housing, Parks, Fire Rescue, Schools and
other Land Dedications. There is no activity to report on noncash proffers for the 1st quarter of FY2010.
2009 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments for the C ommission on Local Government
During Fisc al Year 2009, the C ounty collected $441,747 in cash proffers and expended $66,000. There w ere no
cash proffers pledged during this year, as there were no rezonings approved (Attachment B). Despite current
economic deficits, the County collected a significant amount of cash proffers ($441,747). This is almos t double the
amount reported on the FY 2008 State Survey, indicating that development is still active within the County. The
collected cash proffers are in the proces s of being allocated to CIP projects as will be noted on upcoming executive
summaries to the Board. As the trend has been in prior years, most cas h proffers collected are specified for use
either in the category of Roads or other Transportation Improvements, or General CIP. Please see Attachment C for
further comparisons.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Both cas h and noncash proffers continue to provide a positive impac t to the budget.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This summary is prov ided for information on cash proffer activity and no action is required. Staff will be available to
receive comments and answer questions from the Board.
ATTAC HMENTS
A Cash Proffer Summary
B 2009 Survey of Cash Proffers
C Cas h Proffer Activity FY 20042009
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A Cash Proffers FY2010 1st Quarter !"#!$%!"& ’!#%(%"! !#%$ !&$’ ’’##$ #! !!"’#$#!#!#! ’&#!! &##!%"’ #&)*%$%%+%&# &,%# #’##%$%!$" &&+%"$!$"!%""&! &##’"# ""#&’%"!$! ’’’"’% #!% #!# #!%%$%"#!& &%"#" &!%"#& "!##(’ &’#! " ’&##! #! &&& !# !&"! !"#- # !!." ’&")*+,-.//0-1**2340566.0*5)7)61.857)2*0
Commission on Local Government
2009 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS? CONTACT MATTHEW BOLSTER AT THE
COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, (804) 371-8010 or
Matthew.Bolster@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 1 of 2 7/13/09
Date: September 30, 2009
Locality: Albemarle County City Town
Name: Sarah D. Baldwin Title: Senior Planner
Phone: 434-296-5832 (3313) Fax: 434-972-4126
E-mail: sbaldwin@albemarle.org
YES NO
Does your locality have an adopted cash proffer ordinance or policy?
If “Yes,” please enclose a copy with completed survey or provide a web link to the document.
Web link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/Comprehens
ive_Plan/Albemarle_County_Proffer_Policy_BOS_Attach_E_(2).pdf
YES NO
Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year?
If you answered "No" for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please
return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page.
If you answered "Yes" for the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the
cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.)
FY2008-2009
1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during
the 2008-2009 Fiscal Year: $ $441,747.56
2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2008-2009 Fiscal
Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ 0
3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the
2008-2009 Fiscal Year: $ $7000.00
4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made:
Schools $
Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $ 7000.00
Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $
Libraries $
Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $ .
Water and Sewer Service Extension $
Community Centers $
Stormwater Management $
Special Needs Housing $
Affordable Housing $
Miscellaneous $
Total Dollar Amount Expended
(Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $ $7000.00
Commission on Local Government
2009 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments
QUESTIONS? CONTACT MATTHEW BOLSTER AT THE
COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, (804) 371-8010 or
Matthew.Bolster@dhcd.virginia.gov
Page 2 of 2 7/13/09
Please see other side.
Comments:
Use additional
sheet if
necessary.
Collected: $3000 in Affordable Housing, $15,130,56 for CIP, $380,617.00 for Roads, and
$50,000 for Parks.
The current annual adjustment for the Cash Proffer Policy is as follows: $18,700.00 for
Single Family Detached, $12,700.00 for Single Family Attached, and $13,200.00 for Multi-
Family.
Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30, 2009,
using one of the following methods:
•By Mail: Matthew Bolster
Commission on Local Government
600 E. Main Street, Suite 300
Richmond, VA 23219
•By Fax: (804) 371-7090
•By Electronic Mail: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at
http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm
Once completed, send it by e-mail to: Matthew.Bolster@dhcd.virginia.gov
DEFINITIONS
Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to
rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority
granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made pursuant to a
development agreement entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303.1.
Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of
revenue collected from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the
cash proffer was accepted. Unaudited figures are acceptable.
Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2),
Code of Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning
case. Unaudited figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable.
Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of
public projects funded with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are
acceptable.
Attachment C-Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2009123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQProfferedCollectedExpendedProfferedCollectedExpendedProfferedCollectedExpendedProfferedCollectedExpendedProfferedCollected0.0067,600.00100,744.021,164,000.0031,000.00172,593.75405,000.0011,000.0012,690.100.001,000.000.000.000.000.000.00487,761.670.00524,600.00629,538.860.0022,844,858.80230,443.1159,161.000.0015,130.5659,000.00217,159.120.00200,000.0010,400.00165,257.20332,500.00131,300.00109,666.4118,230,800.001,300.00475,000.000.00373,617.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00875,000.000.00554,850.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00550,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.001,134,000.000.000.003,000.0053,000.0050,000.00961,000.003,000.000.000.0050,000.0000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0000.000.000.000.000.000.009,344.009,415.7230,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00435,250.000.000.00366,000.00355,000.000.00678,065.0027,000.00500,000.000.003,000.00$59,000.00$284,759.12$100,744.02$3,421,011.67$41,400.00$337,850.95$1,631,100.00$1,189,182.86$181,772.23$44,169,723.80$262,743.11$1,589,011.00$0.00$441,747.562004-52005-62006-72007-82008-9TOTALCollected2004-52005-62006-72007-82008-90.001,164,000.00405,000.000.000.001,569,000.00Schools67,600.0031,000.0011,000.001,000.000.000.00487,761.67524,600.0022,844,858.800.0023,857,220.47General CIP Fund0.000.00629,538.86230,443.1115,130.5659,000.00200,000.00332,500.0018,230,800.000.0018,822,300.00Roads & Other Transportation Costs217,159.1210,400.00131,300.001,300.00373,617.000.000.000.00875,000.000.00875,000.00Fire & Rescue/Public Safety0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00550,000.000.00550,000.00Libraries0.000.000.000.000.000.001,134,000.003,000.00961,000.000.002,098,000.00Parks, Recreation & Open Space0.000.0053,000.003,000.0050,000.0000.000.000.000.000Water & Sewer Service Extension0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0030,000.000.0030,000.00Stormwater Management0.000.009,344.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00Special Needs Housing0.000.000.000.000.000.00435,250.003,666,000.00678,065.000.004,779,315.00Affordable Housing0.000.00355,000.0027,000.003,000.002004-52005-62006-72007-82008-9TOTAL100,744.02172,593.7512,690.100.000.00286,027.870.000.000.0059,161.000.0059,161.000.00165,257.20109,666.41475,000.0066,000.00815,923.610.000.000.00554,850.000.00554,850.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.0050,000.000.000.0050,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.009,415.720.000.009,415.720.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00500,000.000.00500,000.00Special Needs HousingAffordable HousingLibrariesParks, Recreation & Open SpaceWater & Sewer Service ExtensionStormwater ManagementSchoolsGeneral CIP FundRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyExpendedStormwater ManagementSpecial Needs HousingAffordable HousingParks, Recreation & Open SpaceProfferedSchoolsGeneral CIP FundWater & Sewer Service ExtensionLibrariesParks, Recreation & Open SpaceStormwater ManagementSpecial Needs HousingAffordable HousingWater & Sewer Service ExtensionRoads & Other Transportation CostsFire & Rescue/Public SafetyLibrariesFUND TYPEFire & Rescue/Public SafetySchoolsProffer Activity FY 2004-2009General CIP FundRoads & Other Transportation CostsFY 2007-2008FY 2008-2009TOTALSFY 2004-2005FY 2005-2006FY 2006-2007
Attachment C-Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2009123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839RExpended0.000.0066,000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00$66,000.00TOTAL110,600.00875,112.53733,776.120.000.00106,000.000.009,344.000.00385,000.00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Resource Management Review Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the review and implementation of the
Resource Management Review’s recommendations
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Elliott
LEGAL R EVIEW: No
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On May 7, 2008, the Board directed s taff to initiate an external assess ment of the C ounty’s resourc e management in
conjunction with the County’s ongoing continuous improv ement efforts . On July 2, 2008, the Board approved the
County entering into an agreement with Virginia Commonwealth University’s Commonwealth Educational Policy
Institute (CEPI) to conduct this assess ment. CEPI delivered its final report to the Board on February 11, 2009. On
May 6 and July 1, 2009, the Board receiv ed information on staff’s progress and planned actions in evaluating and
implementing the recommendations of CEPI’s assess ment. This is an update to the information presented in July for
the Board’s information.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Mission: To enhance the wellbeing and quality of life for all citizens through the prov ision of the highest level
of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds.
DISCU SSION :
The Resource Management Review inc luded 148 recommendations for local government departments and selected
community agencies. In order to improv e the clarity of the report’s recommendations and allow for better
management of and reporting on recommendations, staff has consolidated similar or related recommendations and
categorized them as follow s:
32 recommendations are designated as “Underway” or in the process of being implemented.
11 recommendations are designated as “Further Evaluation N eeded” or will require further ev aluation by
staff before they can be considered for implementation. Staff will proceed with these evaluations as soon as
pos sible recogniz ing that existing staffing levels in some departments and the sc ope of organizational change
required by certain recommendations will determine their timing for implementation.
7 recommendations are designated as “Evaluate During Budget Process” or related to providing additional
res ources. These will be review ed in the context of the County’s annual FiveYear Financial Plan and budget
processes.
35 recommendations are designated as “Complete/Resolved – Implemented or Continue C urrent
Process” or have been resolv ed either by implementation or continuing existing County proc ess es or
practices.
A list of the recommendations included in each category is available in Attachment A. Staff will continue to provide
quarterly updates to the Board on the status and results of the Resource Management Review’s recommendations.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t in analyzing the report’s recommendations at this time. Recommendations that will
require additional resources to analyze or implement beyond the reallocation of existing resources will be brought
to the Board for discus sion and action.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
This update is presented for the Board’s information.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A Status of R esource Management Review R ecommendations
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A GEN DA TITLE:
Arden Place [SDP2009009] Open Space Acceptance
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
R equesting that the Board accept 1.58 acres of open
space dedicated to the County for a 15 percent increase
in density under County Code § 1818.4.2
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Fritz and Gatobu
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION : X IN FORMATION:
CON SENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFOR MA TION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BAC KGROUND:
The applicant is seek ing final site plan approval for a 212 unit multifamily residential apartment complex. The
development proposes to include 1.58 acres of open space that would be dedicated to the County for a fifteen (15)
percent density increase as prov ided by County C ode § 1818.4.2.
The Planning Commission, at a hearing on September 8, 2009, approved a critical slopes w aiver, a buffer disturbanc e
waiver, and the preliminary site plan (with conditions). The C ommission also recommended approval/acceptance of the
proposed open space with a five (5) foot pedestrian path that would meet County and ADA design standards, but would
not extend beyond the proposed Carmike movie theater connection (Attachment F). The Planning Commis sion asked the
applicant to dedic ate additional land (adjacent to the Albemarle County Woodbrook Lagoon Project) to the C ounty and the
applicant agreed (Attachment D). In the Planning Commission staff report, (Attachment A), staff asked the Planning
Commission to consider the dedication of a pedestrian/bike path that would connect Albemarle Square to the W oodbrook
Lagoon Project, which the applic ant was willing to do. However, numerous residents from the Woodbrook neighborhood
opposed a potential pedestrian connection into Woodbrook, which adjoins the other side of the Woodbrook Lagoon
Projec t. The Planning commiss ion specifically approved the site plan w ith no pedestrian connection to the Woodbrook
Lagoon Project.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for all Citizens; Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
DISCUSSION:
The proposed open space with a path helps achieve sev eral Comprehensive Plan goals. Pedestrian paths are important
features in designated dev elopment areas because of their ability to create pedestrian orientation and interconnections
(goals from the Neighborhood Model) and an alternate transportation option (Land Use Plan). The proposed open space
with a path will provide a pedestrian connection between the proposed apartment complex and public facilities. The
proposed five (5) foot path will provide the opportunity for pedestrians to walk to the Carmik e movie theater and the
Albemarle Square shopping center and Rio R oad from the proposed development. Pedestrian access to the mentioned
public amenities will provide an alternative to automobile transportation. The pedestrian path will be built to ADA
standards, will be five feet in width, and will meet the County’s standards established in the Design Standards Manual.
The owner/applicant of the apartment complex has agreed to maintain the path and the open space.
Since density bonuses are available through several means including the provision of affordable housing, staff analyzed
the request for the benefits of providing affordable housing for a density increase at this location. After discussing the
issue w ith the D irector of H ousing, staff concluded that w hile affordable housing is desirable, an abundanc e of affordable
housing at this location is not desirable. Dispersing affordable housing is in keeping with the Neighborhood Model’s
recommendation that affordable housing be integrated into many areas, not established as an enclave.
BUD GET IMPA CT:
No budget impact. Applicant has agreed to maintain the open space and path.
RECOMMENDATION S:
Staff recommends the full dens ity bonus be given for the proposed dedicated open space as shown on Attachment D.
Staff also recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to accept the dedication of open space after the
County Attorney has approved the deed of dedication and plat as to form and substance.
ATTACHMENTS
A. 9.8.09 Planning Commis sion Staff Report
B. Aerial Map
C. Arden Place Site Plan
D. Arden Place Open Space Exhibit
E. Planning C ommission Action Letter
F. 9.8.09 Final PC Action Memo 090809
View PC minutes: Sept ember 8, 2009
Return to regular agenda
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 200900009 Arden Place: [Critical slopes
waiver, buffer disturbance waiver, open space
recommendation to the BOS, and action on the preliminary
site plan].
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Amy Pflaum Senior Engineer
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
September 8th , 2009
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
N/A
Owners: Charlottesville Realty Corporation Applicant: Coleway Development, LLC
Acreage: 19.03 , [11.35 acres for the R15 portion]Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 61, Parcel 124
Location: Rio Road East [State Route #631], about 900 feet
from the intersection of Rio Road East [State Route #631] and
Seminole Trail [State Route #29].
Byright use: R15 Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
Magisterial District: Rio Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 212 DA X RA
Proposal: Request for preliminary site plan approval for a 212
unit multifamily residential apartment complex with a club house
on the R15 residential zoned portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel
124 which consists of 11.35 acres. Associated w aivers include
section 4.2 (critical slopes) and section 21.7.c (disturbance of a
buffer zone adjacent to a residential district).
Comp. Plan Designation: Community Service and Urban Density in
Urban Area 2
Character of Property:
The property is wooded and undeveloped.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Multi family Residential Homes, Albemarle Square Shopping Center,
and Woodbrook Subdivision single family homes.
Factors Favorable: See Report Factors Unfavorable: See Report
Recommendations:
Waiver of Section 4.2 – disturbance of critical slopes Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
Waiver of Section 21.7.c buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural area districts Staff recommends approval of the buffer
disturbance waiver.
Preliminary Site Plan review: Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site plan with conditions.
Planning Commission Action: open space recommendation to the BOS (Approval or Denial)
STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu; Amy Pflaum
PLANNING COMMISSI ON: Sept ember 8th, 2009
AGENDA TITLE: SDP 0900009: Arden Place Preliminary Site Plan
PROPERTY OWNER: Charlottesville Realty Corporation
APPLICANT: Coleway Dev elopment, LLC
PROPOSAL:
Request for preliminary s it e plan approv al for a 212 unit multifamily res idential apart ment complex with a c lub house on the R15 residential
zoned portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 124 which consis ts of 11.35 acres. Associated waivers include section 4.2 (critical slopes) and
section 21.7.c (disturbance of a buffer zone adj acent to a residential district) The property , desc ribed as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124 is
11.35 acres in size, is located in the Rio magisterial dis trict and is zoned R15 Residential and EC entranc e corridor. (Attachment B)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service and Urban Density in Urban Area 2.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
This property is loc at ed on Rio Road East (State Route #631), about 900 feet from the int ersection of Rio Road Eas t (State Rout e 631) and
Seminole Trail (State Route #29). Currently, there is no ac tive use of the subject property . The s urrounding area is developed with
commerc ial us es (Albemarle Square), multifamily housing and the Woodbrook subdivision (Attac hment B).
STAFF COMMENT:
I. CRITICAL SLOPES WAI VER
The proposed development will require the dist urbance of c ritic al s lopes. A modification to allow critical slopes dis turbance is nec es s ary
before the s ite plan c an be approved by the Planning Commis sion. The request for a modification has been rev iewed for both the
Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Sec tion 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance res tricts earthdisturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commiss ion to waive this res triction. The applicant has submitted a
request and jus tific ation for the waiver [Attachment C], and s taff has analy zed this reques t t o address the provisions of the Ordinanc e.
The c ritic al s lopes in the area of this request appear to be manmade. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for t he
concerns that are set forth in Sec tion 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinanc e, ent itled “Critic al Slopes.” Thes e concerns hav e been address ed directly
through the analy sis provided herein, whic h is present ed in two parts, bas ed on the Section of the Ordinanc e eac h pertains to.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Current Development Engineering staff:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The original reques t f or a waiv er to develop on areas of critical slope for grading incorporated with propos ed development on TMP 61124
was received on 1 J une 2009. A revised waiver reques t, reflecting changes to the site plan based on disc uss ion at the June 23rd Planning
Commis sion meeting, was received on 13 J uly 2009. The existing critical slopes and propos ed grading are s hown on the Preliminary Sit e
Plan dated 13 July 2009.
The engineering analy sis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The c ritic al s lope areas within TMP 61124 c ontain both natural and presumably manmade critical slope areas . Please s ee the applic ant’s
waiv er reques t for details on these areas and the perc entages of disturbanc e.
Some of the dist urbance to the s lopes impact ed in the construc tion of the roads c onnecting t he Arden Place dev elopment to Putt Putt
Plac e and Rio Road c an be c ons idered ex empt from the requirement of a waiv er under Sec tion 184.2.6.c for ac ces sways . Critic al s lopes
dis turbed for installation of the sanitary s ewer are als o ex empt under 184.2.6.c . The remainder of the critical slopes disturbance is f or the
construct ion of the Clubhouse, adjacent parking, and the acc ess way direct ly to Rio Road. This is in the area of the presumable manmade
critical slopes .
Ac ces s to the Arden Place development is unattainable from Putt Putt Place without the dist urbance of c ritic al s lopes; no alternativ es to
this dis turbanc e ex ist. The acc ess way connec ting to Rio Road c ould be built in a diff erent alignment , potentially les sening the critical slope
impact. Howev er, the proposed alignment is the most logical considering f uture development of the commercial portion of the property .
This alignment als o causes the least disturbance to the existing veget ation on the property , t hereby maintaining the forest ed appearanc e
preferred by the County ARB. Critic al s lopes dis turbed by this alignment are thos e that are pres umably manmade.
Below, eac h of the concerns of Zoning Ordinanc e sec tion 184.2 is address ed:
1. “rapid and/or large sc ale movement of soil and roc k”: The areas of c rit ic al s lope disturbanc e are slim bands of what is
presumed to be a fill area f rom the construction of t he mall. Large sc ale movement of soil and roc k is not anticipated to oc cur
as a result of this c ons truc tion.
2. “ex ces sive stormwater runoff”: Conc eptual stormwater management, as s hown on the preliminary s ite plan will be refined
prior to Current Dev elopment engineering approval of the f inal s ite plan. Excessive s tormwater runoff is not ex pec ted to
occur.
3. “siltation of natural and manmade bodies of water”: The applic ant will submit an Eros ion and Sediment Control Plan with
the Final Site Plan which will be rev iewed for County and State c ompliance. Propos ed E&S measures are anticipated to
reduce s edimentladen runoff f rom leaving the s ite. Inspection and bonding by the County will monitor maintenance of t he
erosion cont rol fac ilities during construct ion. Proper s tabilization and maintenanc e will ac hieve long term s tability.
4. “loss of aesthetic res ource”: The disturbance of t he exis ting critical slopes with this dev elopment inv olv es the removal of
exis ting vegetat ion.
5. “septic effluent”: The exist ing subdivision is served by public s ewer and there are no s eptic drainfields wit hin the area of
this disturbance.
No portion of this s it e plan is located inside the 100year flood plain area ac cording to FEMA Maps, dated 04 February 2005.
Based on the above rev iew, the applic ant has satisfactorily addressed the technic al c riteria for the dis turbance of critical slopes.
The c ritic al s lopes areas dis turbed are not delineated as a significant res ource on the Open Space and Critical Resourc es Plan. Staff
believes there is no signific ant loss of resources related to the disturbance of the c rit ic al s lopes .
Review of the request by Current Development Planning staff:
Summary of review of modifi cation of Secti on 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 es tablis hes the review proces s and criteria for granting a waiver of Sect ion 4.2.3. The prec eding c omments by staff address
the prov isions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has inc luded the provisions of Sec tion 4.2.5.3 here, along with staff comment on the v arious
provisions .
The c ommiss ion may modify or waive any requirement of sec tion 4.2 in a particular case upon finding that:
A. Stric t applic ation of the requirements of sec tion 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this c hapter or otherwise s erve t he public
health, safety or welfare;
Stric t applic ation of the requirements of section 4.2 would require t he reloc ating of the proposed pool house and adjacent parking.
The applicant would have to redesign the apartment c omplex and c hange the propos ed layout. This would not forward the purposes
of this c hapter or otherwise s erve the public, health, safety, or welfare. Approving the waiver will allow infill dev elopment in t he
dev elopment area.
B. Alternativ es propos ed by the dev eloper or subdivider would satisfy t he intent and purposes of sec tion 4.2 to at leas t an
equiv alent degree;
The dev eloper or subdivider has not proposed any alternativ es that would satisfy the intent and purposes of sec tion 4.2 to at least
an equivalent degree.
C. Due to the property ’s unus ual siz e, topography , s hape, loc at ion or ot her unusual c onditions , ex cluding the proprietary interest of
the developer or s ubdivider, prohibiting the disturbanc e of c ritic al s lopes would effect iv ely prohibit or unreas onably restric t the use
of the property or would res ult in signif ic ant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
Prohibiting t he dis turbanc e of critical slopes would not effectively prohibit or unreasonably res trict the use of the property. Adjacent
properties will not be impac ted by the pool house that is sited at the area with the critical slopes; therefore, there s hould be no
detrimental effects t o public health, s afet y, and welf are. Approv ing the waiv er would not be detrimental to t he orderly development
of the area and would not res ult in signific ant degradation of the property or adjac ent properties .
D. Granting the modif ic at ion or waiv er would s erve a public purpose of greater import t han would be serv ed by strict application of
the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Grant ing the waiver would serv e a public purpose of greater import. Granting the waiver will allow the construction of an apartment
complex on the R15 portion of the property . The public purpos e serv ed will be the av ailability of mark et rate apartment units
dev eloped as inf ill development. The projec t will enric h and provide a mix of housing within the area.
CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER RECOMMENDATI ON:
Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver.
II. BUFFER DISTURBANCE WAIVER
21.7(c) buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural area
Section 1821.7.c.1 prov ides that a 20’ undisturbed buffer is required between commercial and residential us es, howev er, the Planning
Commis sion may waiv e the prohibit ion of construction ac tivity, grading, or the clearing of v egetation in t he buffer if the provisions of
Section 21.7.c .1 are satisfied.
[Section 21.7.c] Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No const ruction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation s hall occur c loser than twenty (20) feet to any resident ial or rural areas dis trict.
Sc reening s hall be prov ided as required in sec tion 32.7.9. (Amended 9992)
[Section 21.7.c.1] Waiver by the commission. The c ommission may waiver the prohibition of c ons truc tion activity ,
grading or the clearing of veget ation in t he buffer in a particular c ase where the dev eloper or s ubdiv ider demonstrat es
that grading or c learing is necessary or would result in an improv ed site design, provided that: (i) minimum sc reening
requirements are met; and (ii) ex isting landscaping in exc ess of minimum requirements is restored. (Added 71085)
DISCUSSION
The ac ces s to the propos ed development c rosses the C1 (commercial) z oned portion of the property. A 20 f oot undis turbed buffer is
required between Commercial zoned property and res identially zoned (R15) property . The proposed acc ess c rosses the commerc ially
zoned property into the (R15) residential property where it dis turbs the 20 f oot buffer. St aff has reviewed t he buffer waiv er reques t in light of
Ordinance requirements :
[Section 21.7.c.1] Waiver by the commission. The c ommission may waiver the prohibition of c ons truc tion activity ,
grading or the clearing of veget ation in t he buffer in a particular c ase where the dev eloper or s ubdiv ider demonstrat es
that grading or c learing is necessary or would res ult in an improv ed s it e design, provided that:
(i) minimum screening requirements are met; and
(ii) existing landscaping in exc ess of minimum requirements is restored. (Added 71085)
i.) Minimum s creening requirements are met:
The applicant in his waiv er justification has ex pres s ed that the primary ac ces s road connecting the development wit h Putt Putt Plac e/Rio
Hill Drive mus t cros s through the commerc ial portion of the propert y in order to acc ess a public street for the residential portion of the
property . The road is nec es s ary and required, and cannot be routed through anot her location that would avoid disturbance of the
commerc ial buffer area. The applic ant has agreed to prov ide lands c ape screening to satisfy ordinance s creening requirement s.
ii.) Existing lands caping in excess of minimum requirements is restored
Architec tural Rev iew Board s taff has reviewed the preliminary site plan and will be work ing with current development staff to make s ure t hat
the entire 50 foot buffer/setback is landscaped in excess of the minimum requirements. In an ARB action memo dated May 8th 2009 the
ARB s tates t hat it supports the maintenance of the buffer as well as a road configurat ion that minimizes impacts to the buffer.
SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW:
Staff review has res ulted in fav orable findings :
Favorabl e factors:
1. The applicant will screen the buffer per the requirements of Sec tion 32.7.9.8.
2. No alternat iv e location ex is ts for road acc ess to the residential portion of Tax Map 61 and Parcel 124.
Unfavorable factors:
1. None
BUFFER DISTURBANCE WAIVER RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the 20 foot buffer disturbance waiver.
Review of the Preliminary Site Plan:
BACKGROUND: The preliminary s ite plan has been c alled up for planning c ommiss ion review by the agent. The preliminary s ite plan has
been reviewed by the Sit e Review Committee. Staff’s analysis of pertinent issues is as follows:
TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ANALYSI S
The proposed Arden Plac e dev elopment met VDOT t hres holds to require a Traffic Impact Analy sis. To inc orporate c hanges made to the
plan after the June 23rd Planning Commis sion Meeting, the s tudy was rev is ed. The sc ope of the rev is ed s tudy is shown below [Figure 1].
VDOT has approved the revised Traffic Study. The new study s hows les s delay time for the leftturn mov ement from Putt Putt onto Rio
than was antic ipated with the original study. Signal warrants are not met for the Putt Putt Place / Rio Road inters ection and it can remain
as a f ullac ces s intersec tion.
Per section 32.7.2.4 of the Zoning Ordinanc e, a multifamily development with 50 or more units mus t have two connec tion points to public
street s. One of these c onnec tion points is propos ed at Rio Road and PuttPut t Place. To meet the requirements of the ordinance two
additional connec tion points have been s tudied as opt ions for mak ing that s econd c onnection. These connect ions include a direct link from
the property to Rio Road as shown on the Site Plan and an alternative c onnection to the Carmik e Theater park ing lot north of the Albemarle
Square shopping center. From the Carmik e park ing lot, the path to Rte 29 pass es directly in front of the c inema causing potential traffic
haz ards, and then travels north and wes t on Gardens Blvd where it allows a rightt urnout onto Rte 29 N. Staff has determined that either of
these opt ions will meet the criteria of section 32.7.2.4. The propos ed Carmik e connec tion will be disc uss ed in greater detail at the end of
the st aff report.
The favorable and unfavorable feat ures /fac tors of the direct connec tion to Rio Road as s hown on the preliminary site plan are as follows:
Direct Connection to Rio Road
Favorabl e:
The full length of t he c onnection can be designed and constructed to meet the standards of the Ordinance for private
streets or travelway s.
Does not have abutting parking.
Inc ludes an adjac ent sidewalk to fac ilitate pedestrians.
Unfavorable:
Adds another vehic ular entranc e onto Rio Road, causing potential traffic c onflic ts .
Requires the construc tion of a road through a currently v acant parcel that may in the f uture be dev eloped in a manner
that requires its rec ons truction.
Requires disturbance of exis ting forested parcel that would ot herwis e be delayed until t he parcel is developed.
Does not less en t he development’s traffic impac ts to the Rio/29 inters ection.
Could encourage more ut urn mov ements at the Albemarle Square/Rio inters ection.
Construction of the Access up to Albemarle Square
Construction of t he Acc ess to Albemarle Square.
Ac ces s to Albemarle Square is not shown bec aus e there is a proposed s econd point of ac ces s to a public s treet through a new access
eas ement to Rio Road as shown on t he preliminary site plan. The owners of Albemarle Square have not agreed/declined to giv e an access
eas ement through their property .
Construction of Pedestrian/Bike Access to the Albemarle County Lagoon Project.
An informal sy stem of trails currently c rosses the Arden Plac e propert y. These trails link the Mallside development with Gardens Shopping
Center and Woodbrook . The trails appear to be regularly used. The informal sys tem of trails demonstrates that connec tivity will be utiliz ed
if it is inc orporated into the Arden Plac e development.
Current Development is requesting that the Planning Commis s ion c ons ider Pedestrian/Bike access that would connec t Albemarle Square
to the adjac ent Albemarle Count y property. The pedestrian/trail ac ces s from Arden Place would c onnect t o t he Albemarle County Lagoon
Projec t as s hown below [Figure 2]. The c ons truc tion of the ac ces s would be consistent with the Neighborhood Model for dev elopment and
the 2008 Citiz en Survey. The pedestrian/bicyc le access would f ac ilitate ac ces s to a public open s pac e area.
FI GURE 2: ALBEMARLE COUNTY WOODBROOK LAGOON PROJECT
The Neighborhood Model des cribes the more "urban" form of development des ired for the Dev elopment Areas. It es tablis hes the 12
Principles for Development t hat should be adhered to in new dev elopment propos als. These firs t 3 princ iples are:
Pedestrian Orientation
Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths
Trans portat ion Network s and Interconnec ted Streets
The 2008 Citiz en Survey ranked “Prov ide safe plac es to walk and bik e where you want to go” and “Ens ure safety for walkers and bicy clists”
with moderate importanc e. Prov iding trails acros s the Arden propert y is consis tent wit h the res ults of the Citizen Surv ey . Staff is aware t hat
Woodbrook residents hav e rais ed concerns about prov iding a pedestrian trail in the Arden Plac e dev elopment that would c onnec t to the
Woodbrook Subdivision. The proposed trail(s) will link to the Albemarle County Lagoon project. Staf f rec ommends that the current trail(s) on
the ground be made permanent within the Arden Place development and then have the trail(s ) c onnect to a public space.
15.4.2 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Open space dedication to the County for a density increase)
The Ordinance s tates;
For dedic ation of land to public use not otherwise required by law, dens ity may be increased as f ollows : The ac reage of the land dedicated
and accepted s hall be multiplied by twic e the gros s density s tandard level, and the res ulting number of dwellings may be added to the s ite,
provided that the density inc reas e shall not exc eed fifteen (15) perc ent. The dedic ation shall be ac cepted by the board of s uperv is ors prior
to final approval. For prov is ion of road improvements to s econdary or primary roads not otherwise required by this ordinanc e or Chapter 14
of the Code of Albemarle, a density inc rease up to twenty (20) percent shall be granted, to be agreed upon by the commis sion and the
applicant, based upon the relative need for trans portation improvements in the area. The need for s uch improv ements shall be es tablis hed
by the Virginia Department of Highway s and Transportation. (Amended 814 85)
The applicant has requested that the County c ons ider acceptanc e of open space that would c ontain a walking path to c onnect the
Woodbrook Lagoon Projec t t o Rio Road. In analyz ing whether staff can rec ommend ac ceptanc e of the open space to t he Board, s taff
consults the Comprehens iv e Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan speak s to open space and paths in general, pedes trian c onnections , and greenways . The County s hows its
planned greenways on the adopted Greenway s map and there is not one specific ally at this location. Paths, though, are important features
of the des ignated development areas because of t heir ability to create a pedestrian orientation and interc onnections (goals from the
Neighborhood Model) and an alternate t rans portat ion option (Land Use Plan). Open s pac e in the designated development areas is als o a
goal of the Neighborhood Model.
In this particular case, staff believes that the proposed open space with a path helps to achiev e sev eral goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
It helps to provide a pedestrian c onnection between t wo public areas County owned open s pac e (the Lagoon area) and Rio Road. It
provides the opportunity for pedest rians to walk to the Movie Theater/shopping center as well. The recreational areas of the County land
can be acc ess ed from the path. Finally , it helps to prov ide alternativ es to automobile transportation.
Sinc e density bonuses are available through several means, including dedication of open s pac e or provision of aff ordable housing, st aff
has analyz ed the reques t for the benefits of affordable housing at this location. There are two ot her affordable housing complexes nearby,
with one being adjacent to t he property in question. After dis cus sing this is sue with the Director of Hous ing, s taff believ es that while
affordable hous ing is desirable ev erywhere, an abundance of aff ordable housing in one s pot is not as desirable. Dispersing aff ordable
housing is in k eeping with the Neighborhood Model’s recommendation t hat aff ordable housing be integrated into many areas , not
established as an enc lave.
The pedestrian path propos ed would be built to ADA standards , would be ten feet in width, and would meet the County ’s s tandards
established in the Design Standards Manual. This is a benefit to the County as a public path. The features of c ons truc tion will ens ure that
the County ’s need for maintenanc e will be minimal in the first years . It is ex pec ted that the owner of the apartment c omplex will provide the
grass mowing in the associated easement as part of t he general maintenanc e of the facility.
Staff recommends that the full density increase be gi ven for the open space and construction and dedication of the pedestrian
path that will connect two public areas.
SUMMARY OF STAFF REVIEW:
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary site pl an with the following conditions:
A. Mus t c omply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field ins pec tion and v erification. [Fire
and Rescue]
B. RWSA capac ity certific ation is required before final site plan approval can be granted.
C. Propos ed wooded area must meet the definition of “wooded area” found in section 3. [Albemarle County z oning ordinance].
An arborist report and a tree preserv ation plan mus t be submitted with the final site plan.
D. A conserv ation plan check list must be shown on the final site plan. The conservation plan c hec klist will hav e t o be check ed
and signed [Albemarle County Code s ection 32.7.9.4.b.]
E. Applic ant mus t obtain VDOT approv al before final s ite plan approv al c an be granted.
F. Albemarle County Current Development Engineering approval mus t be obtained.
G. Add the following 2 notes to the Arden Plac e ADA Trail Feasibilit y Ex hibit dated 8509, and include the exhibit in t he final
site plan. The first s hould go abov e the part t hat begins, "Trail width...” It should say , "ADA Standards Lis ted in the Virginia
Trail way s Toolbox". The sec ond note s hould s ay, "The trails s hall be ac ces sible and also conform t o s tandards for Class A
Ty pe 2 Trails as desc ribed in the Albemarle County Des ign Standards Manual."
H. Applic ant mus t addres s all outs tanding ARB c onditions before final s ite plan approv al c an be granted.
DISCUSSION: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: [Proposed Carmike Connection]
The applicant is purs uing a vehic ular c onnection through the adjacent Carmike Parcel [Tax Map 45 Parc el 104B5] shown below. I f the
connec tion/easement is acquired, the applicant would like t o us e this c onnection as the projec t’s second point of acc ess to a public street
with the first connect ion being the ac c es s to be construc ted to Putt Putt Place [See Figure 3] below. Cons equently, t he connec tion to Rio
Road with a right turn out as shown on the current s ite plan would not be built. The applicant has submitted an ex hibit of the propos ed
connec tion to the Carmike property.
Fi gure 3: Connection to Carmike Theater Parking Lot
Fav orable and unfavorable factors/features of the connec tion to the Carmike Property are as follows :
Favorabl e:
Prov ides direct vehic ular c onnection for the development to the adjac ent shopping center without the need t o us e Rio
Road.
Will less en the development’s traffic impac ts to the Rio/29 inters ection.
Does not require additional entranc es onto stat e roads.
May require improv ements to an existing culv ert c rossing of an intermit tent (nonbuffered) stream. The ex is ting c ulv ert
is in deteriorating condition; therefore, improvements/upgrades would be beneficial.
Unfavorable:
§ Further impac ts to natural critical slopes (although dis turbance is exempt under acc ess provision).
§ Only the new portion of this trav elway can be designed and c ons tructed to meet the s tandards of the
Ordinance for priv ate streets, the majority of this c onnection to Rte 29 already exists and may meet a lesser
standard.
§ A portion of the trav elway to the state road has abutting parking (Carmike Theater parking) whic h can cause a
potent ial t raffic hazard.
The updated traffic study took the Carmike property connec tion int o acc ount, and the relev ant dat a was inc luded in the t raffic analy sis . The
applicant is reques ting that if t he eas ement through the Carmike propert y is ac quired, they be allowed to show/build the connec tion to the
Carmike property at t he final site plan stage, without having to come back before the Planning Commis sion for approv al. Staff has receiv ed
all the nec es s ary data and analy sis related to the proposed Carmik e Connection, and has no objec tion to the applic ant’s request. Staff has
no objection to the Planning Commiss ion choos ing to approve the preliminary s ite plan with the knowledge that the Carmike c onnection
could be feasible. With Planning Commission c ons ent, the change in t he approv ed preliminary site plan would not necessitate further action
by the Planning Commission. Without Planning Commission consent, the c onnection to the Carmik e property would require additional
Planning Commission rev iew.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vic inity Map
C. Applicant’s Justification Letters
D. Critical Slopes for TMP 61124
E. Arden Place Carmike Connec tion and letter
F. Woodlands Exhibit with Carmike Connection
G. Open Spac e Dedication with Carmike Connection
H. Woodbrook Lagoons Enhanc ement Project Det ails
Return to ex ec summary
Go to next attachment
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Road Bridges
Road Centerlines
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Railroad Bridges
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
Y2007 1 ft Orthophotography
Red: Band_1
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band_3
ARDEN PLACE Sdp 200900009 Vicinity Map Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia June 16, 2009
1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2009
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
• Meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Eric
Strucko. PC members present were Mr. Morris,
Mr. Loach, Ms. Porterfield, Ms. Joseph, Mr.
Edgerton, Mr. Franco and Mr. Strucko. Mr.
Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m. Julia Monteith was
absent.
• Staff present was Gerald Gatobu, David
Benish, W ayne Cilimberg, Bill Fritz, Amy
Pflaum, Elaine Echols, Sharon Taylor and Greg
Kamptner.
2. Committee Reports
• Mr. Morris reported that last week the Pantops
Steering Advisory Committee briefed the Board
of Supervisors.
• No action required.
3. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public
Hearing on the Agenda.
• None
• No action required.
4. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting –
September 2, 2009.
• No action required.
5. Consent Agenda
Accept applications and/or refer the following to the
Agricultural Forestal District Advisory Committee:
Review of the Jacob’s Run
Agricultural/Forestal District
Yellow Mountain Addition
Moorman’s River Addition
Carter’s Bridge Addition
South Garden Addition
Kinloch Additions
Jacob’s Run Addition
Buck’s Elbow Mountain Creation
Lanark Addition
Staff:
• Action Letters – Acceptance of
applications and/or referral to
Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory
Committee. (Attachment 1 - full
descriptions).
• Staff to provide maps of the
additions/new districts to the
Commissioners.
2
Free Union Addition
Buck Mountain Addition
Blue Run Addition
Keswick Addition
Batesville Addition
Eastman Addition
Hardware Addition
High Mowing Addition
Chalk Mountain Addition
Sugar Hollow Addition
Fox Mountain Creation
Ivy Creek Addition
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a vote of 6:0.
(Attachment 1)
6. Work Session
CPA-2008-00003 Village of Rivanna Master Plan
– W ork session on Draft Plan dated August 26,
2009, also including Resolution of Intent to amend
the Comprehensive Plan. (Elaine Echols)
• The Commission discussed and asked
questions about the Draft Plan dated August
26, 2009, took public comment and provided
guidance and feedback.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION OF INTENT, by a vote
of 6:0 to proceed to public hearing.
Clerk:
• Staff to incorporate the Commission’s
comments into the next draft of the
Village of Rivanna Master Plan document
as summarized in Attachment 1 and
bring back for Commission review at a
future work session. (Attachment 2 –
Comments)
• Resolution of Intent approved with
request for staff to schedule public
hearing prior to December.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:16
p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:24 p.m.
Mr. Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m.
7. Deferred Item
SDP-2009-00009 Arden Place
The request is for preliminary site plan approval of
212 multifamily residential apartment units and a
club house on the R15 residential zoned portion of
Tax Map 61 Parcel 124 which consists of 11.350
acres. Associated waivers include section 4.2
(critical slopes) and section 21.7.c (disturbance of a
buffer zone adjacent to a residential district).
(Gerald Gatobu) DEFERRED FROM THE JUNE
23, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
• APPROVED CRITIC AL SLOPE WAIVER
REQUEST, by a vote of 7:0 per Section 4.2 of
County Code based on the findings in the staff
report.
Clerk:
• Action Letters – (does not go to Board of
Supervisors) for critical slope waiver,
buffer disturbance waiver and preliminary
site plan. (Attachment 3 – Conditions
of Approval)
• Action Letter – Recommendation of open
space dedication to the Board of
Supervisors to be heard at a date to be
determined. (The tentative date is
November 4) (Attachment 3 –
Conditions of Approval)
3
• APPROVED BUFFER DISTURBANCE
WAIVER REQUEST, by a vote of 7:0 per
Section 21.7.c1 of the County Code for the
reasons recommended by staff.
• APPROVED SDP-2009-00009 Arden Place
preliminary site plan, by a vote of 7:0 with
conditions as recommended by staff and
modified by the Planning Commission.
(Attachment 3 – conditions of approval)
• RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF OPEN
SPACE DEDIC ATION TO THE BO ARD OF
SUPERVISORS, by a vote of 7:0, with
conditions. (Attachment 3 – conditions of
approval)
8. • Old Business
• Mr. Franco noted a phone call from a business in his
district regarding delayed scheduling of a ZMA and
SP.
• Staff responded that scheduling was
based on the schedule for review of
submitted information. The applicant
recently submitted new proffers, which
went under review as of today. The
earliest date the project could be
scheduled after comments are provided
to the applicant following staff review
would be Nov. 10. Staff will contact the
applicant and provide them an option of
being scheduled in October if they do not
wish to receive staff comments.
9. • New Business
• Staff is working on the critical slope
provisions and plans to hold a round
table and work session in the winter.
10. Adjourn to September 15, 2009, 6:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office Building,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:39 p.m.
Attachment 1 - PC Referral Consent Agenda Text
Attachment 2 - CPA-2008-00003 Village of Rivanna Master Plan – Resolution of Intent and Planning
Commission Comments and Suggestions
Attachment 3 – SDP-2009-00009 Arden Place – Conditions of Approval
4
Attachment 3 – SDP-2009-00009 Arden Place – Conditions of Approval
By a vote of 7:0 the Planning Commission approved SDP-2009-00009 Arden Place with the
conditions recommended by staff, amended, as follows:
A. Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field
inspection and verification. [Fire and Rescue]
B. RWSA capacity certification is required before final site plan approval can be granted.
C. Proposed wooded area must meet the definition of “wooded area” found in section 3.
[Albemarle County zoning ordinance]. An arborist report and a tree preservation plan
must be submitted with the final site plan.
D. A conservation plan checklist must be shown on the final site plan. The conservation plan
checklist will have to be checked and signed [Albemarle County Code section 32.7.9.4.b.]
E. Applicant must obtain VDOT approval before final site plan approval can be granted.
F. Albemarle County Current Development Engineering approval must be obtained.
G. Add the following 2 notes to the Arden Place ADA Trail Feasibility Exhibit dated 8-5-09,
and include the exhibit in the final site plan. The first should go above the part that
begins, "Trail width...” It should say, "ADA Standards Listed in the Virginia Trail ways
Toolbox". The second note should say, "The trails shall have ADA-accessible grade and
conform to standards for Class A, Type 1 Trails as described in the Albemarle County
Design Standards Manual." The 5-foot wide path shall not extend north of the Carmike
pedestrian connection.
H. There will be no vehicular access to Rio Road from Arden Place other than from Putt Putt
Place if vehicular access to Carmike is provided.
I. Applicant must address all outstanding ARB conditions before final site plan approval can
be granted.
The Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors of an open space
dedication including a proposed pedestrian path running from Rio Road to the potential Carmike entrance
and an additional land dedication to be defined by staff before it goes to the Board as follows:
1. The dedication would be in the area behind Building 6 adjacent to the Lagoon project.
2. The path shall be designed as a 5-foot wide Class A, Type 1 path with ADA-compliant grades.
The applicant will provide maintenance of that path.
3. If either of the Commission’s recommended conditions change as part of the Board’s acceptance,
the changes do not affect the Commission’s preliminary site plan approval.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 8, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work ses sion and meeting on Tuesday,
September 8, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loac h,
Vice C hairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. D on Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m. Julia Monteith, AIC P, nonvoting
representative for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amy Pflaum,
Senior Engineer; Gerald Gatobu, Princ ipal Planner; Dav id Benish, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current
Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
The Planning C ommission took a break at 7:16 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:24 p.m.
Mr. Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m.
Gerald Gatobu presented a Pow erPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
The request, SDP200900009, Arden Place is for preliminary site plan approval for a 212 unit multifamily
residential apartment c omplex with a c lub house on the R 15 residential zoned portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 124
which c onsists of 11.35 acres. Assoc iated waivers include section 4.2 (critical slopes) and section 21.7.c
(disturbanc e of a buffer zone adjacent to a res idential district) The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel
124 is 11.35 acres in size, is located in the Rio magisterial district and is zoned R15 Residential and EC
entranc e c orridor.
There are four items before the Planning C ommission tonight for the following: Critical Slopes Waiver,
Requested Buffer Disturbance, Preliminary Site Plan and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
for open space. Four actions are being requested.
The proposed changes to the site plan include the following:
There is now a second point of access that meets ordinance Section 32.7.2.4 for a second point to a public
street. It goes down towards Rio Road. For the most part that is the biggest change.
There is also a path that connects and goes dow n all the way to the Woodbrook Lagoon project. That is
something that has been added. It is kind of a pedes trian path that will be going towards the Conway
property.
There is a potential for a future connection to the Conway property that staff added to the s taff report as a
point of discussion.
There is also a revised traffic analy sis that was als o present in the staff report. J oel D eNunz io as well as the
representative for the applicant is present to ans wer questions about the traffic impacts to this.
The c ritical slopes waiver and the buffer disturbance waiver really has not changed apart from the fact that the
road will now be going downhill disturbing some critical slopes that are basically manmade.
There is a connection over to the County of Albemarle Lagoon Project. Concept plan had already been
prepared. This is going to be a point of discussion and emphasis for a lot of the public present. There is a
proposed bike rake at the intersection. There are four parking spaces, benches and a meadow overlook. Staff
is proposing that the path come in and connect to this public space so that people can take adv antage of this
public open space. That is something staff is proposing and w ould be more than happy to talk about.
The applicant has made the two points of c onnection based on that. Staff recommends approval of the critical
slopes w aiver and the buffer disturbance waiver.
Mr. Struck o asked if the critical slopes were man made.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes. There are some areas of critic al slopes within the C1 parcel. There is no site plan.
Staff can approv e the critical slopes administratively if there is a site plan that showed the critical slopes and
how they were made in that property. Staff agrees that most of the fill came from the shopping center site and
was dumped onto this property. Since there is no site plan that shows that staff has to bring the request before
the Planning Commiss ion for a critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Struck o asked if the two points of c onnection are Forest Court and Rio.
Mr. Gatobu replied that is correct.
Mr. Struck o asked if the buffer disturbance is because of the road.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes because there is a 20’ buffer between a commerc ial and a res idential distric t. They have
to come before the Planning Commission per Section 21.7.c for the buffer disturbance w aiver in cases w here
staff c annot do that administratively.
Mr. Struck o asked about the open space.
Mr. Gatobu pointed out the open space. The green space is show n in the staff report as going all the way
down the property. There is w ooded area that will be preserved for which the applicant gets a 10 percent
density bonus.
Mr. Struck o said that the pedestrian path connects to the Lagoon Project.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes, and that in the staff report it shows the pedestrian path going straight into the Lagoon
project.
Mr. Struck o invited other questions for s taff.
Ms. Porterfield said that with regard to the path she noticed that it is 10’ w ide. She asked if that so it is ADA
compliant.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes, that it is one of the standards that they hav e. He pointed out the trail standards in the
Design Standards Manual. W hat they have chos en is a Class A Ty pe 2 low maintenance multi use shed path.
It is the one that requires the least amount of maintenance in this case. They did not randomly pick , but chose
the bes t available type of path or trail.
Mr. Struck o asked if it was an asphalt path impervious s urface.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes that it was 10’ suffice and 2 cleared shoulder. They chose the grades to be ADA
accessible.
Mr. Edgerton said that the preliminary site plan shows the two connections going out to Rio Road and yet in
the staff report at the v ery end on page 12 it states that the applicant is purs uing a connection from the
Carmike w hich would become the secondary road. Then the road to Rio would not. He assumed that the
Commis sion being ask ed to approve a plan that he really does not want to proceed w ith because if he goes to
the Carmik e he will not be doing the connection to Rio. H e asked if that was correc t.
Mr. Fritz noted that there were two iss ues there. One, that the plan before the Commission does not have the
Carmike access. The applicant is proposing that. W hat they have done is prov ided that information to the
Commis sion in the event that if the applicant is able to secure that acces s and decides that he wants to go
through w ith that staff would consider that to be a major change to the site plan and the final site plan would
come bac k before the Planning Commiss ion. Staff w anted to present that to the Commis sion at this meeting
so that if the Commission had a strong feeling one w ay or the other that information could be provided to the
applicant. For example, if the Commission felt that the Carmike acces s is not a good access there is not
much point in the applic ant continuing to pursue it. W hen the final comes through then the Commis sion would
likely not approve that. If they thought it w as a better access than the Rio access, then they could
theoretically allow staff to administratively approve the final site plan with the Carmik e access and not having
to bring it back to the Commission. So the Carmike access is s imply being provided for information right now.
The plan before the Commis sion does not have the Carmike access. If the applicant gets the Carmik e access
staff will bring the final site plan back to the Commis sion for additional consideration unles s they tell staff at
this meeting it does not need to be.
Mr. Struck o asked how viable the Carmike access for vehicular travel or a throughw ay is. It is a parking lot.
Mr. Fritz replied that it goes through the travel way and parking lots of the Garden Shopping Center. In the
staff report it is noted that there are some issues with that. It is not an ideal situation by any stretch of the
imagination. But it does afford the opportunity to get into to the Gardens Shopping Center w hich then gets one
to Route 29 either farther north of Albemarle Square or going south to use the light at Albemarle Square.
Mr. Struck o asked whic h c onnection that would be in lieu of, and Mr. Fritz replied the direct Rio connection and
not the Putt Putt connection.
Mr. Edgerton noted that was shown clearly on Sheet 5 which is identified as Arden Place Preliminary Site Plan
as is the one on the screen before us. If nothing else they need to figure out w hich one if they tak e staff’s
recommendation for approval
Mr. Gatobu said that it w ould be the one shown on the screen that has the connection to R io.
Ms. Porterfield said if she understands correctly if the Commis sion is w illing to go w ith the Carmike acc ess in
lieu of they could word the resolution s uch that staff would have the ability to do that.
Mr. Edgerton s aid what of the Commis sion would be telling staff essentially is that they did not view the
Carmike connection to be a substantial change from the preliminary warranting the final coming bac k before the
Planning Commission. It would still have to go through all of the administrative review, engineering and so
forth.
Mr. Struck o asked if the pedestrian pathway could be ADA compliant and have a pervious surface.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes. In this case it is actually shown in the Design Standard Manual. For the most being
that wide allow s the path to be of a w idth of the Americans with D isability Ac t. They w ant to try really hard to
work with the grades to make sure that happens. Staff talked to Parks and Rec, who are the experts on the
trails, and they are very complimentary in w hat they want to do. Staff reviewed the ex hibit submitted by the
applicant and asked if it something they would recommend in terms of the design and they said yes that they
would highly recommend it. Parks and Rec were very impressed that the applicant went w ith the 10’ wide
path. In terms of safety the wider path would allow one to see a little further making it safer.
Ms. Joseph asked if this pathway would become property of the County of Albemarle.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes. The applicant has agreed to do maintenance because it will be part of the parcel of
their development. It is to their benefit to have it more than looking nice. So the applicant has agreed to do
that as well. They are ready to work w ith the County in terms of maintaining it.
Ms. J oseph asked about the buffer disturbance. In one paragraph s taff states that the Architectural R eview
Board will be working to make sure that 50’ buffer is landscaped. She asked if was in their purview to do that.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes. The first site plan that came in had a traffic circle. The AR B asked that the applicant
change the intersection so that they can reduc e the amount of buffer disturbance. The applicant complied with
that. The AR B has reviewed the plan and has given some c omments and direction in terms of the buffer as
well.
Ms. Joseph asked if that does not have to be a condition of approval for the ARB to grant them.
Mr. Gatobu said that it is a condition that is included that they need to get Architectural Review Board
approval.
Mr. Struc ko noted that one of the issues they discussed that las t time they looked at this was the impact of
traffic on Rio Road and the time element to get out of this dev elopment. He asked if they have addres sed that
at all in the plan before the C ommission that excludes the Carmike connection. He asked if they are still faced
with the same issues about the 20 minutes.
Mr. Gatobu said that the applicant has revised the traffic study. He asked that Joel DeN unzio or Amy Pflaum
address that issue.
Joel DeN unzio noted that they have received a revised traffic study from the applicant. There w ere a couple of
things in the first one that had around 1,100 seconds and 19 minutes delay on the left hand lane out of Putt
Putt. That w as not accurate. When they looked at the revised s tudy they found that the revisions included
accounting for the signal of Old Brook W ay up the way , which allow ed for some more gaps in the road that
made it a little bit better. But there was also the inc lusion as one comes out of Putt Putt Place if taking a left
there is actually a shared left turn lane on both sides . When including that left shared turning lane it actually
allows a two stage gap procedure form Putt Putt Place out to Rio R oad. So it allow s one to get the firs t gap
that is c reated off to the left from Old Brook Road intersection, you get in the median and then the gaps that
are created from the Albemarle Square signal you can proceed to go. So it is basically like having a median in
there. When accounting for the median being in place the levels of s erv ice to get out of that are ac ceptable.
Mr. Struck o noted that in the letter it notes that the delay drops to roughly 30 seconds .
Mr. DeN unzio replied that w as correc t. It was both the signal at Old Brook and the tw o way turn lane that
made thos e two changes.
Mr. Strucko asked if he had looked at any of the traffic work that would result from the connection to the
Carmike and the elimination of this road to R io Road directly.
Mr. DeNunzio replied that they hav e rev iewed that. Really making that connection to Carmik e does not have
much affect on traffic coming from Putt Putt Place onto R io Road making a left turn. He felt that it had a little
affect on the right turns from Rio Road to Route 29 North. He felt that it w as a little bit of an improvement in
the movement right there.
Mr. Struck o asked how VDOT views a c onnection through a parking lot.
Mr. DeNunzio said that this all private and internal. They really did not consider it. It really does not address
the issues that they had with the levels of service movements coming out of Putt Putt. As far as a second
connection here it shows a little bit of an improvement at the signal over there, but it might be it is not really a
travel w ay going through a parking lot. So making the connection has some benefit, but not as a true roadw ay.
As far as using that connection instead of the Rio Road connection, the additional rightin and rightout on Rio
Road, as far as the traffic goes he did not think that there was much increased benefit for one or the other
there. The Putt Putt Place and the Rio Road connection are so close that having a second connection to Rio
Road is acceptable. Last time they considered this they said they w ere putting more c onflict points on Rio
Road, w hich is never a desirable thing. It can work from a spacing perspective having a right turn lane going
into the rightin for this new connection, but as far as the traffic he did not think that it addresses any of the
issues. The left turn movement was always the conc ern. Having another rightin and rightout really does not
address that.
Mr. Strucko noted that what he heard Mr. DeNunzio saying was having the connection directly to Rio and
another connection through Putt Putt Place there is really no added benefit for the second connection.
Mr. DeN unzio replied traffic wise there w ould be no benefit until they get the commercial development in there,
which is when they might see a benefit from that second connection.
Mr. Struck o said that there is some benefit to connecting to Carmike, but it is not really a through way .
Mr. DeN unzio noted that he did not mean that the s econd Rio R oad connection is non desirable. W ith or
without it as far as VDOT is concerned that both are ac ceptable.
Ms. Joseph noted that in looking at a travel way as a park ing area they have done this at least twice in the
past. In Albemarle Place a travel way connected through the parking area. Als o, it was done in H ollymead
Town Center when they were looking at a travel way c onnecting through the commercial through the parking
areas back out onto R oute 29. So it is not anything new and different. It has been done before.
Mr. Strucko hoped that they could get more input on this from the applicant. He opened the public hearing and
invited the applicant to address the Commission.
Valerie Long, representative for the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the changes
in the proposal. (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation) She noted that other present included Andy
Megentee, Princ ipal of Coleway Development, LLC and Bill W rench, of R enaissanc e Planning Group who is
serving as traffic engineer for the project. They appreciate being back before the Planning Commission. Staff
has cov ered the changes very w ell. Therefore, she would skip through those changes in the interest of time.
She asked to highlight at the beginning that this is an infill development projec t. They pulled out a c opy of the
Comprehensive Land U se Plan that has a s ection in it that is often overlooked. That policy in many ways
was created precisely for this type of a project. It specifically states that infill development is considered
one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the
follow ing reasons: to use the development area lands in the most efficient manner possible, to dis courage
sprawl development and to maximize use and support of community facilities and infrastructure such as
roads, utilities and transit. Then it mentions specifically that there are much higher costs involved with
developing infill projects than there are compared with other sites and consideration of permitting more
intensive uses and densities on some properties may be nec essary to get development costs including
measures necessary to minimize impacts of development. When they looked at that policy this project
really included a lot of those challenges.
This is obviously an infill project surrounded by property that has already been developed on all sides at a
relatively intense stage. It is in the development area and is z oned for 226 units by right, w hich includes
the R15 density plus the automatic bonus densities that could be granted depending on the type of
project. It is pedestrian oriented. It is a good example of how development in the designated development
area when coordinated with surrounding development can really create a projec t that is very harmonious
with the Neighborhood Model Princ iples. Because of the w ay the property around this property has
development there are a v ariety of housing types with a mixture of uses w ith the retail and public spaces
nearby. It is walkable to a variety of destinations , which includes retail, office, professional and medical
offic es, recreational facilities and the public library, etc.
It is proposed as a market rate apartment community. They are pres erving 10 percent of the woodlands .
They are proposing to dedicate a sense of area of open spac e and the trails for public us e. There will be a
swimming pool and c lubhouse amenities on site. They are requesting the Commis sion to grant two
waivers to approve the site plan and also to weigh in on to the Board of Superv isors w ith regard to the open
spac e dedication. The pedestrian path connecting to the Lagoon Projec t is on the site plan. Regardless if
the C armike connection is ultimately developed they will develop the pedestrian path to connect to the
Carmike.
The darker green area is the tree preserv ation area that provides for some automatic bonus densities, which is
equiv alent to 17 units. The applicant ask s the C ommission to grant the c ritic al slopes waiver. The
disturbance for the road is exempt from the waiver requirements. But the disturbance for the c lubhouse
and s ome of the parking lot is not exempt. At the last meeting she went through the critical slopes
analy sis in late June.
The buffer w aiver is a little more complicated bec ause it is an unique situation. It is a single parcel with split
zoning of C1 and R15. There is a 20’ buffer required to be maintained on the commercial side of the line.
They are not allowed to do any grading on the c ommercial side of the line where it is adjacent to the
residential unless they get a waiver from the C ommission. In order to develop the res idential it is
necessary to do a little bit of disturbance on that buffer area in order to create the road. Obviously, this is
the only place for the access at this point. The area is entirely on the commercial side of the line, but
because it is adjacent to the residential they have to obtain the Commiss ion’s cons ent for that
disturbance. It is a buffer in name only. It is not a w ooded vegetativ e area that is actually providing any
type of a real buffer from any one. It is storage facilities and is a gravel parking lot. It is not lik e they are
disturbing an actual buffer. It is a line on a map.
There are 212 units being proposed. They get the 107 base units, which is based on the R15 density. They
get another 17 units by preserving 10 percent of the woodlands and an additional 25 units for the dedication
of open space or the trail dedication. The woodlands preservation is an automatic bonus density. The
open space trail dedication is discretionary. U ltimately the Board of Supervisors has to act on that. They
are asking the Commission to recommend approval for those additional units. They could get to 226 units
with all automatic bonus dens ity c redits. Through affordable units they could do 221 units or through a
variety of options they could get to 226 units. They are not doing that, but ask ing for 212 which they feel is
appropriate for the area and for the market rate product they are try ing to provide.
The access points are noted. She noted the pedestrian connection to Rio R oad. It makes that full
connection. There is a full sidewalk along Rio R oad in both direc tions so it connects the pedestrians to
that public sidewalk netw ork that already exists.
They are w orking very closely with the owners of the Carmike Shopping Center. It is actually the Gardens
Shopping Center, which are out of town ow ners. They have been quite cooperative. But it is a long
proc ess to work out all of the details of the connec tions. This is the preferred location if and when they
could ever w ork out all of the details to get there. They are far from there yet. They wanted to, as Mr.
Fritz noted, to at least prov ide the C ommission with information since it was something they were working
on in the interest of full disclos ure. The ow ners of the shopping center have noted that one of the
conditions would be that they have to gate that c onnection so that it is only the Arden Place residents that
would be coming through. It is not in any w ay going to be a public c ut through. N obody wants that. One of
the other issues to work out is how do they route the cars to ensure that there is no conflict with the
pedestrians and other patrons of the shopping center. Obviously they are not going to grant the necessary
easements and approv als to make that connection if they are not very c onvinced that they can do that in a
way that ensures the safety of their owners, tenants, guests and the general public . Obviously, they would
not want to do that either. There are those issues to work out. They are mov ing forward, but it is taking
time.
The traffic study has been pretty well explained. Their traffic engineer is pres ent if there are any questions .
They have engaged a second traffic engineer to provide an audit of the first traffic study. The first traffic
study for the June meeting has been rev ised as Mr. DeN unzio described to include another intersection
and take a few other factors into consideration, which lowered the delay time substantially. VD OT has
thoroughly review ed the information as well.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Morris asked for a run down on the applicant’s actions in regards to the path connecting to W oodbrook.
Ms. Long replied that right now there w as no path to Woodbrook directly . The path connec ts to the County’s
Lagoon Project that is adjacent to Woodbrook, but does not connect to Woodbrook. At the last meeting they
had a path connecting directly to Woodbrook, which had been the reques t of staff and others. In working with
staff they recognized the public benefit of it. They think it is more appropriate for it to connect to the County
Lagoon’s Project than into Woodbrook. They are happy to do it recognizing that there are some members of
the Woodbrook community that don’t support the path into Woodbrook. They are just doing what the County
has asked them to do, which is to c onnect it to the Lagoon Project. It will provide some public benefit
connecting that public land, the Lagoon Project, which will be a little bit more inv iting perhaps once the Lagoon
Projec t is fully implemented to the public spac es on Rio Road. That will then lead one to a number of other
places. In addition it w ill connect into the Carmike and Gardens Shopping C enter, which ultimately provides a
pedestrian access to Albemarle Square Shopping Center and R oute 29. This really opens up a lot of
possibilities w hen making thos e two connec tion points. They feel that it w ould be quite a benefit to the public
and would ask the Commission to support that dedication.
Mr. Struck o invited public comment.
Mr. Fritz noted that s taff today received two written corres pondence that they did not have time to put in the
packet. He passed around the two letters.
John Gallenger supported luxury apartments being built on the site. He would prefer trees and a meadow on the
project, but felt that luxury apartments w ould be a good fit on that property. He w as frustrated that they need
to appear again this ev ening. Since the las t time he thought that they had decided that a Woodbrook
connection w as a bad item. Due to the one way in and out of W oodbrook he questioned why they would want
to put a hole in one of their boundaries and jeopardize their security by providing ac ces s to the Lagoon Project
since it is a not a park . H e questioned what would be the purpose of someone walk ing from Rio Road to look
at a sandy berm. J ust past the bik e rac k on the picture there were bike rack s and benc hes. It is a small creek
reconfiguration project and not a real park project or a C hris Green Lak e. H e ques tioned if it was a real park
there w ould be more than four parking spots and some benches. More traffic in W oodbrook would threaten the
community ’s s afety. The footpath would be sending more people into Woodbrook where they don’t have
sidewalks or street lights, which would be more safety issues. They are hearing different opinions from their
neighbors tonight. The Woodbrook C ommunity. Assoc iation cannot argue both for and against the Woodbrook
connector. They hav e chose to side with the neighbors that live closest and agree that there are valid safety
issues that have not been addressed at these meetings. In c losing please let the applicant build his
apartments because lux ury apartments is what they s hould all hope for in this location. That way they could
permit the green spac e he is applying for so it would not impact their neighborhood. , which is what they hope
for in this location. Please tell the County that the Woodbrook connection causes far too many s ecurity and
safety issues and should be dropped from the plans.
Jerry Bettentif, resident of Woodbrook, pointed out through a s how of hands that only one person in the
audience liv ing in the W oodbrook had asked for a trail in their neighborhood. The trail was being requested
from persons outs ide the c ommunity. In asking how many would c onsider a 10’ paved asphalt strip to be a
road there w as a show of hands of over 10 to 15 person. Therefore, the 10’ strip sounds like a roadway to the
people in Woodbrook. That leads to a creditability problem w ith the county. A few months ago they were told
that the Woodbrook Lagoon was a storm water enhancement project. Most persons v iewed it as an
environmental improvement project and did not object to their tax dollar being spent for that. H e now
wondered if it was a runoff project for the benefit of Arden Place with the cost being shifted from the developer
to the public. H e would s tudy the maps further and perhaps it is not. The storm w ater enhancement project is
not being presented more like a park to justify the need for a 10’ road or trail in the area. From the dis cussions
he heard that it was an ADA requirement for the path to be 10’ wide and paved. From goggling he found that
the ADA trail requirements call for a 3’ wide path with a stabiliz ed surface that can be gravel or packed soil.
They are mostly concerned about the slope of a trail in terms of w heelchair suitability for the trail. There is
even an ex ception depending on terrain and area for a 32” trail. The implication he had read and heard this
evening did not indic ate this. There is not need for a 10’ wide trail or path in this area. If the county w ants to
build a 3’ wide ADA compliant trail in this area he w ould ask that they do a survey to determine the potential
users and to get some k ind of idea of the costs benefit ratios.
Kathy W elch, an 18 year resident of Woodbrook, reemphasized w hat had just been said about the ADA
requirements. There is no requirement that the so call trail has to be 10’ wide. It only needs to be 3’ to 4’ wide
and composed of crushed stone or gravel and be a firm and stable s urface. She took a tape measure and
measured her car, which was 5 ½ feet. H er car could drive along the 10’ foot path as suggested with a 2’
space on each side. If the Carmike entrance is approv ed it w ould go across this footpath and she feared that
there w ould be possible v ehicular traffic. She ques tioned if there would be any traffic signals considered by
VDOT for safety purposes particularly for children on bicycles. She questioned why they w ould want the path
to end up in the swamps or wetlands. She questioned the motiv e behind this to put in a pav ed surfac e to end
up in wetlands.
Lee Floydburg, resident of W oodbrook , spoke in opposition to any s ort of path connecting into W oodbrook.
This is a complex biofilter to protec t the wetlands w here pollutants will be building up behind the berms to
prevent runoff of pollutants into the C hesapeake Bay Watershed area. He questioned how this Lagoon area
can be described as a park. He questioned if the paved area would increas e the pav ed hardscape runoff from
the development to further stress this biofilter system which protects the C hesapeak e Bay. The children will
be pulled to this area. The path w ill provide a direct link for the children from the Arden Place development and
the Carmik e Theatre for them to go down and find a place to get thems elves hurt. It is an attracted nuisance
and not a park for children. This is supposed to be dedicated to the county which will create maintenance
costs for all taxpayers when no one s ees this as a reasonable preferable project. This can also pose some
safety ris ks and concerns at the intersection of the roadw ay and they will have to install guards to get in the
way of vehicles getting on the path.
Ann H obs on, 39 year resident of Woodbrook, said that her property faces part of the Lagoon property. She
was not familiar with the term footpath and therefore went to W ebster’s Dic tionary, which indicated it w as a
narrow path for pedes trians only. She decided to go out and measure some of our familiar landmark. She
measured two sidewalk s in two area 4’ and 4.5r”. She measured bike paths that measured 4’ 41/2”. The
average trail in Penn Park is between 71/2’ and 8’. At Albemarle H igh School it was 19’, which did not include
the curbing. That corres ponds very closely to onehalf the road way the County is as king us to use to call a
footpath. She did not think that the choice of words was common and saying they need it is not correc t. They
need to remember the end of the lagoon project was where there is a joint gate with no fencing around the
property. She v otes against the path since it is not something that they want. It seems to be just w hat was
originally proposed for access to our road.
Terry Gallanger, wife of John the current President of W oodbrook and 19 year resident, noted that John has
been part of this proces s since March. Living in the back of the neighborhood this proposal does not affect
them directly. But they want to support the Powells since they are their neighbors. The majority of the
neighborhood came forward at the last meeting and said that they did not want the path connection and gave
good reasons. Mr. Fritz at the last meeting said that it was an unfair representative of Woodbrook and that
most of the neighbors wanted the path. She did not know w here that came from when they showed up in mass
last time and strongly opposed a connection. Also why a blacktop pathw ay next to a stream that is not a
nature path. They have a lot of deer and other animals vis iting their yard. She ask ed if the environment needs
a blacktop pathw ay. She noted that at the last meeting they were told that as a roadway it was private
property and they would not be able to use it. She as ked if it was a pathway would it still be private property
also and not be able to be used by Woodbrook residents. She propos ed that they s upport Mr. Powell and the
surrounding neighborhood to say no pathway and if the W oodbrook residents want a nature way and not a
blacktop then that is s omething the next President can look at. Poss ibly it is something that a Boy Sc out troop
could work on.
Charlie Tractra, resident of Woodbrook, noted that at the last meeting he found that he was w rong that the
applicant w as an evil entity trying to destroy his community. He also found that the applicant was under the
impress ion that his community w as against him for no particular reason. That night he found out that they both
were wrong. At the end of the meeting he offered him the opportunity to try to work together. Since that time
he has come to see that the applicant was actually more the vic tim than W oodbrook was. They have worked
together with staff to address the problems, particularly the traffic problems, so that every body could win.
Because of this tonight he can s tate that he has not objec tions to building this apartment complex and actually
supports the additional units he needs . His only objection is the proposed pathway. On June 23 over 90
percent of the people w ho spoke supported the option that there is no connection to Woodbrook from any other
development. He supported the 90 perc ent and did not understand w hy the board w ould demand that the 10’
paved footpath be built. H is pickup truck is 6’ wide and could use this footpath as a road way. Supposedly
this footpath will be part of a park to be used by county residents. It would also be useful to the neighborhood
so they can walk to Fashion Square Mall. R emember there w ill be a fence keeping them out of the Dumbarton
Property . While this may sound beneficial these ideas hav e not been thought out. He asked that they please
ask the planners how the residents, particular the children, w ill c ros s Rio Road. Also where will county people
find a place to park their cars? Existing parking areas are private, there is no parking on Rio Road and the
parking is very limited in Woodbrook. There will be a lot of security is sues. W hile drawing a colored line on a
map is easy actually building this footpath should take more thought and responsibility from you. . But until all
questions are ans wered why not just acc ept a rightofw ay for a path that can be built in the future. This will
give the county time to solve the aforementioned problems and also the new community of Arden Place will be
able to voic e their opinion on something that will directly affect them.
Mr. Eugene Powell, res ident of 2701 Brookmere Road for 34 years , said that a lot of activity takes place there.
A pathw ay would be a disaster because many people w alk ac ross his property all the time. H e decided to
build a path around behind the creek. But the people continue to walk ac ross the field through his y ard to get to
the theater parking lot ev en though he tells them to go around this way. He was opposed to any kind of path
through W oodbrook with a connection to the theater. It would be a road through there and keep on going. He
hoped the Commission would disapprove this reques t.
Beatrice Powell agreed with her husband Eugene in opposing the path. They now have many people coming
through their yard and approving this pathway would only inc rease the numbers. Their property adjourns the
proposed road path. She strongly opposed the request and asked that the C ommission disapprove the request
because it was a problem for many residents of W oodbrook.
Stephanie Max, a resident of Woodbrook for 11 years, said that they access Albemarle Square. They walk
through the front of the properties across Woodbrook Shopping Center and Gardens Shopping C enter to
Albemarle Square and ACAC . Their children walk to ACAC. She asked if they put in the 10’ path how they
would keep the cars off it. She was c onc erned if they put in signs the cars w ould s till use the path.
Kenneth Hoy, resident of 204 Woodbrook D rive, said that he attended the las t meeting and thought the
consens us was that there would be no type of walk way or a roadway coming into or going c lose to the
Woodbrook area. He respectfully requested that the Commission vote against this.
Laurie Campbell, an area resident of W oodbrook for 13 years, opposed the path and to allow people to come
into their neighborhood. She was appalled at the presentation of the 10’ path. At the last meeting there was no
mention to use the ADA regulations. She felt it was wrong to use people with disabilities to mak e them look
good. She supports people with disabilities, but does not use them to make herself look better. She was
appalled that the ADA D isabilities Act was brought into the 10’ path. She opposed the request and asked the
Commis sion to remember what was s aid at the last meeting.
Steve H uck, an 8 year resident of W oodbrook, opposed the 10’ wide path with the 2’ clearing on eac h side. It
would give benefit to see people jumping out at walkers for potential crime. It would be making a marvelous
place for c rime. He asked that the Commission disapprove this reques t.
Mike Allure opposed the path because it leads to an area that will create a hazard to little children. It does not
matter w hether the children come from Woodbrook or other c ommunities because the path would lead them
into an unattended area, which is not a park, creating an access from a public park ing lot. He sees right now
that there are businesses closing dow n and more vacancies . He did not know what kind of businesses or
people that area will drawn. But he was concerning about drawing c hildren into an unattended area that is not a
park and encouraging them to go there. That is why he did not think a 10’ path is a good idea for kids .
Eric Bak er, resident of Woodbrook for 8 years, opposed the request bec aus e the area is very quiet and s afe at
present and did not need any connection. .
Robert Manica, area resident, opposed the connection to the Carmike Theater. At the road connection at Rio
Road onto Garden Boulevard there is a right turn in and right turn out only on Route 29 with no dec eleration
lane. Therefore he feared that the back way through Arden Plac e would be used frequently. He feared that
they would move the problem from R io to 29.
Ty Ellen, a resident of W oodbrook for 30 years, oppos ed the connection into W oodbrook and did not see any
benefit to the Woodbrook residents at all. The children are required to ride the bus to s chool. The pathway is
not needed for the children to get to school. The one w ay into Woodbrook has worked for y ears and she asked
that the Commission disapprove this request. She requested that no connection into Woodbrook from any
other c ommunities be denied in the future.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning C ommission.
Mr. Struck o asked if the Lagoon Projec t is in the CIP or any of the C ounty park plans
Mr. Gatobu noted that this project will be funded through a grant. It was not being funded by the county. As a
planner, professional and someone that is trained in LEED he heard the neighbors and had talked to them. As
a profess ional they look at what the circ umstances are and consider all of the factors including the crime. If
this w as not opened to anybody els e it would not be a problem to the community. He talk ed with Greg Harper
today and asked what he thought about it since he was in charge of it. He said that he spoken with a
Woodbrook resident and w as told that if only W oodbrook was allowed to use the path into the Lagoon Project
that they would be fine with it. He found something to be terribly wrong with that. That was his professional
opinion. It was not against anybody in the neighborhood regarding their recommendation for a 10’ path. H e felt
bad that s omeone felt they would tak e adv antage of ADA and that they don’t. It is in the D esign Standard
Guidebook and w hy w ould they do that. He apologiz ed to the Chairman, but noted at some point they have to
get in s ome rational on why they do w hat they do.
Mr. Struck o thanked s taff because that was a hard accusation to make and he appreciated him commenting on
it.
Ms. Joseph noted that the goals of the Lagoon on the County website says are to provide w ater quality,
preserv e and enhance on site w etlands and create educational opportunities and facilitate access. This is not
something that was made up by Planning Department per say, but were the goals set up when the grant was
received for creating this area. She understands w hat people are talking about. As a landsc ape architect she
feels very sad that people worry about pathw ays. It is one of the most important things that came from a Parks
and Rec survey. In the survey 80 to 90 perc ent said they wanted to see natural w alking paths. This is
something that did not come from nowhere. C onsequently that is what they have looked for sinc e the majority
said they w anted to see linear paths. She acknowledged this is not a park with playing fields. But when doing
intense ac tivity in the dev elopment area a little piece of green space for people who live in the dense area is
appreciated.
Mr. Strucko noted that it w as recreational park space and passive park space. H e would categorize this as a
passive park space.
Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Pflaum if this is used s pecificity for storm water for Arden Place. She asked what is
this being used for.
Amy Pflaum, Engineer, replied that it is providing a benefit to a dev elopment area that includes portions to the
west side of Route 29. It encompasses the area and parts of the Gardens area. It has been around much
longer than the Arden Place project. Arden Place w ill have to meet the requirements of the Water Protection
Ordinanc e. It will have to prov ide on s ite storm water management. They are already proposing in the
preliminary plan a biofilter and underground detention. They w ill have to tak e care of all of their own storm
water management. They will not be given any storm water credit for the Woodland Lagoon Project. She
asked to c larify a few points. The 10’ w ide asphalt requirement is a County requirement for the Clas s A Type 2
trail. Another part of the Class A requirement is that it meet the ADA standards for grades. The ADA
standards the width is less than 10’. There are two criteria that the applicant has meet with the proposed trail –
the County criteria of a Class A Ty pe 2 trail and the AD A standards for grading. The ADA standard from the
Virginia greenways toolbox has 2 different levels of an AD A access ible trail. One would be a 48” wide with a
hard non skid asphalt surface, which w ould be an easy trail. A moderate ac ces s trail would be 36” w ide with a
hard packed surface. Those are the 2 different things or criteria being look ed at for this trail. It is the County
criteria and the ADA c riteria. There was concern about the trail crossing or the v ehicular connec tion at
Carmike. That will not be a public road and VDOT will not be maintaining it or putting up a cross w alk. As Ms.
Long s aid Carmike w ould request that there be a gate at that connection where it meets the parking lot. It will
only be used by Arden Place residents. It will be a low volume of traffic and no res ident pedestrian conflict
because of it being a low usage road. Our trail standards also require that some kind signage or cross walks at
a location of where a trail is crossing a roadw ay. So they could require that on the final site plan if that
Carmike connection is utilized
Mr. Morris as ked would it still be in complianc e if the pathway w as 4 ½ wide with a hard surfac e and be an
easy pathw ay.
Ms. Pflaum replied that it was her understanding if it was asphalt and reduced it would meet the ADA in the
Greenways Manual but not meet the Clas s A Type 2 trail for the County.
Mr. Struck o noted that there w ere different classes of County trails.
Ms. Pflaum said what the applicant has proposed is the highest class of trail or the best case scenario. They
met with County Parks and R ec and they felt it was beneficial to have that type of trail. It is a higher c ost to
the dev eloper, but it is a very nice wide accessible trail.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could get the Class A Type 1 low maintenance pedestrian path would that be
acceptable with staff w ho has worked with the developer.
Ms. Pflaum noted that the idea is that this open space and path in combination will be going to the Board of
Supervisors for the acceptance of the open space. Staff and the applicant were w ork ing together to come up
with the best poss ible proposal. If it is determined that the 10’ path is not the bes t proposal then she believed
there w ould be room to lessen it.
Mr. Loach asked if the 5’ path would be an acceptable path.
Ms. Long thanked Ms . Pflaum for the c larifications. The applicant would be fine with building a narrower trail. It
would be a considerable cost savings to build a narrower trail. They want to build what the County is requiring
in order to obtain the bonus densities they are proposing. If the Board of Supervis ors does not accept the
dedication of the trail for width then they wouldn’t to get the bonus density whic h w ould throw the project into a
black hole. They have been asked to build a 10’ trail ever since she has been involved in the project. They will
do whatever is required. To address one comment there is no desire from anyone that vehicles are on this trail.
They would be willing to use whatever safety measures are deemed appropriate. The C ounty does not want
vehicles driving on the trail. They are will to w ork w ith the County on the w idth of the trail, w hatever signage or
crossroads if the Carmike connection is ultimately implemented to take whatever measures are deemed
appropriate. The Arden Place developer has incentives to ensure that it is a safe trail. There is a mutual
incentive to make sure the trail is safe for everyone.
Mr. Loach asked if they would consider building the path to a certain point and waiting for input from the Arden
Place res idents.
Ms. Long replied that they are happy to carry out the willingness of the C ounty as long as the Board of
Supervisors will accept the open spac e and grant the bonus density .
Mr. Struck o questioned how the nature of this path affects bonus density .
Ms. Long replied that part of the bonus dens ity is automatic. There are 24 to 25 units that are discretionary to
the C ounty. The Board of Supervisors can accept and give a certain amount of credit. The 25 units if it they
give all the reques ted credit in exchange for dedicating land for the public. In working w ith staff for months
they have indicated they will rec ommend that the Board accept this dedication of open space and public land if
they find a public benefit. After careful analysis they say trails already are there and people are using them.
By connecting the trail to public space staff thinks the open space meets public benefit. And if do it this in the
way suggested staff w ill recommend that the Board accept it and agreed to the bonus density.
Mr. Fritz noted that one action the Planning Commis sion needs to take w as to provide a recommendation to
the Board whether to acc ept the open s pace and what bonus dens ity level. One thing to talk about is w here
the path goes and whether it is to the C ounty Lagoon project or not.
Mr. Struck o noted in looking at the propos ed open space there is a significant piece of land directly adjacent to
the County Lagoon project. It adds on to what the C ounty owns on the Lagoon projec t. He asked how much
land was there.
Ms. Long replied that it is over one acre of land in total that is for sale plus along the trail as shown on
Attachment F of staff report.
Mr. Fritz s aid that not only is the dedication a question, but where the trail goes, should the dedication be
accepted and the standard of the trail to be constructed. The proposed standard is the highest standard and
is the one that provides the lowes t cost of maintenance to the County and the maximum flexibility of usage. If
this body felt that the C lass A Ty pe 1 w as more appropriate then that is w hat the C ommission could
recommend to the Board.
Ms. Joseph noted that Attachment F w as saying that the woodland will remain undis turbed.
Mr. Fritz noted that was correct that the woods would remain undisturbed but there was not transfer of the
property.
Mr. Strucko noted that the property behind Building 6 attached into the lagoon area. So they don’t have to
extend the trail all the way to the exis ting lagoon.
Mr. Gatobu replied that the trail would only go to the boundary line.
Mr. Edgerton noted w hat Mr. Strucko was sugges ting is if the applicant was willing to commit to not disturbing
the one acre plus that is behind Building 6 then the County c ould get an extra one acre plus and the applicant
gets the density bonus . It would be a w in/win situation. He ask ed w hy the trail couldn’t stop at the
woodlands. The current Lagoon project did not cons ider a connection at all.
Mr. Fritz noted that the connection to the Lagoon projec t staff sees it as an educational opportunity and offers
the same c onnection as Woodbrook has to the Arden Place residents. There are four parking spaces on the
Woodbrook side and bike racks. That is why staff is recommending the connection to go all the w ay to Lagoon
project.
Mr. Edgerton said that if the applicant were not able to disturb the wooded area and they were able to add an
extra one and a half acre to the Lagoon project to make it more effective why wouldn’t they do that. He did not
think the applicant would be losing anything since they w ould be getting their density bonus.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant has agreed to dedic ate and maintain the path.
Ms. Long replied that those are some issues they have not gotten to yet. But they would be happy to maintain
the trail if that is the preference of the County. Arden Place will have their own maintenance crew on site
anyway and are willing to pick up trash on the trail if that is the desire of the Board.
Ms. Porterfield noted that could be part of the trade off to lessen the width of the path s o it does not look like
someone’s driveway.
Ms. Joseph asked if she understood from a speak er that the C ounty staff met w ith some residents of
Woodbrook to talk about the Lagoon projec t and if they offered to help out Mr. Pow ell by putting in some
additional screening trees so people would not be stray ing through his yard.
Ms. Pflaum replied that General Services met with the Woodbrook residents, but she did not think they made
an offer to Mr. Powell.
Mr. Franco pointed out that he met with General Servic es after that meeting. He did not think that they made
that offer. One thing he talked about w as how important they felt a connection through the park was and if they
felt it was important to have that path if they could design it to design it so it focused people to the rightofway
as opposed to people’s yards. H e did not know where that project stands . He asked if there was a
requirement for a site plan for the park because it does have parking.
Mr. Fritz replied that it does not meet the threshold for a site plan.
Ms. Joseph asked if they can require some screening or something for Mr. Powell.
Mr. Kamptner noted that if it was going to be somewhere it would have to be part of the County’s Lagoon
Projec t since it w as offsite and not part of this site plan. The Commission could ask General Services to
consider the installation of these screening trees.
Ms. Joseph asked if they could mak e a stronger recommendation, and Mr. Kamptner replied that it w as out of
their authority.
Ms. Joseph as ked if the Commission c ould ask the Board to do something for Mr. Powell, and Mr. Kamptner
replied y es.
Mr. Struck o s aid that it sounds like the Commission is coming c loser to a s olution regarding the path. He was
hearing that the community’s anx iety’s is about a throughway of some sort. It sounds like anything that is of
significance like asphalt is going to cause anxiety. H e would love to see a pedestrian w alkw ay through this
area to serve if no one else but the Arden Place residents. So to ease the concerns of the Woodbrook
community and to continue to provide this amenity to Arden Place he thought that they could pick a path
standard that is still open to folks with people with disapblities but is less subs tantial than 10’ with 2’ wide
shoulders. Also they could potentially end the path behind Building 6 and consider that is roughly of one acre
of untouched space in v iew of the Lagoon project. H e asked if that w as something the Commiss ioners and
applicant can agree to.
Mr. Franco said that he was on the same page, but w anted to understand what is being deeded to the County.
Is it the path or is it acreage?
Mr. Struck o replied that in Attachment G of the packet it is everything c olored in green that is the open space
dedication that does not include acreage.
Mr. Fritz noted that it was 1.08 acres which includes the path and some of the area adjacent to it.
Ms. Long as ked to provide one point of clarific ation on Exhibit G the portion of the path that goes behind
Building 6 and goes from roughly where the C armike connection is if made to the Woodbrook Lagoon. It is not
colored green on the exhibit, but it is part of it. The land around trail bac k there is not part of the dedic ation, but
just the path itself is. They will defer to their guidance.
Mr. Morris noted that area around it is part of the pres erv ation area.
Ms. Long said that was c orrect it was untouchable and they could not touch those trees. The preservation plan
was part of the conservation plan and part of the preservation of those w oods. They have to have a tree
preserv ation plan. There are actually some notes on the site plan. It is small ty pe and hard to see. But the
detailed requirements of the conservation plan are spelled out on the site plan. Essentially it is to leave the
trees as they are and to take measures to protect during construction.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant was willing to consider dedicating that piece of land that he is willing to
commit to not touching to the County.
Ms. Long replied that land was not part of the dedication and she would have to confer w ith her client and come
back up. She did not k now the answer to that question.
Mr. Edgerton noted that would give him reason to be enthusiastic about the project.
Ms. Long noted that there is an underground sewer that has to go in one area. That area is not counted as part
of the woodlands preservation area.
Mr. Franco asked if that property is amended to include that area and deeded to the County can it be deeded
such that the County can’t build a road through it at some future point and it is really just for a trail or path just
to the Lagoon Project.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they have acc epted deeds of dedication in the past. In this c ase since the dedication
is for a specific purpose that could be reflected in the deed so it is clear that it is dedicated to a public use for a
pedestrian connection.
Mr. Franco ask ed if they could allay the concerns of a vehicular connection, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes that
he thought that they can do that.
Mr. Strucko noted that another issue is the propos ed connec tion to the Carmike parking lot. What bothered
him the most was when the applicant through Ms. Long said that the Carmike folks wanted to gate that. That
sealed the deal for him and thought that was not the k ind of connection they wanted.
Mr. Morris said that he could understand why they w ould want to gate it to prevent it from becoming as a
thoroughfare. That is the exact case they had in Carriage H ill.
Mr. Strucko said if the connection is not done in C armike then they need the two connec tion points on Rio and
eventually Putt Putt Place. He asked w on’t that connection to Rio have to happen if the c ommercial happens
in front the property.
Ms. Porterfield said not necessarily y might use the connection to Putt Putt Place. If they do that will they get
the warrants to put the light in?
Mr. DeN unzio said that it depends on the type of commerc ial and the intersection would hav e to w arrant the
light. He noted that it depends on the volume of traffic, but it would help the chances . At that time the traffic
signal light would require a des ign acc ess management exception. He thought that they w ould have a spacing
issue with the upstream signals. They would still like to see w ith commercial development possibly looking at
connecting back through the existing s ignal there going back through Albemarle Square.
Mr. Fritz noted that was assuming there were no changes to the current ordinance.
Mr. Struck o asked how they feel about the two connection points.
Mr. Franco agreed w ith Mr. Morris in that gated or not it works to have the connection at C armike. The extra
entranc e onto Rio is something that can be dealt with at site plan when that future front piece connects. H e felt
that access management might tell us in the future that connecting to either the Albemarle Square light or back
to Putt Putt makes more sense from the conflict management pers pective. So he would rather go with
pursuing the Carmike and see if it happens. If it does not happen he was contend with just Putt Putt, but he
was happy to go with the second point as shown.
Ms. Porterfield said that the Carmike exitentrance w ould be useful and it does take the people off the back end
of Arden Place. She was a little concerned just for emergency vehicles. If they don’t get the Carmike
connections she was concerned with not having two entrances because there are a lot of units and a lot of
people back there.
Mr. Struc ko said that he w as concerned with an arrangement betw een two private ow ners. He w as not sure
that connecting to a park ing lot is an effective throughw ay.
Ms. Jos eph supported the Carmike connection even thought it was gated. She assumed it w ould be
accessible to emergency vehicles. If the path was gated it would alleviate the concerns about the conflicts
between vehicles and pedestrians.
Mr. Edgerton supported a connection at both ends even with a gate. He would be comfortable if they could
eliminate the path to the preservation area if the applicant would consider making that area part of the
dedication. He would be willing to recommend to the Board that to be in lieu of the pathw ay.
Mr. Struck o asked Ms . Long to come forw ard with her response to the Commission’s question.
Ms. Long noted that this part of the path has always been part of the open space dedic ation. If she understood
the request the Commiss ion was as king that they add to the dedication in this area. The engineer says it is
roughly about an acre of space. What they need to do is work with C ounty staff to es tablish the boundaries of
the additional area. They need to maintain a buffer around this building. They think they can commit to an
additional half ac re. They need to reserve space becaus e there is a water line easement and s ewer line
easement. They need to reserve rights for the space for the utility easements and for the necessary buffer.
But they can do a half acre at least and perhaps more. They need to work with staff on the boundaries. There
are critical slopes right behind Building 6 w hich is part of the preserv ation area.
Mr. Struck o asked if they would stop the path where the proposed connection with Carmike is.
Ms Long said that w as acceptable to the applicant because they ultimately need the Board to support it. They
would ex pect if that was the recommendation of the County ’s professional staff and Commission that it would
be approved by the Board. They w ill have to take the Board’s ultimate direction. But, that is acceptable to the
applicant.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff w ill hav e to go to the Board to explain along with the minutes w hat the C ommission is
looking for. The C ommission is looking to add some of the wooded area that is behind Building 6 w hich would
just be preserved as a natural wooded area to enhanc e the area that the County has as part of the Lagoon
Projec t, but not part of the Lagoon Project. The topography does not lend itself to be part of the Lagoon
Projec t. This area would be part of a natural area. The path would stop at the point of connection to the
Carmike of the pedestrian connection. They would have to work w ith the applicant to identify w hat those
boundaries are before they go to the Board of Superv isors because they need to draw a line on the plan.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the path would shrink down to the 5’ path.
Mr. Fritz noted that he had not gotten there yet. He asked if that was the consensus of the Planning
Commis sion.
Mr. Edgerton said that he thought that the path had disappeared.
Ms. Porterfield said she was talking about the path from Rio Road all the way through and bringing it down to 5’
and the applicant will maintain that path.
Mr. Fritz noted that it would bring the standard down to 1A.
Mr. Franco noted that he received a phone call from one of the officials of ACAC today that suggested that this
was a good project and liked the idea of the path for use by its members. Right now they run around the
parking lot. H e felt the path would be us eful to his business and the community.
Mr. Morris asked if staff needs to bring it back if in fact the C armike c onnection works out.
Mr. Fritz replied if the Commission decides that it is not a substantial change w arranting coming back staff will
process to the final site plan administrativ ely.
Mr. Morris recommended that.
Mr. Struck o said that if the Carmike connection does not w ork what would they tell staff to fall back on.
Ms. Porterfield replied that they would go with the two on the other side.
Mr. Fritz noted that the potential condition he had written was: No acces s directly to Rio Road if acces s to Carmike
is provided.
Mr. Struck o said that if access to Carmike is not provided then the C ommission would want the access to Rio Road
and through Putt Putt.
Mr. Franco noted that he w as not sure that no access so much as no access is required. He ask ed if they are
saying that they would prohibit access in the future.
Mr. Fritz said that because this is a ministerial action that a future ministerial action could undo the condition to
allow the commercial property to develop. H e asked if that was what he w as referring to.
Mr. Franco replied yes.
Mr. Fritz said that when that commercial property came in it would be looked at anew and the s ame process they
are plac ing the condition on could be us ed to remove the condition in the future.
Mr. Struck o asked if they still need the buffer dis turbance waiver with the direct access. H e noted that the
Commis sion was okay w ith the critic al s lopes.
Mr. Fritz replied yes.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that something be done to avoid an applicant from coming in with a request for manmade
critical s lopes and letting staff administratively approve it.
Mr. Fritz noted that staff is working on that.
Mr. Franco asked as part of the final recommendation that goes forth he w ould als o like to say that the path stuff
and the acreage behind building 6 that they have been talking about is a recommendation to the Board of
Supervisors. If the Board chooses to do something different, he w as happy to approve this site plan as
recommended or with the conditions associated with that land that the Board s ees fit to plac e on it w ithout hav ing to
come back to the Commission.
Mr. Morris agreed.
Mr. Franco said that the C ommission is recommending the bonus density for dedication of land for public use; that
dedication includes building a path from Rio Road to basic ally the Carmike entrance area as discussed and
dedication of additional land for addition to the lagoon project, but not with a path that the applicant is building. That
is the recommendation to move forward to the Board. If that is amended somehow at the Board as part of their
process he did not want particularly to see this come back to the Commission for another round.
Ms. Long agreed.
Mr. Struck o asked that a motion be crafted.
Motion for Critical Slopes W aiver R equest:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield sec onded for approval of the critical slopes waiver request per
Section 4.2 for SDP200900009, Arden Place bas ed on the findings in the staff report that it met the minimum
criteria.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion for Buffer Disturbance Waiver Request:
Motion: Mr. Franc o moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the waiver request for disturbance of a
buffer zone adjacent to a residential district from Section 21.7.c of the County C ode for SDP200900009, Arden
Place for the reasons s tated by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Motion for SDP:
Motion: Mr. Franco mov ed and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the preliminary site plan SDP200900009,
Arden Plac e w ith the conditions recommended in staff report, with amendment of condition F to reflec t the
discussions of tonight to eliminate the applicant building a path from the potential Carmike entranc e to the Lagoon
Projec t and to include the dedication of land between those tw o points.
Mr. Fritz noted that c ondition G needed to be amended, w hich will change the trail type from a Class A Type 2 to a
Class A Type 1. The new condition would be no acces s directly to Rio if access to C armike is provided.
Mr. Struck o asked what the dimension of the trail would be with the new classification.
Mr. Gatobu replied the trail w ould be 5’.
Mr. Fritz noted the condition to be included should read: The Path shall not extend north of C armike pedestrian
connection.
Mr. Franco agreed for acc eptance of the tw o conditions as stated by Mr. Fritz.
Mr. Morris seconded the amendment.
Mr. Franco said that the trail standard would be Class A Type that would have a 5’ width surface.
Mr. Fritz as ked if there was any further discussion.
Mr. Franco said that one last amendment was that they were still considering that to be the width but they were
trying to design the trail to AD A standards.
Mr. Fritz said that it would be the design alignment whic h has a 10’ maximum and the 2’ upgrade.
Mr. Franco said that the one underneath said ADA ac ces sible.
Mr. Fritz s uggested the condition say w ith design alignment with a Clas s A Type 2, and Mr. Franco agreed that w as
what he wanted to say .
Mr. Morris seconded the amendment.
Mr. Struck o asked that the roll be called.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0 with the following c onditions.
A . Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approv al is subject to field inspection
and verification. [Fire and Rescue]
B. RW SA c apacity certification is required before final site plan approval c an be granted.
C. Proposed wooded area must meet the definition of “w ooded area” found in section 3. [Albemarle
County zoning ordinance]. An arborist report and a tree preservation plan must be submitted with the
final site plan.
D . A conservation plan checklist must be shown on the final site plan. The cons erv ation plan check list
will have to be checked and signed [Albemarle C ounty Code section 32.7.9.4.b.]
E. Applicant must obtain VDOT approval before final site plan approval c an be granted.
F. Albemarle County Current D evelopment Engineering approval must be obtained.
G . Add the following 2 notes to the Arden Place ADA Trail Feasibility Exhibit dated 8509, and include
the exhibit in the final site plan. The first should go above the part that begins, "Trail w idth...” It should
say, "ADA Standards Listed in the Virginia Trail w ays Toolbox". The second note should say, "The
trails shall have ADAac cessible grade and conform to standards for Class A, Type 1 Trails as
described in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual." The 5foot w ide path shall not extend
north of the Carmike pedestrian connection.
H . There w ill be no vehicular access to Rio Road from Arden Place other than from Putt Putt Place if
vehicular ac cess to Carmik e is provided.
I. Applicant must address all outstanding AR B conditions before final site plan approval can be granted.
Motion for Approval of proposed dedication to County of Open Space of Dedication of path:
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval to the C ounty of the open space of
the propos ed pedestrian path running from Rio Road to the potential Carmike entrance w ith the additional dedication
to be defined by staff before it goes to the Board.
Mr. Fritz noted that the dedication would be in the area behind Building 6 adjacent to the Lagoon projec t.
Ms. Porterfield added that the applicant is going to do maintenance of the path.
Mr. Franco amended the motion to inc lude Mr. Fritz’s statement with the understanding that the applicant is doing
maintenanc e of that path and that if this condition changes at the Board as part of their acceptance that it does not
affect the preliminary site plan approv al.
Mr. Morris seconded the amended motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that SDP200900009, Arden Place w as approv ed and would go to the Board of Supervisors on a
date to be determined jus t for the open space review w ith the follow ing recommendation:
The Planning Commis sion recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors of an open space dedication including
a proposed pedestrian path running from Rio Road to the potential Carmike entrance and an additional land
dedication to be defined by staff before it goes to the Board as follows:
1. The dedication would be in the area behind Building 6 adjacent to the Lagoon project.
2. The path shall be des igned as a 5foot wide Class A, Type 1 path with ADAcompliant grades. The applicant
will provide maintenance of that path.
3. If either of the Commission’s recommended conditions change as part of the Board’s acceptanc e, the
changes do not affect the Commission’s preliminary site plan approval.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) Grant
Update
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
SEEA Grant U pdate and Approval of Memorandum of
Understanding
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Shadman, and Ms.
Temple
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The following is relevant background information for this update:
In December 2007, the Board of Supervisors adopted the U.S. Cool C ounties C limate Stabilization
Dec laration, committing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions Countywide by 80% by 2050.
In January 2009, County and City staff and elec ted officials (David Slutzky from the C ounty and D ave Norris
and David Brown from the City) met with the Director of Virginia’s Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
(DMME), Steve Walz, and dis cus sed a competitive $500,000 grant opportunity through the Southeast Energy
Effic iency Allianc e (SEEA), to be aw arded to a community who had the best plan and support in place to
dev elop and implement a comprehensive, communitybased energy efficiency program whos e goals were a
2040% efficiency gain per building; a 3050% market penetration; and a 57 year timeframe for the goals.
On January 14, 2009 the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting that the Virginia General
Assembly enact legislation to enable the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville to develop and
implement a clean energy financing program.
On January 14, 2009 the Board als o adopted a resolution in support of the C ounty, City and University
working cooperatively to discuss energy and climate change opportunities, including collaborating on
dev eloping a joint proposal for the Southeastern Energy Efficiency Alliance (SEEA) grant. As part of this
res olution the Board also resolved to appoint a representative in discussions and w orking groups related to
energy efficienc y and climate protection initiativ es.
Subsequently, DMME hired the Virginia Energy Project to ass ist the County and City in developing a joint
proposal for the SEEA grant.
The C ounty, C ity and University have established a joint Steering C ommittee for our Local Climate Action
Planning Proces s (LCAPP). The Steering Committee is working to identify a s et of strategies towards
reducing greenhous e gas emiss ions in our region.
On May 6, 2009 the Board adopted a resolution to authorize the County, jointly with the City , to apply for the
SEEA grant funds and to help “establish a model c ommunity energy efficiency program.”
The SEEA Request for Proposal (“R FP”) contemplated the pos sible creation of a new nonprofit entity to ac t
as the operating c ompany to carry out the grant’s purposes.
The grant propos al submitted to SEEA set forth that an independent communitybased nonprofit organization,
whic h can deliver the programs and services outlined in the proposal, would most efficiently be able to
provide the energy efficiency s erv ices detailed in the proposal.
On June 17, 2009 the County and City w ere notified that their proposal was selected to receive the SEEA
grant.
Since receiving notification that the County and City won the grant, C ounty and C ity staff have discussed
how to establish a community energy alliance, which meets the initiatives set forth in the proposal. Staff has
worked closely w ith various community stakeholders to do so.
At this time, the grant has not been formally ac cepted by the County or the City .
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1 – Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens
Goal 2 – Protect the County’s Natural R esources
DISCU SSION :
In July 2009 the Virginia Energy Project secured a $60,000 grant from the Blue Moon Fund in order to retain outside
legal counsel to assis t the County and City attorneys’ offices in evaluating legal issues related to establishing a
local energy alliance as a legal entity in Virginia. Conclus ions from this analysis include, but are not limited to, the
following: 1) Virginia loc alities do not have the enabling authority to create an “operating company” as described in
the SEEA RFP; 2) the C ounty and C ity can only donate funds to organizations that are registered as c haritable, non
profit organizations; 3) in the interest of minimizing risk and maximiz ing simplicity and expediency, the
recommended option going forward is for SEEA to provide the grant funds directly to a private, nonprofit, tax
exempt, c haritable organiz ation that SEEA deems to be qualified to carry out the goals set forth in the C ounty/City
proposal submitted to SEEA. To that end, County and City staff, with the assistance of outside legal counsel,
drafted a memorandum of understanding (MOU) (Attac hment A) that, when approved, w ill establish that: 1) SEEA
will redirect the grant funds to a local operating company as it sees fit, as long as SEEA determines that such
company meets the c riteria outlined in Section 3 of the MOU and the County/City proposal; and 2) SEEA will agree
to perform all due diligence to ensure that the local operating company meets that criteria.
Once the MOU is in plac e, SEEA will redirect the grant funds to a qualified operating company. Examples of the
qualifying criteria as included in the MOU include: 1) a c ompany whose purposes encompass the activ ities
contemplated by the SEEA RFP and the County/City proposal; 2) a company whos e governance includes
individuals who are broadly representativ e of the local c ommunity; and 3) a company that has a commitment to
facilitating substantial reductions in nonrenewable energy use in our community as defined by 20%40% efficiency
gain per structure and 30%50% market penetration in 5–7 years.
Once a company is selected by SEEA, the County, City and the company could enter into a MOU that would detail
the scope of work and collaboration moving forward in delivering energy efficiency and renew able programs for
County and City residents and property owners as set forth in the propos al.
As the announced recipients of the grant, the C ounty and C ity have continued to ev aluate and work on components
of a communitybased program with significant involvement from a range of community stakeholders , including UVa,
PVCC, Dominion Power, and SEEA. This work includes financial, mark eting, and IT program development and
training components. The tentative schedule is for SEEA to select a qualified operating company to direct the grant
funds before the end of November 2009 so that a program may be launched by January 2010.
A group of community stakeholders currently exists w ho have been involved throughout this process , both in
proposal and program support and development, and who have recently come together as an initial threemember
Board of Directors of an organization w ith the name “Loc al Energy Alliance Program (LEAP).” This group has
success fully filed articles of incorporation for a Virginia nonstock corporation with the Virginia State C orporation
Commis sion (SC C), and it is in the proc ess of filing for tax exempt s tatus with the Internal R evenue Service (IRS).
At the time of writing this summary, the organization has indicated plans to convene an initial meeting of its Board of
Directors at the end of October and to discuss nearterm expansion of that Board to inc lude additional community
stakeholders. This organiz ation has been in contact w ith SEEA to identify itself as an independent, community
based organization focused on delivering the energy efficiencyrelated programs and services described in the SEEA
RFP and the attached MOU.
The City C ouncil is expected to consider the attached MOU at its November 2, 2009 meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
It is not anticipated that any direct funding from the C ounty will be required to fund the local energy alliance.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to sign the attached Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU).
ATTAC HMENTS
A Memorandum of U nderstanding
Ret urn t o regular agenda
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
300000
Agency 9%
Fares 8%
State 19%
Federal
26%
Local 38%
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Indicators R eport for the Fourth Quarter of
FY 2009
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of Quarterly Economic Indicator Report
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Alls house, S.
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On May 19, 2009 the Ass istant County Executive, Director of Community Development, C ounty Assessor, Chief of
Administration/Taxation, Business Dev elopment Specialist, and C oordinator of Research and Analysis met to
establish the Albemarle C ounty Economics Advisory Group (EAG), a committee consisting of County staff whose
mission is to foster wellinformed, thoughtful, and c ons tructive conversation regarding Albemarle’s ec onomy, and to
identify emerging trends and fundamental structural changes that could impac t the C ounty budget and its residents .
The EAG has the general objec tive of providing a roundtable forum to County staff members who follow business
and economic conditions as a regular part of their daily work to ensure that important information across department
lines is shared and utilized. At its July 22, 2009 meeting, the EAG discussed a lis t of County economic indicators
that has evolved into the Albemarle County Quarterly Ec onomic Indic ators report.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
The Quarterly Economic Indicators report pertains to Strategic Plan Goal 1.3: By June 30, 2010, the County will
maintain a strong and sustainable economy, increase the economic vitality of the County’s Dev elopment Areas, and
Increas e the ability of those individuals and families who are liv ing in low erincome households to become self
sufficient.
DISCU SSION :
The current state, and likely nearterm direction, of Albemarle’s ec onomy has an impact on the C ounty government’s
revenues and costs; Albemarle’s Quarterly Economic Indicators report w ill help inform the County’s revenue and
cost forecasting proc ess and, by ex tension, will aid the C ounty’s budgeting process. The July 31, 2009 report,
which covers Q4 of FY 2008/09, is being presented today for BOS review and input.
Staff will provide a brief ov erview of the report at Wednesday’s meeting and w ould w elcome any input regarding the
report content and format.
The October 31, 2009 report, w hich will c over Q1 of FY 2009/10, w ill be available on the C ounty Exec utive webs ite
in the next several day s.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors review and consider this information on a quarterly basis and would
welcome any input on the report. No ac tion is required.
ATTAC HMENTS
Albemarle Quarterly Ec onomic Indicators for Fourth Quarter of FY 2009
Albemarle Quarterly Ec onomic Indicators for Fourth Quarter of FY 2009 Underlying Data
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Albemarle County’s non
seasonally-adjusted unemploy-
ment rate jumped from 2.7%
in FY 2008 Q4 to 5.4% in FY
2009 Q4, the latest complete
quarter for which Virginia Em-
ployment Commission data
exists. This increase was in
tandem with the rise in Vir-
ginia’s rate, which went from
3.8% to 7.0%, and the U.S.
rate, which rose from 5.2% to
9.1%, during the same period.
Please see the graph below.
The increase in the
County’s rate of unemploy-
ment, although unfortunate,
does contain at least one piece
of good news: Albemarle’s rate
remains lower than the state
and U.S. rates, a testament to
the resilience of the County’s
economy. This situation paral-
lels the relative rankings of the
local, state, and national unem-
ployment rates during the
1990-91 and 2001 recessions.
The 100% increase in the
County’s unemployment rate,
unfortunately, was higher than
the 84% rise in the state’s rate
and the 75% jump in the rate
of unemployment in the U.S.
Contrary to a commonly-
held belief, the County does not
always lag the state and the U.S.
going into recession, and does
not always lead the state and the
U.S. coming out of recession, at
least not with regard to changes
in the rate of unemployment.
In the case of the past several
quarters, as shown on the graph
below, the change in Albe-
marle’s rate generally has been
in the same direction as the
change in the state and U.S.
rates. The County’s quarterly
rate, in fact, has moved in the
same direction as the state and/
or U.S. quarterly rate roughly
75% of the time in every quar-
ter since FY 1990 Q3.
Interestingly, an analysis
of the County, state, and U.S.
unemployment rate data from
January 1990 forward reveals
that, although Albemarle his-
torically has had the lowest
unemployment rate of the
three, the gap between the
County’s rate and the state’s
rate has narrowed over time,
while the difference between
the County’s rate and the U.S.
rate also has narrowed. The
cause of this apparent deterio-
ration in the “insulation” be-
tween the local, state, and
national unemployment rates
is unknown at this time.
Some observers have specu-
lated that changes in the share
of public sector vs. private
sector jobs in the local econ-
omy might be a factor, but
this theory has not yet been
tested rigorously.
U NEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASES
July 31, 2009
Special points of interest:
• Unemployment rate jumps;
remains below U.S. and
Virginia levels.
• Total employment drops;
construction and retail sec-
tors hit hardest.
• Prices in Albemarle’s hous-
ing market remain under
downward pressure.
• New residential building
permits off significantly;
commercial permits spike
due to new hospitals.
• Sales, meals tax revenues
decline; hotel/motel tax
revenue rises slightly.
• U.S. consumer confidence
drops sharply and then re-
bounds; U.S. leading eco-
nomic indicators dip.
INSIDE THIS ISSUE:
Tax Revenues 2
Housing Market 3
Total Employment 4
New Construction 4
Price Levels 5
Cons. Conf. & LEI’s 5
Gross Domestic Product 6
Q UARTERLY ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Wt. Avg. Weekly Wage 6
No. of Businesses 6
Albemarle County, Virginia
Albemarle, VA, and U.S. Unemployment Rates
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4
QuarterUnemployment (%)Albemarle
Virginia
U.S
Summary & Analysis 7
Tax revenues offer a good indication of
the state of the County’s economy. Changes
in sales, meals, and hotel/motel tax revenues
in particular offer a reasonable approxima-
tion of strength or weakness in local eco-
nomic conditions, since these revenue
streams reflect the underlying consumption
of many goods and services. At the national
level, private consumption represents roughly
70% of all economic activity; the exact local
percentage is not readily available but is
thought to be a major component of Albe-
marle’s economy.
There exists both good and bad news
with regard to the performance of sales,
meals, and hotel/motel tax revenue between
FY 08 Q3 and FY 09 Q3, the last quarter for
which complete data exists. The worst news
involves sales tax revenue, which declined by
12.75% between these quarters. This drop in
sales tax revenue likely reflected a consumer
response to (a) U.S. macroeconomic phe-
nomena, including a substantial drop in the
stock market in FY 09 Q1, which badly
eroded household wealth; and (b) localized
economic phenomena such as the jump in
the County’s unemployment rate, which had
a negative effect on income, and a decline in
local housing values, which lowered house-
hold wealth. (See stories, Pages 1 and 3).
Meals tax revenues also fell between FY
08 Q3 and FY 09 Q3 but, at 4.59%, the de-
cline was not nearly as sharp as was the drop
in sales tax revenue. The decline in meals tax
receipts likely resulted from the same factors
that impacted sales tax revenues, but the
substantial difference in the rate of decline
suggests that other factors helped soften the
drop. One such factor might have been an
increase in tourism. The theory is that, as the
U.S. economy deteriorated during this time
period, people in metropolitan areas of Vir-
ginia and the northeast corridor might have
opted to take shorter, “regional” vacations
rather than longer, more geographically dis-
persed trips. According to this theory, the
Charlottesville MSA would have benefited, at
the expense of other regions.
The County’s hotel/motel tax revenues
between FY 08 Q3 and FY 09 Q3 seem to
support this theory. This revenue stream
rose a modest 1.24% during the time period.
The spike in FY 08 Q4 shown on the graph
at right reflects the seasonal impact of the
University of Virginia graduation ceremonies,
which take place in May of each year.
Page 2
S ALES, MEALS, HOTEL/MOTEL TAX REVENUES MIXED
Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators
Sales Tax Revenue
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3
QuarterRev. Index (FY 08 Q3 = 100)Meals Tax Revenue
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3
QuarterRevenue Index (FY 08 Q3 = 100)Hotel/Motel Tax Revenue
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
340
FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3
QuarterRev. Index (FY 08 Q3 = 100)
Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators
Prices in Albemarle’s housing mar-
ket continue to face downward pressure
as the result of an ongoing glut in the
supply of unsold homes. As a general
rule of thumb, a residential real estate
market is in equilibrium when a five or
six month supply of unsold homes exists
in that market. The term “equilibrium”
means that prices are stable, with no
tendency to rise or fall.
Downward pressure on home prices
exists in markets which have much more
than a five or six month supply of unsold
housing inventory, since the supply of
homes for sale is greater than the de-
mand for homes. Conversely, upward
pressure on home prices exists in mar-
kets which have much less than a five or
six month supply of unsold housing in-
ventory, since the demand for homes is
greater than the supply of homes.
In the case of Albemarle County, as
of the end of FY 2009 Q4, there existed
a 12.9 month supply of unsold single family
detached dwelling units. This figure indi-
cates downward pressure on prices in this
segment of the housing market. Single
family detached homes account for roughly
two-thirds of the County’s housing stock,
so this situation has broad implications for
Albemarle.
In order to understand how this 12.9
month number is calculated, consider the
information contained in Graphs I through
III below. As shown on Graph I, in FY 09
Q4, there were 680 single family homes for
sale in Albemarle. During this quarter, as
shown on Graph II, an average of about 53
homes sold each month. These numbers
mean that, at the rate at which homes sold
during the quarter, it would have taken 12.9
months to sell all of the homes that were
on the market, i.e., there was just under a
thirteen month supply of unsold inventory,
as shown on Graph III.
A comparison of data from FY 08 Q4
and FY 09 Q4 would reveal whether the
oversupply of inventory rose or fell be-
tween the same quarter of FY 08 and FY
09, i.e., whether or not the housing mar-
ket worsened during this period. Data
for FY 08 Q4, unfortunately, is not read-
ily available. The number of months’
supply of unsold housing inventory will
be tracked in future quarters in order to
assess annual changes in the health of the
County’s residential real estate market.
Note that downward pressure on
home prices during the past year is re-
flected in the Charlottesville area home
price data shown in Graph IV, below.
This item reveals that the U.S. Federal
Home Finance Administration’s Home
Price Index (HPI) for the region declined
by roughly 4.2% between FY 08 Q3 and
FY 09 Q3, or by roughly the same per-
centage as the County’s reassessment of
single family homes between January
2008 and January 2009.
Page 3
H OUSING PRICES UNDER DOWNWARD PRESSURE
Graph IV -- FHFA Price Index for the C-Ville MSA
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3
QuarterIndex Value (FY 08 Q3 = 100)Graph I -- Single Family Homes for Sale FY 09 Q4
500
520
540
560
580
600
620
640
660
680
700
FY 09 Q4Number of Dwelling UnitsGraph II -- Mo. Avg. Number of Single Family
Homes Sold FY 09 Q4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FY 09 Q4Mo. Average Number SoldGraph III -- Mos. Supply Unsold
Single Family Homes
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
FY 09 Q4Number of Months
The Virginia Employment Commission produces data showing
the total number of full- and part-time jobs in Albemarle County, by
place of employment, but this data, unfortunately, is usually several
quarters behind the most recent quarter and, consequently, does not
provide as much timely information as does the VEC unemployment
rate data, which is fairly current. According to the most recently avail-
able total employment numbers, between FY 08 Q2 and FY 09 Q2,
the total number of jobs in Albemarle fell from 50,166 to 49,154 for a
net loss 1,012 jobs, or about 2% of the employment base. An exami-
nation of the various employment sectors reveals that the construction
and retail categories experienced the largest drops in the absolute
number of jobs. The net loss in the construction sector came to
585 jobs (16.7%), while the net loss in the retail sector equaled 431
jobs (7.03%). These declines are not surprising, given the pronounced
decline in new construction that the County has endured in the past
year, as well as the drop in retail sales tax revenue experienced in the
County recently. (See stories below and on Page 2).
Other sizable employment categories that had large percentage
losses included transportation & warehousing (87 jobs, or 10.18%),
administrative & waste services (a loss of 146 positions, or 6.95%) and
the manufacturing sector (170 jobs, or 5.46%). Interestingly, some
employment sectors managed to grow during this time period. Educa-
tional services, for example, increased by 390 or 2.78%, while the
“other services, except public administration” category rose by 124
jobs or 7.39%. Oddly, the agricultural sector, a relatively small em-
ployment category, experienced a net increase of 88 jobs during the
course of the four quarters, or about a 20% increase. The cause of this
88 job increase is not known at this time.
T OTAL EMPLOYMENT FALLS
The number of building permits issued, and the total dollar value of these permits, offers a decent, but not perfect, forward indica-
tion of the quantity and nature of new construction in the County. On the residential side of the market, the number of building per-
mits issued between FY 08 Q4 and FY 09 Q2 dropped nearly 60%, remained depressed during FY 09 Q3, and then began to recover
in FY 09 Q4. As of this last quarter, the number of permits issued fell by about 30% from the number issued in FY 08 Q4. This
situation reflects a market response to the glut of unsold housing inventory in the County’s housing market (see story on Page 3).
The total dollar value of residential permits issued also dropped by roughly 30% Q4 to Q4. On the non-residential side, the dollar
value of permits issued rose by about 41% between FY 08 Q4 and FY 09 Q4. The dramatic spike that took place in FY 09 Q3 re-
flected activity in hospital construction at UVA and Martha Jefferson. The County’s Department of Community Development esti-
mates that, without this hospital-related activity, the total dollar value of non-residential building permits issued in FY 09 03 would
have been about $27 million.
Page 4 Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators
Total Employment, By Place of Employment
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
FY 08 Q2 FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2
QuarterJobs Index (FY 08 Q2 = 100)N EW CONSTRUCTION MIXED
Residential Building Permits Issued
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4
QuarterPermit Index (FY 08 Q4 = 100)Dollar Value of Resid. and Comm. Bldg. Permits
0
50
100
150
200
250
FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4
QuarterDollar Value (in Millions)Resid.
Comm.
“Oddly, the agricultural sector, a relatively small
employment category, experienced a net increase
of 88 jobs during the course of the four quarters, or
about a 20% increase.”
The U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the Implicit Price
Deflator (IPD) for state and local governments posted declines
between FY 08 Q4 and FY 09 Q4. The drop in CPI came to
1.15%, while the fall in the IPD equaled about 0.96%. Year-over-
year declines in these indices are rare, and the prospect of price
deflation has motivated the U.S. Federal Reserve System to keep
short-term interest rates at historically low levels, in order to stimu-
late demand for goods and services.
Although CPI and the IPD both measure changes in prices, the
two indices track price changes in two different market baskets of
goods and services. The Consumer Price Index pertains to goods
and services that households are likely to purchase, while the Implicit
Price Deflator pertains to goods and services that state and local gov-
ernments are likely to purchase. Households, for example, might buy
items such as diapers, and barber services, while state and local gov-
ernments are more likely to buy things such as police radios and
traffic lights. Clearly, there exists some overlap between the two
market baskets; households, as well as state and local governments,
buy products such as personal computers, pens, and motor vehicles.
The differences that exist in the two sets of market baskets,
however, typically generate numbers that do not coincide with each
other, especially in the long run. As shown on the graph, CPI de-
creased by slightly more than did the IPD between FY 08 Q4 and
FY 09 Q4. At first glance this situation would seem to suggest that
the two price indices move pretty much in tandem over time, but
the cumulative impact of differences in annual rates of change can
render large long-term gaps between CPI and IPD price levels.
Between FY 04 Q4 and FY 09 Q4, for example, CPI rose by 13.4%
while IPD for state and local government increased by 24.3%, or at
a rate that was slightly more than 80% higher than Consumer Price
Index’s rate of growth.
U.S. PRICE INDICES POST ANNUAL DECLINE
Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators Page 5
U.S. CPI and IPD for State & Local Govt.
94
96
98
100
102
104
106
FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4
QuarterIndex Level (FY 08 Q4 = 100)CPI-U
IPD
“The Consumer Price Index (CPI) pertains to
goods and services that households are likely to pur-
chase, while the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) per-
tains to goods and services that state and local gov-
ernments are likely to purchase.”
U.S. CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REBOUNDS; U.S LEI’S REMAIN FLAT
The Conference Board, a nonprofit organization that tracks
business and economic trends, publishes a U.S. Consumer Confi-
dence Index, as well as a set of U.S. Leading Economics Indicators
(LEI’s). The numbers in these data sets offer a general idea about
the direction of U.S. macroeconomic trends and, by extension,
Albemarle County’s economic prospects.
Changes in consumer confidence should precede changes in
consumption. As shown in the graph, consumer confidence
dropped by about 30% between FY 09 Q1 and FY 09 Q2; this de-
cline presaged a roughly 20% drop in Albemarle County’s sales tax
revenue between FY 09 Q2 and FY 09 Q3. (See chart on Page 2).
Another steep decline in U.S. Consumer Confidence between FY
09 Q2 and FY 09 Q3 suggests that final sales tax revenue numbers
for FY 09 Q4 will fall substantially from the previous quarter. The
rebound in consumer confidence in FY 09 Q4 could herald a quar-
terly turnaround in consumption.
The U.S. LEIs fell by about 2% between FY 08 Q4 and FY 09
Q4, with a bottom in FY 09 Q3. The LEI’s include items such as
weekly manufacturing hours, interest rates, and orders for capital
goods. The relatively flat LEI data suggests that any economic re-
covery in the near term could be fairly sluggish.
Cons. Confid. and Leading Econ. Indicators
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4
QuarterIndex Value (FY 08 Q4 = 100)Cons. Conf.
Lead. Indic.
The sharp drop in the U.S. Consumer Confidence
Index preceded a decline in the County’s sales tax
revenue; the tiny uptick in the LEI’s after FY 09 Q3
suggests that an economic recovery in the near term
could be weak.
Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators Page 6
U.S. GDP CONTRACTS 2.4% IN FY 2008-09
Given the large amounts of wealth
that U.S. consumers have lost in housing
and stock market wealth during the reces-
sion, few economists expect that the re-
covery will be a robust, consumer-led phe-
nomenon. A minority school of economic
thought, however, contends that “pent-
up” demand will help accelerate and am-
plify the recovery. One major question is
whether or not growth in GDP during the
recovery will be sufficient to bring down
the unemployment rate. Weak GDP
growth could render a “jobless” recovery.
Note that the U.S. Bureau of Eco-
nomic Analysis (BEA), the entity that
calculates U.S. GDP, also calculates a
GDP figure for Virginia, but this infor-
mation is done only on an annual basis
and is not completed until well after the
end of the calendar year. The BEA,
unfortunately, does not estimate GDP
for the Charlottesville Metropolitan
Statistical Area (MSA), although it is
assumed that local GDP, as is the case
with the unemployment rate, follows
state and national trends fairly closely.
U.S. Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) represents the total dollar value
of all the goods and services produced
within the United States. Between FY
08 Q4 and FY 09 Q4, U.S. GDP fell
from $14.5 trillion to $14.1 trillion, or
by 2.4%, reflecting the severe national
recession that began in December of
2007. Many economists think that FY
09 Q4 will represent the low point for
GDP during the current business cycle,
and that growth in GDP will resume in
FY 10 Q1 or possibly in FY 10 Q2.
W EIGHTED AVERAGE WEEKLY WAGE RISES
The weighted average weekly wage
gives a rough idea about changes in the
earnings of the “typical” worker in
Albemarle. The most relevant compari-
son involves the same quarter between
years, since the weighted average weekly
wage can be influenced by changes in
seasonal employment. Note the drop in
FY 08 Q4; this drop coincides with the
entrance of students into the labor force
in the summer, which helps lower the
weighted average weekly wage. Be-
tween FY 08 Q2 and FY 09 Q2, the
weighted average weekly wage rose by
3.9%, but this growth could have re-
sulted from job losses in low-paying
sectors such as retail and construction.
Weighted Average Weekly Wage
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
FY 08 Q2 FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2
QuarterWage Index (FY 08 Q2 = 100)N UMBER OF BUSINESSES GROWS
Changes in the average number of
businesses that exist in Albemarle in
each quarter renders an approximate
estimate of business formation in the
County. The Virginia Employment
Commission does not generate this
data in a timely manner but, between
FY 08 Q2 and FY 09 Q2, the number
of businesses in Albemarle rose by
4.5%. Note, however, that after FY 08
Q3 the number of businesses rose only
slightly. The severity and length of the
current recession, additionally, might
have led to a decline in the total number
of businesses operating in Albemarle in
quarters subsequent to FY 09 Q2.
Avg. No. of Business Establishments
2,750
2,770
2,790
2,810
2,830
2,850
2,870
2,890
2,910
2,930
2,950
FY 08 Q2 FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2
QuarterNumber of Establishments
housing values in the County
[story, Page 3]. The drop in
local consumption and the
deterioration in the County’s
housing market clearly were
factors that exacerbated the
loss of employment in Albe-
marle’s retail and construction
sectors [story, Page 4].
It is worth noting that the
impact of the recession has not
been felt uniformly. The non-
residential side of the construc-
tion industry, for example, has
been aided somewhat by new
hospital projects at the Univer-
sity of Virginia and Martha
Jefferson [story, Page 4], but
this situation, unfortunately,
has not prevented an overall
net loss of jobs in the construc-
tion sector. On another note, a
slight increase in hotel/motel
tax revenue [story, Page 2]
seems to suggest that the
County’s tourism industry
might have been spared from
the worst of the recession in
the sense that people residing
in the mid-Atlantic region
might have opted to take short,
regional vacations rather than
long trips outside of the area.
The fact that meals tax revenue
fell only slightly in comparison
with sales tax revenue [story,
Page 2], also suggests that re-
gional tourism might have
blunted the impact of the re-
cession on Albemarle County’s
tourism sector.
Some of the Quarterly
Economic Indicators contain
worse news than meets the eye.
U.S. and global macro-
economic trends continue to
have an adverse impact on the
County’s economy. The crisis
that started in the global finan-
cial sector in the summer of
2007 and the resulting reces-
sion that began in the U.S.
near the end of CY 2007 have
had a ripple effect locally. A
comparative analysis would
reveal that Albemarle has not
been as seriously impacted by
the recession as have been
many other localities around
the state and country. The
recession, nonetheless, has
had a significant impact on the
County, and an examination of
the Quarterly Economic Indi-
cators outlines the course that
the recession has taken locally.
The financial crisis that
began in the summer of 2007
led to a large decline in U.S.
consumer and business confi-
dence and a subsequent de-
cline in gross domestic prod-
uct (GDP) between FY 08 Q4
and FY 09 Q4 [stories, Pages 5
and 6]. This situation helped
contribute to a drop in local
consumption, as evidenced by
the decline in the County’s
sales tax revenue [story, Page
2]. When coupled with in-
creasingly tight credit condi-
tions, the drop in consumer
confidence also had a negative
impact on the County’s hous-
ing market, as illustrated by
the ongoing glut of unsold
inventory on the market and
the resulting general decline in
The U.S. Consumer Price In-
dex, for all Urban Consumers
(CPI-U), for example, actually
declined by about 2% between
FY 08 Q4 and FY 09 Q4
[story, Page 5]; this situation
would seem to be good news
at first glance, but persistent
annual price deflation could
devastate the economy if con-
sumers held off making pur-
chases in anticipation that the
prices of goods and services
would be lower in the future.
The rise in the County’s
weighted average weekly wage
[story, Page 6] likewise reveals
potentially bad news; although
this item rose between FY 08
Q2 and FY 09 Q2, the rise
might be explained by losses
in lower-paying retail and con-
struction jobs.
The relatively mild degree
to which the recession has
impacted the County during
the course of the past several
quarters most likely is due to
the mitigating economic ef-
fects of the University of Vir-
ginia and the UVA Medical
Center. The deterioration in
most of the County’s Quar-
terly Economic Indicators,
however, reflects the fact that
Albemarle’s economy remains
vulnerable to the same U.S.
and global macroeconomic
pressures that are faced by all
localities. The recovery in
Albemarle’s economy, conse-
quently, will be driven most
significantly by events at the
national and global levels.
S UMMARY & ANALYSIS
Albemarle County is a community of 94,000 people, located 116 miles southwest of Washington, DC, and 72
miles northwest of Richmond. Founded in 1744, Albemarle surrounds the City of Charlottesville, and is the home
of the University of Virginia, the University of Virginia Medical Center, and Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello. The
County’s resident labor force of 52,000 is well-educated; 53% of the population aged 25 or older has at least a
bachelor’s degree. Industries that have expanded in Albemarle in recent years include biotechnology and national
defense intelligence. The County’s location at the intersection of Interstate 64 and U.S. Highway 29, the availability
of air service to several major hubs from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport, and AMTRAK passenger rail
service to the northeast corridor help support Albemarle’s role as a transportation hub in Central Virginia. The
County’s natural beauty and historical importance, additionally, continue to attract visitors from around the world.
Please visit us on the web at
www. albemarle.org
Page 7 Albemarle Quarterly Economic Indicators
The Albemarle Quarterly Eco-
nomic Indicators is published at the
end of January, April, July, and
October by the Albemarle County
Office of the County Executive, 401
McIntire Road, 4th Floor, Charlottes-
ville, VA 22902. For additional
information about this newsletter, or
its contents, please contact Steven A.
Allshouse, Coordinator of Research
and Analysis at (434) 296-5841 or
at sallshouse@albemarle.org.
Albemarle County Quarterly Economic Indicators -- Underlying Data(As of August 10, 2009)FY 08 Q3 FY 08 Q4 FY 09 Q1 FY 09 Q2 FY 09 Q3 FY 09 Q4CY 08 Q1 CY 08 Q2 CY 08 Q3 CY 08 Q4 CY 09 Q1 CY 09 Q2General Economic ActivityLocal Option Sales and Use Tax Revenue ($) 2,984,345 3,334,139 3,114,592 3,276,257 2,603,988 N/AFood & Beverage Tax Revenue ($) 1,398,887 1,912,933 909,058 1,310,669 1,334,680 N/ATransient Occupancy Tax Revenue ($) 360,566 1,093,706 428,483 492,603 365,051 N/AEmployment, Unemployment, Wages, and No. of EstablishmentsTotal Employment (a) 49,410 51,289 49,850 49,154 N/A N/AUnemployment Rate -- Albemarle (b) 2.8 2.7 3.5 3.4 4.9 5.4Unemployment Rate -- Virginia (b) 3.8 3.8 4.4 4.7 6.8 7.0Unemployment Rate -- U.S. (b) 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.6 8.8 9.1Weighted Average Weekly $ Wage (c) 844 768 884 909 N/A N/AAverage Number of Business Establishments (d) 2,860 2,871 2,890 2,897 N/A N/AResidential Real Estate MarketNo. of Single Family Detached Homes for Sale (e) 704 N/A N/A N/A 660 680Mo. Average No. of Single Family Detached Homes Sold in Qtr. 62.33 N/A N/A N/A 28.33 52.67No. of Mos. Supply of Unsold Single Family Detached Inventory (f) 11.29 N/A N/A N/A 23.29 12.91FHFA Housing Price Index (HPI) for the Charlottesville MSA (g)248.48 241.93 240.04 241.49 238.08 N/AResidential & Non-Residential New ConstructionTotal Number of Residential Building Permits 127 139 94 58 58 97Total Dollar Value of Residential Building Permits (in Millions) 49.303 51.691 40.84 23.111 23.809 36.761Total Dollar Value of Non-Residential Building Permits (in Millions) 25.635 28.833 41.577 18.751 237.117 40.684Price LevelsU.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) 212.100 216.757 219.278 213.075 212.015 214.263U.S. Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) for State and Local Government 114.799 116.875 118.492 116.395 115.586 115.754MiscellaneousConference Board U.S. Consumer Confidence Index 76.5 57.3 57.3 40.7 29.9 48.3Conference Board U.S. Leading Indicators Index N/A 101.9 100.9 99.4 98.7 100.0U.S. Gross Domestic Product (in $ Billions) 14,373.9 14,497.8 14,546.7 14,347.3 14,178.0 14,149.8Please see notes and sources on the following page.
Albemarle County Quarterly Economic Indicators (Cont.)Notes: (a) Employment numbers represent the total number of full- and part-time jobs, and are by place of employment; total employment in FY 08 Q2/CY 07 Q4 equaled 50,166; (b) the unemployment rate is not seasonally-adjusted; (c) the average weekly wage is weighted by the relative number of jobs in each sector in the quarter under consideration, and does not include the utilities sector; the average weekly wage in FY 08 Q2/CY 07 Q4 equaled $875; (d) the average number of business establishments in FY 08 Q2/CY 07 Q4 was 2,773; (e) the number of dwelling units for sale is as of the end of the quarter; (f) the number of months' supply of unsold inventory is calculated by dividing the number of dwelling units for sale at the end of the quarter by the monthly average number of sales (pending or contingent) that occurred during the quarter; and (g) the Charlottesville MSA includes the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, and Nelson.Sources: (1) Tax revenue data is from Robert Walters, Albemarle County Department of Finance; (2) Employment, wage, and average number of establishments figures are derived from, the Virginia Employment Commission's Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages website: (http://www.vawc.virginia.gov), 29 July 2009; (3) Unemployment rate numbers are derived from the Virginia Employment Commission's Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment website: (http://www.vawc.virginia.gov/), 3 August 2009; (4)Real estate market data comes from the Albemarle County Assessor's Office; (5) FHFA Home Price Index (HPI) data is taken from the Federal Housing Finance Administration's website's "All Transactions Indexes" sheet's "Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Divisions" option: (http://www.fhfa.gov/Default.aspx?Page=87), 12 July 2009; (6) Building permit figures are taken from the Albemarle County Building Activity Report for the relevant quarter: (http://www.albemarle.org/deptforms.asp?section_id=&department=bldactrpt), 3 August 2009, and from e-mail correspondence with Rob Burton, Albemarle County Department of Community Development; (7) U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) data is derived from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website: (ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt), 3 August 2009; (8) The Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) for state and local governments is taken from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, "National Economic Accounts" webpage: (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=13&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no), 3 August 2009; (9) U.S. Consumer confidence and U.S. Leading Economic Indicator index values are taken from the Conference Board's website: (http://www.conference-board.org/economics/indicators.cfm?daterequest=7/1/2009#calendar), 31 July 2009; and (10) U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers are from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis website: (http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=5&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&Freq=Qtr), 31 July 2009.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Defense Intelligence Agency R ivanna Station Survey
Results
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of survey results of employees being
relocated to Rivanna Station
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, and D avis; Ms . C atlin and Ms .
Stimart
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT A GENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
As a res ult of the Federal Base Relocation and Closure (BRAC ) Program, federal military and civilian employees
from w ork groups associated with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the National Geospatial Intelligence
Agenc y w ill be reassigned from facilities in Northern Virginia and W as hington, D.C. to a consolidated location in
Albemarle County with the existing National Ground Intelligence Center (N GIC ). A DIA/BRAC Relocation Advisory
Group has been meeting for several y ears to analyze the anticipated ex pansion, to identify local, state and federal
resourc es that may be available to as sist with impacts, and to create an environment of support to ac commodate
the expans ion. The group is compris ed of representatives from the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic
Development (TJPED), the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis sion, the Charlottesville C hamber of
Commerce and the Piedmont Workforc e N etw ork along with economic/business dev elopment and c ommunity
relations staff from Albemarle and surrounding counties. One important element of the group’s planning has been an
understanding of the needs and desires of potentially relocating employees. A preliminary survey of those
employees recently has been completed and results w ill be presented to the Board at the N ovember 4 Board
meeting.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
By June 30, 2010, the County will: Maintain a strong and sustainable economy; Increase the economic vitality of
County’s Development areas; and Increas e the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in low er
income households, to bec ome selfsuffic ient.
DISCU SSION :
County staff has been working for some time with D IA personnel and the Piedmont W orkforce Network to prepare
and conduc t a survey of those employees w ho will be impacted by the BR AC relocation to Rivanna Station. The
County provided funding in the amount of $4,500.00 to support the survey effort. The s urvey was designed by the
Center for Regional Economic C ompetitiv eness at George Mason University and was administered and collected by
the DIA Office of Human R esources. The survey is seen as an important step in understanding the needs and
current feelings of employ ees and their households and w as designed to obtain candid assessments of the potential
disruption that relocation may cause, what kind of help w ould be required to address the disruption, and to gauge
current (best estimate) interest and willingness to relocate to the Rivanna Station area. The survey will provide
valuable demographic information and c ommuting/reloc ation preferenc es that will be c ritical to our region’s planning
process es as we anticipate and respond to the Rivanna Station expans ion. As data about the relocating employees
are made available, including housing preferences, family composition, etc., the DIA/BR AC R elocation Advisory
Group w ill perform a more comprehensive needs assessment and formulate a plan to respond to anticipated impacts
while maintaining the quality of life for existing residents in affected areas.
The preliminary survey has been completed, and DIA personnel, along with representatives from the C enter for
Regional Economic Competitiveness , are scheduled to meet with county staff and the Piedmont Workforce Network
Board in late October to preview and dis cuss the results. The survey results and a general update on the status of
the relocation will be presented to the Board at the November 4th Board meeting.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budget impac t.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
No spec ific action by the Board is requested at this time.
Ret urn t o regular agenda
County of A lbemarle
MEMOR AND UM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan H oy, Senior Deputy C lerk
DATE: November 4, 2009
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
Attached pleas e find an updated listing of vac anc ies on boards and commiss ions through
December 2009 provided for informational purposes only.
The following Boards and Commissions hav e been advertis ed and applications were received
as follow s:
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One v acancy, Planning Commissioner.
Don Franco
Jefferson Area Board for A ging: One vac anc y.
Constance Palmer
N atural Heritage Committee: Tw o vacanc ies.
Stephanie D eNicola
Christopher D umler
Christopher Kopp
Pantops Advisory Council: Tw o vacancies.
Jason Dugas
Public Recreation Facilities A uthority: Two vacancies.
No applications received.
R oute 250 W est Task Force: One vacancy.
Brandon Early
Randall Switz
The following reappointments require action by the Board:
Land Use Tax A dvisory Board:
Dan Maupin
Montie Pace
Fred Shields
R SWA Citizens A dvisory Committee: One vacancy.
Jeffery Greer, Joint Appointee (City to appoint on 11/2 for a one year term.)
View Vacancy List
Return to regular agenda
1MEMBERTERM EXPIRESNEW TERMEXPIRESWISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED?DISTRICT IFMAGISTERIALAPPOINTMENTACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible No Action Required ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible No Action Required Albemarle County Service Authority Richard Carter12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack JouettNo Action Required Albemarle County Service Authority Liz Palmer12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel MillerNo Action Required Albemarle County Service Authority Doanld Wagner12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, RioNo Action Required Board of Building Code Appeals Doug Lowe 11/21/200911/21/2014EligibleNo Action Required Board of Social Services Kate Rosenfield12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel MillerNo Action Required Board of Social Services Mary Lou Fowler 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack Jouett No Action Required Board of Social Services Brenda Doremus-Daniel12/31/200912/31/2013Ineligible, District, RioNo Action Required Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Authority Kurt Goodwin 12/1/200912/1/2012Ineligible, Joint appointeeNo Action Required Equalization BoardAlan Collier12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, RivannaNo Action Required Equalization BoardDavid Cooke12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Jack JouettNo Action Required Equalization BoardVirginia Gardner 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, White HallNo Action Required Equalization BoardRosa Hudson12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Scottsville No Action Required Equalization BoardKathy Rash 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Rio No Action Required Equalization BoardAlice Nye Fitch 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, District, Samuel MillerNo Action Required Fire Prevention Board of AppealsFred Huckstep11/21/200911/21/2014EligibleNo Action Required Housing Committee Drew Holzwarth 12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleNo Action Required Housing Committee Ida Simmons12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleNo Action Required Housing Committee Paul Beyer12/31/200912/31/2012EligibleNo Action Required Housing Committee Leonard Winslow 12/31/200912/31/2012Ineligible No Action Required JABADavid Rogers3/31/2011ResignedAction Required, 1 Recv'dJoint Airport Commission Kurt Goodwin12/1/200912/1/2012Ineligible No Action RequiredJoint Airport Commission William Dirickson 12/1/200912/1/2012Yes, as Joint Rep. w/ City No Action Required Jordan Development Corporation Scott Huang 8/13/20098/13/2010YesNo Action Required Jordan Development Corporation Rosa Hudson 8/13/20098/13/2010No No Action Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Dan Maupin9/1/20099/1/2011YesAction Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Fred Shields9/1/20099/1/2011YesAction Required Land Use Tax Advisory Board Montie Pace 9/1/20099/1/2011Yes Action Required Natural Heritage CommitteePeter Warren9/30/20099/30/2013No Advertised, 3 Recv'd Natural Heritage CommitteeJason Woodfin 9/30/20099/30/2013No Advertised, 3 Recv'd Pantops Community Advisory CouncilAnthony McHaleTBDNo Advertised, 1 Recv'd Pantops Community Advisory CouncilAndrew Dracopoli TBDResigned Advertised, 1 Recv'd Planning CommissionEric Strucko 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Samuel MillerNo Action Required Planning CommissionAndres Franco12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Rio No Action Required Planning CommissionMarcia Joseph 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, At-largeNo Action Required Planning CommissionBill Edgerton 12/31/200912/31/2013Eligible, District, Jack Jouett No Action Required Planning CommissionJulia Monteith 12/31/200912/31/2010Eligible, UVA No Action Required PRFAJoseph Cochran 12/13/2010Resigned NoAdvertised, 1 received
PRFALee Rasmussen 12/13/2011Resigned No Advertised PRFAHamilton Moses12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible No Action Required PRFADavid Emmitt 12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible No Action Required PRFAWilliam Lassetter12/13/200912/13/2012Eligible No Action Required PRFACraig G. Van de Castle12/13/2010NoAdvertised RSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeStephen Kirkup12/31/200912/31/2011Ineligible No Action Required RSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeTeri Kent12/31/200912/31/2011Eligible No Action Required RSWA Citizens Advisory CommitteeJeffery Greer12/31/200912/31/2011Yes Action Required, (Appt. for 1 year) Route 250 West Task Force Margaret DeMallie9/5/20099/5/2012NoAdvertised, 2 Recv'dRoute 250 West Task Force Richard Kast 9/5/20099/5/2012No Do not fill vacancy Revised 10/28/09
Page 1 of 4
Allan D. Sumpter Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY MONTHLY REPORT
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
MONTHLY MEETING
ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOS ACTION ITEMS
David Slutzky
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Rio and Berkmar Roads has been completed.
Dennis Rooker
• Pedestrian Safety at Albemarle High School - Installation of new pedestrian signals that utilize
countdown timers is complete. Additionally, signs have been installed to notify drivers making
right turns of the requirement to yield to pedestrians.
• Pedestrian Signal Installations – Installation of pedestrian signal heads at the intersections of
Hydraulic and Commonwealth Roads is complete.
Ann Mallek
• Intersection Safety at Earlysville Road and Reas Ford Road – A “Stop Ahead” pavement
message has been installed at this location.
• Sugar Hollow Bridge (Route 614) – Substructure work continues on this bridge rehabilitation
project. Weather permitting, he bridge is expected to re-open November 20th.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
Albemarle County
• Route 656 Georgetown Road, 0656-002-254, C501
VDOT is proceeding with development of appropriate crosswalk lighting plans. Utility
easements have been finalized and the project is being prepared for formal right-of-way
submission.
• Route 691 Jarmans Gap Road, 0691-002-258 P101, R201, C501
Right-of-way staff continues to work on appraisals and negotiations with affected property
owners throughout this project.
CONSTRUCTION Active Construction Projects
0631-002-128, C502, B612, B613, B657 Grade, Drain, Asphalt, Utilities, Signals, Landscaping and
Bridges
• Grading work and storm drain installation nearly complete. Contractor plans to begin placing
base stone on the southern section of roadway during the first week in November.
• Structure excavation, forming and placing concrete remains ongoing for the substructure of the
proposed Bridge over Norfolk Southern RR Phase 1 along with substructure work on proposed
Bridge over Meadow Creek.
0743-002-282, B658 Bridge and Approaches over North Fork of the Rivanna River
• Fill at approaches and rip rap at abutments complete.
• Concrete bridge substructure work complete.
• Assembly of prefabricated steel truss superstructure proceeding.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 2 of 4
(NFO)PM7P-002-F09, P401 Asphalt Plant Mix Schedule (ARRA Funding)
• Completion of raised pavement marker installation remains to complete entire schedule.
PLANNING, PERMITS AND LAND DEVELOPMENT
Land Development Items Total This
Month
Total This
Fiscal
Year
Special Use Permits and Rezoning Application Review 2 6
Site Plan Reviews for new Subdivisions 5 14
New Entrance Plan Reviews 3 9
Total Permits Processed 52 148
Inspection of new Subdivision Street conducted 35 86
Inspection of new entrance conducted 107 332
Miles of Street Accepted in the State System 0.00 .62
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Being reviewed
RTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
Owensville Rd.
(Route 676)
Between Route 250 and
Holkham Drive (Route
1636)
Safety Study Under Review
Richmond Rd
(Rt 250)
Between Peter Jefferson
Parkway and Worrell Dr.
Request from ACPD to
review the crossover due to
the high accident rate
Under review
Irish Rd (Rt 6) Esmont Safety review of Intersections Review complete,
recommendations being drafted.
Whippoorwill
Rd. (Route 839) Entire Route Speed study Under review
Dunlora Drive
(Rt 1177) Entire Route Traffic calming Preliminary review underway to
determine eligibility.
Ivy Road (Rt
250)
Between Crozet Ave.
and Three Notchd Road Speed study Under review
Park Ridge Dr.
(Rt 1250)
Intersection with
Stonegate Ln (Rt 1258) Multi-way stop Under review
MAINTENANCE WORK COMPLETED
Patching on Routes I-64, 231, 250, 625 (Hatton Ferry), 627 (Porters), 630 (Green Creek), 640
(St John), 717 (Secretarys Sand), 723 (Sharon), 726 (James River), 729 (Milton), 795
(Presidents), 1136 (Maple View), 1152 (Mill Creek Ct), 1158 (Bryan CT), 1159 (Spring Mtn),
1161 (Alpine Ct), and 1301 (Bird).
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 3 of 4
Cleared pipes and performed ditch work on Routes 20, 29, 250, 600 (Stony Point Pass), 616
(Black Cat), 618 (Jefferson Mills), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 658 (Barracks Farm), 712 (Plank),
717 (Secretarys Sand), 719 (Alberene), 746 (Fosters Branch), 747 (Preddy Creek), 759 (Three
Chopt), 784 (Doctors Crossing), 810 (Browns Gap), and 1315 (Commonwealth).
Tree cleanup on Routes 29, 601 (Free Union), 614 (Garth), 621 (Wolf Trap), 627 (Carters
Mtn), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 635 (Miller School), 636 (Batesville), 637 (Dickwoods), 640
(Gilbert Station), 675 (Lake Albemarle), 676 (Woodlands), 677 (Old Ballard), 678
(Owensville), 708 (Taylors Gap), 743 (Earlysville), 1403 (Berkmar), 1438 (Hilton Heights),
and 1610 (West Pines).
• Mowing Routes 250, 29/250, 601 (Free Union), 606 (Dickerson), 609 (Wesley Chapel), 610
(Lonesome Mtn), 614 (Garth/Sugar Hollow), 621 (Wolf Trap), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 635
(Miller School), 643 (Polo Grounds), 660 (Reas Ford), 664 (Frays Mtn), 665 (Buck Mtn/
Millington), 668 (Walnut Level), 671 (Davis Shop), 692 (Plank), 723 (Sharon), 743 (Advance
Mills/Earlysville), 744 (Hacktown), 808 (Running Deer), and 810 (Browns Gap).
• Grading, machining and adding stone to gravel roads on Routes 600 (Watts Passage), 606
(Dickerson), 611 (Jarmans Gap), 627 (Green Mtn), 637 (Dickwoods), 638 (Blacks Ln), 640
(Gilbert Station), 643 (Rio Mills), 662 (Bleakhouse), 668 (Fox Mtn), 704 (Fortune Ln),
713 (Glendower), 714 (Riding Club), 722 (Old Green Mtn), 723 (Sharon), 725 (Dawsons
Mill), 731 (Keswick), 746 (Fosters Branch), 747 (Preddy Creek), 784 (Doctors Xing), 795
(Blenheim), 821 (Blufton Mill), and 1413 (Smithfield).
• Dust control on Routes 600 (Watts Passage), 611 (Jarmans Gap), 637 (Dickwoods), 646
(Lovers Ln), 684 (Mint Springs), 694 (Miller Lake), 695 (Crown Orchard), 707 (Blair Park),
736 (White Mtn), 758 (Smith), 784 (Doctors Crossing) and 811 (Jones Mill).
• Dead animal pick up on all routes
• Litter pickup on Routes 6, 20, 29, 250, 614 (Sugar Hollow), 618 (Martin Kings), 626
(James River), 631 (Old Lynchburg), 635 (Miller School), 663 (Simmons Gap), 664
(Markwood), 665 (Millington), 692 (Plank), 712 (Plank), and 716 (Forsyth).
• Bridge work Route 614 (Sugar Hollow Road).
• Installed pipe on Route 673 (Slam Gate).
• Traffic control for UVA football games.
PLANNED MAINTENANCE WORK – DECEMBER 2009
• Maintenance activities are continuing on various routes. They include:
o Pavement patching.
o Machining gravel roads.
o Dust control.
o Cleaning ditches and pipes.
o Litter pickup on various routes.
o Tree trimming and removal various routes.
o Repair surface treatment and tar and gravel in failed areas on Route 723 Chestnut Grove
Road.
o Place class II rip rap at wing wall to correct erosion problem at the bridge on Route 691,
Wyant Lane.
o Replace cross pipe Route 20, Valley Street in Town of Scottsville.
Virginia Department of Transportation
701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
Page 4 of 4
MAINTENANCE BUDGET
0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7
0
5
10
15
20
Jul-09 Aug -09 Sep-09 Oct-0 9 Nov-09 Dec-09 J an-10 Feb-10 M ar-10 Apr-1 0 M ay-1 0 Jun-10 MillionsMonths
TOTAL MAINT BUDGET
FORECASTED EXPENDITURES
CUMULATIVE ACTUAL
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Downtown Crozet Streets cape Enhancement Project,
TEA21, Transportation Enhancement Program Grant
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing and adoption of resolution endorsing
the Downtow n C rozet Streetscape Project for a TEA
21 Transportation Enhancement Grant application
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Benish, Kelsey, and W ade
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
N ovember 4, 2009
A CTION: X
IN FORMATION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
AC TION :
INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEWED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
Congres s c reated the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Ac t (ISTEA) in 1991 to address growing
concerns about air quality, open space, and traffic congestion. One of several programs in ISTEA (now referred to
as “TEA21”) dealt with Transportation Enhancements. This program is the first Federal initiative to focus on
enhancing the travel ex perience and fostering the quality of life in American communities. The Transportation
Enhancement Program fosters more c hoic es for trav el by providing funding for sidew alks, bike lanes, and the
convers ion of abandoned railroad corridors into trails. Communities may also use the program to revitalize local and
regional economies by restoring eligible historic buildings, renovating s treetscapes, or providing transportation
museums and visitor c enters. Many communities als o use the program to acquire, restore and preserve scenic or
historic sites.
The County has receiv ed a total of $300,000 in TEA21 Enhancement grants for Phas es I and II ($150,000 each) of
a three phase program for sidewalk/s treetscape improv ements in Croz et. Phase I includes the intersection of Rt.
240 and Rt. 810. The Phase I improv ements have been completed using C ounty funds to expedite construction of
the project and the TEA21 grant has been transferred to Phase II of the project.
The Phase II enhancement project is within the area along C rozet Avenue between Tabor Street and the Blue Goose
Building. Proposed Phas e II construction improvements include the follow ing elements :
Remove utility poles and overhead wires along C rozet Avenue. Provide new underground s ervice feeds
from the overhead lines along C arter Street and from the new underground lines along Main Street and
w ithin the exis ting alleys on the east side.
Selectively demolish exis ting deteriorated c urbs and sidewalks. D emolis h existing retaining walls on the
east side of Crozet Avenue in front of the res idences and construct new walls as required for s idew alks and
pavement widening for bicycles and vehicles.
Create a downtown gateway feature at the Tabor Street intersection by constructing a pedestrian terrac e
w ith concrete pavers, a stone retaining wall, street furniture, lights, and ornamental plantings.
Construct new concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and s tormw ater utility improvements at the end of Tabor
Street and along both sides of C rozet Avenue. Extend stormwater utilities to the discharge points south of
Tabor Street and s outh of Jarmans Gap Road.
Establish a new variable width Crozet Av enue street section to accommodate north and south travel lanes ,
left turn lanes at intersections, and bike lanes in some areas.
Upgrade pav ements and sidewalks at the J armans Gap Road intersection.
Construct a new intersection to serve the future extension of “New Main Street” and to access properties to
the west.
Install concrete pavers at all c orners to c reate enhanced pedestrian areas and install concrete paver
c rosswalks and accessibility ramps at the Tabor Street, Jarmans Gap Road, and New Main Street
intersections.
Construct s treetside biofilters along both sides of Crozet Avenue and ins tall ornamental biofilter trees,
s hrubs, and groundcovers.
Install new pedestriansc ale, decorative light fixtures and s treet furniture along both sides of C rozet Avenue.
Staff is now preparing a $250,000 grant proposal for the construction of the Phase II and III improv ements. The
Phases II and III plans are 95% complete. The purpose for this application is to reques t grant funds for Phase III,
the last eligible phase of the streetscape project. VDOT is currently proposing polic y c hanges to the Transportation
Enhancement Program. These changes will focus on completing exis ting projects, promoting core transportation
functions and modifying the existing policy to better enable projects to reach completion. These are expected to be
approved in October/November 2009. If approved, thes e policy changes will support previously funded multiphase
projects such as the C roz et Streetscape Enhancement Project. As part of the grant application proc ess for Phase
III, the C ounty is required to hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution committing to pay the minimum twenty (20)
percent of the total project cost. Grant requests are due to VDOT by December 1, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in w hich citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
DISCU SSION :
The Phase III enhancement project is within the area along Crozet Av enue between the Blue Goose Building and the
intersec tion at “The Square”. Proposed Phase III construction improvements include the following elements
(Attachment A):
Selectively demolish existing deteriorated c urbs and sidewalks.
Construct s tormw ater utilities along C rozet Avenue with new curb inlets and pipes. Connec t to Phase II
utility system.
Establish a new variable width Crozet Avenue street section to accommodate north and south travel lanes , a
left turn lane at New Main Street, and bike lanes in some areas.
Construct new concrete curb and gutter and variable width c oncrete sidewalk s along both sides of Crozet
Av enue.
Upgrade exis ting vehicular entrance at the Dry Cleaning building and reconfigure the exis ting parking area.
Upgrade exis ting vehicular entrance to the Fabulous Foods parking area.
Upgrade exis ting vehicular dropoff area in front of the Rice and Rice building.
Eliminate the existing righthand turn lane into the Virginia National Bank property and cons truct new curb and
gutter and conc rete sidew alks.
Install concrete paver crosswalks and accessibility ramps at the vehicular entrance to the Virginia National
Bank property and at “The Square” intersection.
Construct rectangular, streetside biofilters along both sides of Crozet Avenue and install ornamental biofilter
trees, shrubs, and groundcovers.
Install new pedestrianscale, decorative light fix tures and s treet furniture along both sides of C rozet Avenue.
The total cost of these improvements is estimated to be about $2,500,000. Staff is proposing to request $250,000 in
Enhancement Grant funding for Phas e III, which would require a minimum 20 percent County match ($50,000). The
County has programmed sufficient funds in the CIP to c over this balanc e of the projec t and the match for this grant
application. If this grant request is awarded, the County w ill have a total of $550,000 in grant funds ($300,000 from
Phases I and II) to allocate towards the completion of this project. This total grant award is generally consistent with
the County ’s original threephase grant proposal. Staff anticipates that this phase of the project will be advertised by
the end of December 2009, depending on the dedication of the utility easements for the utility relocation and the
rightofway and easement dedications for the streetsc ape construction.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If awarded, the TEA21 Enhancement Grant w ould prov ide an additional $250,000 toward the streetsc ape project.
The County has programmed sufficient funds in the Neighborhood Mas ter Plan and Crozet Streetsc ape CIP
programs to cover the balance of the project, including the $50,000 matc h for this grant application.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
After holding the public hearing, staff recommends the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached res olution to apply
for the TEA 21 Enhancement Grant for the D owntown Crozet streets cape improvement project.
ATTAC HMENTS:
A Location Map and Improvements
B Resolution
Ret urn t o regular agenda
RESOLU TION
WH ER EA S, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation
procedure for a TEA21 Enhancement Grant application, it is necessary that a request by resolution be
received from the Board of Supervisors in order for the Virginia D epartment of Transportation to approve
an enhancement project in the County of Albemarle;
NOW, TH ER EFORE, B E IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, hereby requests the Commonwealth Transportation Board to fund the Historic Crozet
Streetscape Enhancement Project; and
BE IT FUR TH ER , RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors hereby agrees to pay a minimum of
twenty (20) percent of the total cost of this project, and that if the County of Albemarle subsequently elects
to cancel this project, it agrees to reimburse the Virginia D epartment of Transportation for the total amount
of the cost expended by the Department up to the date the Department is notified of such cancellation.
R eturn to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Amendment
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public H earing on the Proposed FY 2010 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $ 18,676,310.43 and
approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2010037, #2010039, #2010040, #2010041, #2010042,
#2010043, #2010044, #2010045, #2010046, #2010047,
#2010048, and #2010049 to provide funding for various
local government, school, and capital programs.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Wiggans, and Letteri
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: YES
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Virginia Code § 15.22507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjus t the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fis cal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such
amendment w hich exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be
accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The
Code section applies to all C ounty funds , i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School SelfSus taining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $18,676,310.43. Becaus e the cumulativ e
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public
hearing is required.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The proposed increase of this FY 2010 Budget Amendment totals $18,676,310.43. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPEND ITURES
General Fund $ 25,000.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 340,903.00
Emergency Communication Center Funds $ 579,710.00
Capital Improv ements Funds $16,417,230.06
Storm Water Fund $ 1,313,467.37
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPEND ITURES – All Funds $18,676,310.43
ESTIMATED REVEN UES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 155,324.75
State Revenue $ 230,940.00
Federal Revenue $ 409,591.44
Loan Proceeds $ 250,000.00
Other Fund Balances $17,630,454.24
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVEN UES – All Funds $18,676,310.43
The budget amendment is comprised of thirteen (13) separate appropriations, one of w hich was approv ed at the
Board’s October 14, 2009 meeting.
Approved on October 14, 2009:
One (1) appropriation (#2010038) totaling $171,000, reappropriating an uncompleted local government project
from FY09;
Twelve (12) new appropriations are as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010037) totaling $113,508.00 for various public s afety grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2010039) totaling $56,850.00 for a D ept. of Health grant to Fire/Res cue;
One (1) appropriation (#2010040) totaling $579,710.00 for a VITA grant to EC C and ECC projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2010041) totaling $59,440.00 for the salary of the Foothills Grant Project Director;
One (1) appropriation (#2010042) totaling $14,682,202.17 reappropriating unc ompleted loc al government
c apital projects from FY09
One (1) appropriation (#2010043) totaling $ 1,452,731.14 reappropriating unc ompleted sc hool capital projects
from FY09
One (1) appropriation (#2010044) totaling $1,313,467.37 reappropriating uncompleted stormwater projec ts
from FY09
One (1) appropriation (#2010045) totaling $2,200.00 for a DC JS grant to the Commission on Children and
Families;
One (1) appropriation (#2010046) totaling $165,755.00 for a DCJS grant to OAR/JACC ;
One (1) appropriation (#2010047) totaling $4,446.75 for educ ation projects; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010048) totaling $25,000.00 to reimburse local government for training of school
division employ ees;
One (1) appropriation (#2010049) totaling $50,000.00 for the payment of the SPCA agreement’s capital
c ontribution
A detailed description of these requests is provided on Attachment A.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the FY 2010 Budget Amendment in the amount of $18,676,310.43 after the public
hearing, and then approval of Appropriations #2010037, #2010039, #2010040, #2010041, #2010042, #2010043,
#2010044, #2010045, #2010046, #2010047, #2010048, and #2010049 to provide funds for various local government
and school projects and programs as des cribed in Attachment A.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Desc ription of Appropriations
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010037
$113,508.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $ 6,885.00
Federal Revenue $106,623.00
This request is for the follow ing public safety grants:
The Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County Police D epartment a grant in the
amount of $45,000.00 w ith a local match of $2,429.70, and an “ink ind” local match of $7,390.00. The
purpose of this grant is to ass ist in overtime expenses, training, and equipment for traffic safety. The
$2,429.70 loc al match is from existing funds.
The U.S. Department of Justice aw arded the Albemarle C ounty Police Department a grant in the amount
of $27,623.00. The purpose of this grant is to assis t in funding overtime hours by current officers in
s upport of reducing crime and improvement of public safety for more “Community Policing”. There is no
local match.
The Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant in the amount of $95,000.00 to ass ist in the
investigations of Internet Crimes against Children. Bedford has designated Albemarle County as being an
area district in the fight agains t internet crime and is providing Albemarle County $19,000.00. This money
w ill provide overtime, training, and investigativ e equipment. There is no local match.
The Commonw ealth of Virginia, Office of Emergency Medical Services, has awarded the Fire/Resc ue
D epartment a grant in the amount of $4,860.00. This grant will allow the Department to purc hase surgical
masks to be used during a state declared pandemic (i.e. sw ineorigin influenza A (H 1N1) virus infection).
There is no local match.
The Office of the Attorney General aw arded the Albemarle County Sheriff’s D epartment a grant in the
amount of $2,025.00 w ith a local match of $225 for a total grant aw ard of $2,250. The purpose of this
grant is to assist in educational programs and materials for seniors in our community. The local match will
c ome from exis ting funds.
The Commonw ealth of Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Albemarle County
Sheriff’s Office a grant in the amount of $15,000.00 w ith a local match of $3,000.00 for a total grant of
$18,000.00. This grant w ill assist in the purc has e of two additional radar units as well as funding overtime
hours for DUI c heckpoints and speed enforcement. The local match w ill come from existing funds.
Appropriation #2010039
$56,850.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $ 56,850.00
The Virginia Office of EMS aw arded Albemarle County Fire and Res cue a grant in the amount of $56,850.00 with
an equiv alent local matc h of $56,850. The local matc h w ill come from existing funds previously appropriated (FY09
balance request). The purpose of this grant is to assis t in the purchase of new radio pagers for volunteer fire and
rescue personnel and their stations.
Appropriation #2010040
$579,710.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $ 266,210.00
ECC Fund Balance $ 313,500.00
This request appropriates a $266,210.00 grant for the purchase of Emergency 911 Telephone System equipment that
will be ins talled at the County’s 5th Street facility. This equipment will be a backup to strengthen the ability for quick
recovery in the event of an evacuation or failure at the primary public safety answering point. The grant does not
require a local match.
This request als o appropriates $313,500.00 from the Emergency Communication Center’s fund balance for capital
improvement projects in FY 09/10. The Emergency Communications C enter Management Board authorized the
transfer of these funds on May 19, 2009. This appropriation includes the following projects.
$65,000.00 to replace equipment related to the ECC’s backup power supply needed in the event of a
c omplete pow er failure;
$15,000.00 to replace a server that provides records management for the area’s three Police departments;
$60,000.00 to replace the Community Notification System used to notify large segments of the population
in a short period of time during an emergency crisis;
$40,000.00 to replace batteries related to the EC C’s backup pow er supply needed in the event of a
c omplete pow er failure;
$43,000.00 to replace three aging servers in the ECC;
$20,000.00 to replace and upgrade portions of the HVAC sy stem for the ECC;
$70,500.00 to purchas e additional portable handheld radios and c hargers to be used by the three
jurisdictions for emergencies or planned events that exceed the current daily capabilities.
Appropriation #2010041
$59,440.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $59,440.00
The County of Albemarle has authorized the Grant Project D irec tor for Foothills Child Advocacy C enter to remain
on the County payroll for FY 09/10. All salary and benefits will be reimbursed by Foothills on a quarterly basis.
Appropriation #2010042
$14,682,202.17
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $ 25,000.00
State Revenue $ 77,446.44
Loan Proceeds $ 250,000.00
General CIP Fund Balance $14,329,755.73
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of active General Government Capital Improvement projects
that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009.
Appropriation #2010043
$509,683.76
R evenue Sourc e: School CIP Fund Balance $1,452,731.14
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of active Sc hool Capital Improv ement projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2009.
Appropriation #2010044
$1,313,467.37
R evenue Sourc e: Stormwater CIP Fund Balance $1,313,467.37
This request reappropriates the remaining balances of active Stormwater Capital Improvement projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2009.
Appropriation #2010045
$2,200.00
R evenue Sourc e: State Rev enue $2,200.00
The Department of Criminal Justice Services awarded the C ommission on Children and Families a onetime grant
in the amount of $8,869.00 with a local match of $986.00 for a total award of $9,855.00. This grant will provide
training monies for presenters to continue education for staff. Local match monies were provided by CASA. This
grant w as previously appropriated. Additional monies in the amount of $2,200.00 have been given by the Supreme
Court of Virginia to assis t in further training.
Appropriation #2010046
$165,755.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $41,438.00
Federal Revenue $124,317.00
The D epartment of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the OAR/JACC a grant in the amount of $124,317.00
with a local match of $41,438.00 for a total award of $165,755.00. This grant will assist in the training and
education of police officers to improve their understanding and interactions with citiz ens having a mental illness
including signs and symptoms. Albemarle County w ill serve as fiscal agent for this grant. Local match monies will
be compris ed of several local agencies and boards.
Appropriation #2010047
$4,446.75
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $4,446.75
Albemarle High School received donations totaling $4,446.75. Mr. William J. Bargh donated $2,000.00, Robert Bell
donated $25.00, Mr. and Mrs. John Dav ison donated $300.00, Mr. and Mrs. Mark Mendelsohn donated $100.00,
Mr. and Mrs . Michael Tubridy donated $1,900.00, and a cash donation was made at Albemarle High School in the
amount of $121.75. The donors have requested that their contributions be used towards the installation of a
synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is
$5,546.75 including thes e donations. The balance from FY 08/09 was $4,366.66 for a grand total of $9,913.41. The
high sc hools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receiv e matching funds from an anonymous donor. The balance
required to begin construc tion is $650,000.00 leaving Albemarle High School with a balance of $315,086.59 to
garner matching funds .
Appropriation #2010048
$25,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: Local Rev enue $25,000.00
The Human R esources Department is requesting an increase of $25,000.00 in the current operational budget. This
increase represents training expenses incurred for the training of sc hool divis ion employees in w hich the school
division pays the cost. Funding is currently budgeted within the school division for this training. This appropriation
will transfer money from the schools into Organizational D evelopment to cover the costs as sociated with the
training.
Appropriation
#2010049
$50,000.00
R evenue Sourc e: General Gov’t CIP Fund Balance $50,000
The C ounty of Albemarle is poised to execute the SPCA Agreement at the November 4, 2009 Board of
Supervisors meeting. If the Agreement is approved, the C ounty of Albemarle will be responsible for payment of
capital c ontribution in the amount of $50,000, to be paid on or before Dec ember 31, 2009.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
October 2, 2009
Keith Brady – DVM
Odea Holdings LLC
6539 Gordonsville Road
Keswic k VA 22947
RE: SP200800031 & SDP200800149 Old Dominion Equine
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 50 Parcel 20D
Dear Mr. Brady:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 22, 2009, recommended approval of the
abovenoted petitions to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning C ommission recommended approval of SP200800031 Old D ominion Equine Barn &
Riding Ring w ith the c onditions as modified by staff:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord w ith the conceptual plan titled “Tax Map 50 Parcel D
Proposed Improvements”, revised April 2, 2009, and prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates , Inc.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fix tures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
Request for Waiver of Section 5.1.11
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission approved the w aiver of Section 5.1.11 w ith the follow ing condition.
1. The w aiver is limited to equine veterinary serv ices .
Request to Site Plan W aiver
By a vote of 6:0, the Planning Commission approved SDP200800149 Old Dominion Equine Barn & R iding R ing
site plan waiver subject to the following conditions.
1. Architectural Rev iew Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Approval of W PO application, to include Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater
Management.
3. Health Department approval.
View staff report and attachments
View P C m inutes
Return to regular agenda
Plea se be a dvised that the Albe ma rle County Board of Supe rvisors w ill re vie w SP200800031 Old Dominion
Equine a nd re c eive public c omme nt at the ir mee ting on Novembe r 4, 2009.
If you should ha ve any que stions or comments regarding the above note d a c tion, plea se do not he sita te to c ontac t
me a t (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Scott Clark
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Pr ojec t Name :
SP200800031 Old D ominion Equine Ba rn &
Riding Ring
SD P200800149 O ld D ominion Equine Ba rn &
Riding Ring Wa ive r
Staff: Sc ott Clark, Se nior Pla nne r
Planning Commission Public He aring:
Septe mbe r 22, 2009
Boar d of Supe r visors Public He aring:
TBA
Ow ne r/s: O DEA Holdings LLC Applicant: Old D ominion Equine A ssociate s
Acr eage: 1.653 ac re s Spe cial Use Pe r mit: 10.2.2.18, V e te rina ry
se rvice s, a nima l hospital (re fe re nc e 5.1.11
a nd subje ct to pe rformance sta nda rds in
4.14).
TMP: 050000000020D0
Loc ation: 6539 G ordonsville Road (Route 231)
a t the intersec tion with St John Roa d (Route 640)
Existing Zoning and Byr ight use: RA Rural
Are as: agricultura l, fore sta l, a nd fishe ry use s;
residentia l density (0.5 unit/ac re in de velopme nt
lots); EC Entranc e Corridor O verla y to prote c t
propertie s of historic , a rc hitec tural or c ultural
signific ance from visua l impa c ts of de velopme nt
a long route s of tourist ac ce ss.
Magister ial D istric t: Rivanna Conditions: Yes
RA (Rura l Are as) Reque sted # of Dw e lling Units: n/a
Pr oposal: Re loc ation of ba rn and a ddition of
riding ring for e xisting ve te rinary prac tic e .
Compre he nsive Plan De signation:
Rura l Area s
Char acter of Pr oper ty: The prope rty is la rgely
ope n, with some large tree s. It wa s forme rly a
c ountry store.
Use of Sur rounding Pr oper tie s: Immedia tely
a dja c ent prope rties a re reside ntia l. The
surrounding area is large ly ma de up of fa rms.
Factor s Favorable:
1. This e quine ve te rinary use supports
a gric ulture in the Rura l Area s.
2. The proposed amendment would
me e t the a pplica nts’ ne eds without
significa ntly inc re a sing impac ts on
the area .
Fac tors Unfavorable :
None .
RECOMMENDA TION : Sta ff re commends a pproval of this Spec ial U se Permit, with c onditions.
Petition:
PRO POSED : Ame ndme nt of spe cial use for existing ve terina ry pra ctice , to reloc a te and e nla rge barn a nd to add
riding ring.
ZO NIN G CATEG ORY /G ENERAL U SAG E: RA Rura l Are as: a gricultura l, fore sta l, a nd fishe ry use s;
re sidentia l de nsity (0.5 unit/a cre in de velopment lots); EC Entrance Corridor O ve rla y to prote ct prope rtie s of
historic , a rc hitec tural or c ultural signific anc e from visua l impac ts of de velopment a long route s of tourist a c ce ss
SECTIO N: 10.2.2.18, ve terina ry se rvic e s, a nima l hospita l (re fe renc e 5.1.11 and subje ct to pe rformanc e standards
in 4.14)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LA ND USE/DEN SITY : Rura l Are a s prese rve a nd prote ct agricultura l, fore stal,
ope n spa c e, and na tura l, historic and sc enic re sourc e s/ density ( .5 unit/ a cre in de velopment lots)
EN TRAN CE CORRID OR: Yes
LO CA TION: 6539 Gordonsville Roa d (Route 231) a t the inte rse ction with St John Road (Route 640).
TA X MAP/PARCEL: Tax Ma p 50 Pa rc e l 20D
MAG ISTERIAL DISTRICT: Riva nna
C harac te r of the A re a:
The are a (see A tta c hme nt A) is la rgely made up of la rge farms, with large ope n pa sture a re as and e xte nsive
ha rdw ood fore sts (e spe c ia lly at highe r ele va tions). Howe ver, the ve te rinary office (se e Attac hment B) is
loc ated w ithin a n a rea of small reside ntia l lots. The prope rty is include d in the Southw e st Mounta ins Rura l
H istoric District. Many of the surrounding a nd ne arby prope rtie s a re under c onse rvation ea se ments he ld by
the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The prope rty is w ith 1,500 fee t of the Blue Run Agric ultural & Foresta l
D istric t a nd 2,750 fee t of the K inloc h Agric ultura l & Fore sta l District. Gordonsville Road is a n Entra nce
Corridor.
Planning and Zoning Histor y
O n April 14, 2004, the Board of Supe rvisors a pprove d SP200300082, which pe rmitte d the c urre nt e quine
ve terinary pra ctice , with the follow ing c onditions:
1. The site sha ll be de velope d in gene ra l ac c ord with the c onc e ptual plan title d Old D ominion
Equine Assoc ia tes Conce pt Pla n, re vised 2/16/04, and pre pa re d by Munc aste r Engine ering;
2. The a pplic ants sha ll provide a prelimina ry la ndsc ape pla n that re flec ts the surrounding rura l
la ndsc ape to the satisfac tion of the A rc hitec tural Re vie w Boa rd;
3. The a pplic ants sha ll provide la ndsc aping a long a ll parking area s to the sa tisfa c tion of the
Arc hitec tura l Re vie w Board;
4. Any outdoor lighting sha ll be designe d to be a ppropria te to the rura l environme nt to the
sa tisfac tion of the Arc hite c tura l Re view Board; and
5. The a pplic ants sha ll gra nt sightdista nc e e ase me nts on Route 640 to the satisfa ction of the
Virginia D epa rtme nt of Tra nsporta tion.
The conc e ptual pla n for tha t showed the offic e loc ate d in a former c ornerstore building along G ordonsville
Roa d, a n e ntranc e on St. John Roa d, a nd a 20 by 40foot ba rn. Following the approva l of the spec ial use
pe rmit, the applic ants obta ine d the A rc hitec tural Re vie w Boa rd a nd V DOT a pprovals re quire d in conditions
two through five , so those conditions have be en pre viously satisfie d. Se e Atta chme nt E for the sta ff report
for SP200300082, a nd A tta c hment F for the minutes of the Commission’s discussion of the re quest on Ma rc h
2, 2004.
O n May 11, 2004, the Planning Commission a pproved a site pla n w a ive r, SD P200400020, for this use .
Spe c ific s of the Pr oposal:
The proposa l (see A tta chme nt C) include s the reloc a tion of the original proposed ba rn (w hic h has not ye t
be e n built) to a llow for e a sie r horsetra ile r turns, increa se of the propose d ba rn from 20 by 40 fe e t to 40 by
60 fe e t for a n a dditiona l e xamina tion room (to re duce w a iting time s, so that horse s a nd tra ile rs w ill spe nd
le ss time on the site ), a nd the addition of a 50foot dia me te r c ove red riding ring for the e xamination of
horse s’ ga its. The hours of ope ra tion would not c ha nge . Nighttime uses would only inc lude occ asiona lly
ke e ping horse s in the paddoc ks whe n nee ded.
C onformity w ith the C ompr ehensive Plan:
The Compre he nsive Pla n designa tes this property a s Rura l Are a. La rge a nima l vete rina ry service s, suc h a s
this e quine fa cility, are supportive of the County’s goa ls for mainta ining the viability of a griculture a nd ope n
spa c e use s in the Rural A re a s.
STA FF COMMENT:
Spec ia l Use Pe rmit SP200800031
Staff w ill a ddress e ac h provision of Se c tion 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning O rdina nce .
31.2.4.1: Spec ial U se Pe rmits prov ide d for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supe rv isors that suc h use will not be of substantial detrime nt to adjace nt property,
D uring the re vie w of the original spe cia l use permit, sta ff found that the use would not ha ve de trimental
impa cts on adjac e nt propertie s. The proposed amendment would not c hange the sc a le or impa cts of the use s,
exc ept tha t more of the use would be a c commoda te d indoors.
Staff ha s rec omme nde d the addition of the nowsta nda rd c ondition of a pprova l tha t is inte nde d to pre ve nt
lighting impa cts on adja c ent properties.
that the charac te r of the distric t will not be c hanged there by and
Compared to the a pproved pla n for this use , the propose d a me ndme nt would not c re ate a ny signific a nt
impa cts on the c harac te r of the distric t.
and that suc h use will be in harmony with the purpose and inte nt of this ordinanc e,
This use supports the inte nt of se c tion 10 of the Zoning O rdina nce , which ca lls for the “[p]rese rvation of
agric ultura l a nd fore sta l la nds and a ctivitie s.”
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Equine ve te rinary servic es support a gric ulture , whic h is byright in the distric t. Re side ntia l uses are a lso by
right in the district, but this use is not e xpe cte d to ha ve significa nt impa c ts on those uses. H orse noise s will
oc c ur, but a re an expe c te d pa rt of . The two close st residenc es w e re built a fte r the vete rina ry pra c tic e
ope ne d.
with additional re gulations prov ide d in sec tion 5.0 of this ordinanc e ,
Anima l hospita ls a re subjec t to the re gulations in se c tion 5.1.11:
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENN EL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE O R HOSPITAL,
ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Am e nde d 61400)
Eac h commerc ial ke nne l, ve terinary se rv ic e , offic e or hospital, animal hospital and animal
she lter shall be subje ct to the following:
a. Ex ce pt whe re animals are c onfine d in soundproofe d, airc onditione d buildings, no structure or
are a oc c upied by animals shall be closer than five hundre d (500) fee t to any agricultural or
re side ntial lot line . For nonsoundproofed anim al confinements, an ex ternal solid fenc e not le ss
than six (6) fe et in he ight shall be loc ate d within fifty (50) fe et of the animal c onfine m e nt and shall
be c ompose d of c oncre te bloc k, brick , or other mate rial approv ed by the zoning administrator;
(Am ended 111589)
b. For soundproofed c onfine me nts, no suc h struc ture shall be located closer than two hundre d
(200) fe et to any agric ultural or reside ntial lot line . For soundproofed confineme nts, noise
measure d at the nearest agricultural or re side ntial prope rty line shall not e xc e e d fifty fiv e (55)
de cibe ls; (Ame nde d 111589; 61400)
c . In all c ases, anim als shall be c onfined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m . to 6:00 a.m.
(Am ended 111589; 61400)
d. In are as where suc h uses may be in prox im ity to othe r use s involving inte nsive ac tiv ity suc h as
shopping c e nte rs or othe r urban de nsity locations, spe c ial atte ntion is re quired to prote c t the
public he alth and we lfare . To the se ends the c omm ission and board m ay re quire among othe r
things: (Am e nde d 111589)
Se parate building e ntrance and e xit to avoid animal c onflic ts; (Adde d 111589)
Are a for outside ex e rcise to be e xc lusiv e from acc e ss by the public by fenc ing or othe r
me ans. (Adde d 111589)
The se re quire me nts la rge ly a pply to c onfined sma ll animals, suc h a s dogs, whic h would be a nuisanc e to
ne arby re sidenc es. H orse s, howe ver, a re a n e xpe cte d fe ature of rura l Albemarle , a nd the ir sounds are not
e xpe c te d to c re ate a nuisance .
During the re vie w of the origina l spe cia l use pe rmit for this use, the Pla nning Commission approve d a
waiver of sec tion 5.1.11. The a pplica nts ha ve a ga in re que ste d a w a ive r of this sec tion.
and with the public he alth, safety and ge ne ral we lfare .
The propose d c hange s to this site would not c re ate a ny ne w impac ts on public he alth or safety. The
existing pa rking and e ntra nce w ould re ma in. (The existing e ntra nc e loca tion on St John Road w as
re quired by V DOT during the origina l spe cia l use pe rmit re vie w .) The a pplica nts ha ve shown
conce ptual stormw a te rmana ge me nt fa cilities for the ne w struc ture s to the sa tisfa c tion of the County
Engine er.
Site Pla n Waiver SD P200800149
The applica nt has re que ste d Pla nning Commission approva l of a site pla n wa ive r. The c onc eptua l pla n
submitte d in support of the spe cia l use pe rmit applica tion does not c onta in all of the informa tion re quire d
on a full Site D e ve lopme nt Plan. Howe ver, the plan conta ins a de qua te information to de te rmine tha t the
physic al de sign re quirements of the ordina nce (se tbac k, a cc e ss, pa rking de sign, stormwa ter, e tc .) a re
be ing met.
The Zoning Ordina nc e wa s re ce ntly a me nde d to a llow for e ithe r a dministra tive approva l or Pla nning
Commission approva l of a site pla n w a ive r, Chapte r 18, Se ction 32.2. The initia l re que st for a w aiver
w a s re c eived prior to the a me ndment to the Zoning Ordina nc e a nd the request w as not proc e ssed a s
ne c essa ry to a llow for administra tive a pproval. The re fore , this re que st must be a cte d on by the Pla nning
Commission.
The ordina nce allows for the w a iver to be gra nte d:
“upon a finding that the de ta ils w a ive d would not forward the purpose s of this cha pte r or othe rwise
se rve the public inte re st; provide d that no suc h wa ive r shall be ma de until the c ommission ha s
considered the re c omme nda tion of the a ge nt. The a gent may rec omme nd a pprova l, a pproval with
conditions, or denial of the wa ive r. If the a gent re c omme nds a pprova l of the wa ive r with c onditions,
he sha ll sta te the rela tionship of the re c omme nded condition to the provisions of this se c tion. No
condition shall be impose d which could not be impose d through the applic ation of the re gulations of
se c tion 32. The w aiver sha ll identify the de tails othe rwise require d by se c tions 32.5 a nd 32.6 tha t a re
w aived.”
This plan ha s be e n re vie w e d a nd submitta l of a more de ta ile d plan will not furthe r the public inte re st.
The sc a le of de ve lopme nt is re lative ly sma ll and the building siz e is c onsistent with the sca le of
de velopme nt in the Rura l Area s. Othe r buildings in the Rura l Are a s of this siz e a re a pprove d w ith only
a building pe rmit w hic h has less information tha n ha s be e n submitte d for this proje ct.
A tta chme nt D ide ntifies those provisions of Sec tions 32.5 a nd 32.6 tha t ha ve be en w a ive d in whole or in
pa rt. Sta ff finds tha t a pproval of the site plan w a iver is appropria te w ith the following c onditions:
1. Archite c tura l Review Board issua nc e of a Certific ate of A ppropria te ness.
2. Approva l of Wa te r Prote ction Ordina nc e a pplic a tion, to include Erosion a nd Se dime nt Control
Pla n a nd Stormwa ter Ma na ge me nt.
3. He a lth Depa rtment a pprova l.
SUMMA RY:
Staff ha s identifie d the follow ing fac tors favora ble to this applic ation:
1. This e quine ve terina ry use supports a griculture in the Rura l Are as.
2. The propose d a me ndme nt w ould mee t the applic ants’ ne eds w ithout signific antly inc re a sing impa c ts
on the a re a.
Staff ha s identifie d no fa c tors unfavorable to this applica tion.
R EC OMMEND ED AC TION:
Ba se d on the findings c ontained in this staff re port, staff re comme nds a pproval of SP 03082 w ith the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be deve loped in ge ne ra l a c cord with the c once ptua l pla n titled O ld Dominion Equine
Assoc iate s Conc ept Pla n, re vise d 2/16/04, and pre pared by Munc a ste r Engine e ring “Ta x Map 50
Parce l D Proposed Improve me nts”, revised April 2, 2009, a nd pre pa re d by Roudabush, G ale &
Assoc iate s, Inc.
2. All outdoor lighting sha ll be only full cutoff fixture s a nd shie lde d to re flec t light a wa y from a ll
a butting prope rties. A lighting pla n limiting light le vels at a ll prope rty line s to no gre a te r tha n 0.3
foot c a ndles sha ll be submitte d to the Zoning A dministra tor or their designe e for a pprova l.
3. The a pplica nts sha ll provide a pre liminary la ndsc a pe pla n tha t re fle cts the surrounding rural
la ndsc ape to the satisfa ction of the A rc hitec tural Re vie w Boa rd;
4. The a pplica nts sha ll provide la ndsc a ping along all pa rking a re as to the sa tisfac tion of the
Arc hitec tura l Re vie w Boa rd;
5. Any outdoor lighting sha ll be de signed to be a ppropria te to the rura l e nvironment to the satisfa ction
of the A rc hitec tural Re vie w Boa rd; a nd
6. The a pplica nts sha ll gra nt sightdista nce ea sements on Route 640 to the sa tisfa c tion of the Virginia
Depa rtme nt of Tra nsporta tion.
Staff a lso re c omme nds that the Commission a pprove the re que ste d wa ive r of sec tion 5.1.11 of the Zoning
O rdina nc e .
Staff a lso re c omme nds a pprova l of the site pla n wa ive r, SD P 200800149, with the follow ing conditions:
1. Archite c tura l Review Board issua nc e of a Certific ate of A ppropria te ness.
2. Approva l of WPO a pplica tion, to inc lude Erosion a nd Se dime nt Control Plan and Stormw ate r
Ma na gement.
3. He a lth Depa rtment a pprova l.
A TTACHMENTS
A ttac hme nt A – Area Ma p
A ttac hme nt B – D eta il Ma p
A ttac hme nt C – Conc eptua l Pla n
A ttac hme nt D – List of Site D e ve lopme nt Plan requirements reque sted to be w aived
A ttac hme nt E – Staff Re port for SP200300082
A ttac hme nt F – Planning Commission Minutes, Ma rc h 2, 2004
Re turn to PC a c tions le tte r
Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
SDP 08-149 Site Plan Requirements to be Waived
Those items that are shown on the plan are struck thru. Those items not shown on the plan are
shown in plain text.
32.5 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CONTENT
32.5.1 Sixteen (16) clearly legible blue or black line copies of a preliminary site plan shall be submitted to
the department of planning and community development. (32.3.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87)
32.5.2 If revisions are necessary, seven (7) full-sized revised copies and one (1) reduced revised copy no
larger than eleven (11) inches by seventeen (17) inches shall be submitted by the revision deadline. (Added
5-1-87)
32.5.3 All waiver, variation and substitution requests in accordance with section 32.3.10 shall be submitted
with the preliminary site plan and clearly state the specific items being requested for waiver, variation or
substitution. (Added 5-1-87)
32.5.4 The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to the accuracy standards required in section
32.5.6.r. (Added 5-1-87)
32.5.5 The preliminary site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1) inch equals twenty (20) feet or to
such scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular case; no sheet shall exceed forty-two (42) inches
by thirty-six (36) inches in size. The preliminary site plan may be prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If
prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly indicate where the several sheets join. The
top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (Added 5-1-87)
32.5.6 The preliminary site plan shall contain the following information:
a. The name of the development; names of the owner, developer and individual who
prepared the plan; tax map and parcel number; zoning; descriptions of all variances,
zoning proffers and bonus factors applicable to the site; magisterial district; county and
state; north point; scale; one datum reference for elevation (where section 30.3, flood
hazard overlay district, is involved, United States Geological Survey vertical datum shall
be shown and/or correlated to plan topography); the source of the topography; the source
of the survey; sheet number and total number of sheets; date of drawing; date and
description of latest revision; owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number and present use
of adjacent parcels; departing lot lines; minimum setback lines, yard and building
separation requirements; a vicinity sketch showing the property and its relationship with
adjoining streets, subdivisions and other landmarks; and boundary dimensions. (Added
5-1-87)
b. Written schedules or data as necessary to demonstrate that the site can accommodate the proposed use,
including: proposed uses and maximum acreage occupied by each use;
maximum number of dwelling units by type; gross residential density; square footage of
recreation area, percent and acreage of open space; maximum square footage for
commercial and industrial uses; maximum number of employees; maximum floor area
ratio and lot coverage if industrial; maximum height of all structures; schedule of parking
including maximum amount required and amount provided; and maximum amount of
impervious cover on the site; if a landscape plan is required, maximum amount of paved
Attachment D
parking and vehicular circulation areas. (Added 5-1-87)
c. If phasing is planned, phase lines and proposed timing of development. (Added 5-1-87)
d. Existing topography (up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours,
over twenty [20] percent slope, maximum ten [10] foot contours). Proposed grading
(maximum five [5] foot contours) supplemented where necessary by spot elevations;
areas of the site where existing slopes are twenty-five (25) percent or greater. Existing
topography for the entire site with sufficient offsite topography to describe prominent and
pertinent offsite features and physical characteristics, but in no case less than fifty (50)
feet outside of the site unless otherwise approved by the agent.
e. Existing landscape features as described in section 32.7.9.4.c. (Added 5-1-87)
f. The name and location of all watercourses and other bodies of water adjacent to or on the site. Indicate if
the site is located within a reservoir watershed. (Added 5-1-87)
g. Location of septic setback lines from watercourses including intermittent streams and
other bodies of water. (Added 5-1-87)
h. One hundred year flood plain limits as shown on the official flood insurance maps for
Albemarle County. (Added 5-1-87)
i. Existing and proposed streets, access easements, alley easements and rights-of-way, and travelways,
together with street names, state route numbers, right-of-way lines and
widths, centerline radii, and pavement widths. (32.4.5, 1980; Amended 5-1-87, 2-6-02)
j. Location and size of: existing water and sanitary sewer facilities and easements; storm
sewer facilities, drainage channels; and drainage easements. (Added 5-1-87)
k. Proposed conceptual lay-out for water and sanitary sewer facilities and storm drainage
facilities including storm detention ponds or structures, indicating direction of flow in all
pipes and watercourses with arrows. (Added 5-1-87)
l. Location of other existing and proposed utilities and utility easements. (Added 5-1-87)
m. Location of existing and proposed ingress to and egress from the property, showing the distance to the
centerline of the nearest existing street intersection. (Added 5-1-87)
n. Location and dimensions of all existing and proposed improvements including: buildings (maximum
footprint and height) and other structures; walkways; fences; walls; trash containers; outdoor lighting;
landscaped areas and open space; recreational areas and facilities; parking lots and other paved areas;
loading and service areas together with the proposed paving material types for all walks, parking lots and
driveways; and signs.
(Added 5-1-87)
o. All areas intended to be dedicated or reserved for public use. (Added 5-1-87)
p. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9 if required. (Added 5-1-87)
q. Where deemed appropriate by the agent due to the intensity of development, estimated
traffic generation figures for the site based upon current Virginia Department of
Transportation rates. Indicate the estimated vehicles per day and direction of travel for
all connections to a public road. (Added 5-1-87)
r. The preliminary site plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for
accuracy:
1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines - one foot in one thousand (1:1,000) feet;
2. Existing contours - one-half (½) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.6.d above;
3. Proposed contours - within five (5) feet horizontally and vertically;
4. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features - within five (5) feet;
5. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements - within five (5) feet. (Added
5-1-87)
s. The agent or the commission may require additional information to be shown on the
preliminary site plan as deemed necessary in order to provide sufficient information for
the agent or the commission to adequately review a the preliminary site plan. (Added 5-
1-87)
32.6 FINAL SITE PLAN CONTENT
32.6.1 A final site plan together with amendments thereto shall be prepared and sealed, signed and dated
by an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or certified landscape architect, each of whom shall
be licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Added 5-1-87)
32.6.2 A final site plan shall be prepared on mylar, sepia or other such transparency material which shall
be termed as the master drawing. Two (2) clearly legible blue or black line copies of the master drawing
shall be submitted to the department of planning and community development. (Added 5-1-87) In addition,
if review is required by the commission, one (1) reduced copy no larger than eleven (11) inches by
seventeen (17) inches in size shall be submitted.
32.6.3 Two (2) copies of a landscape plan shall be submitted with the final site plan if not previously
submitted. (Added 5-1-87)
32.6.4 When the site plan is ready for final approval, the full-sized revised master drawing and a
transparency copy of the master drawing shall be submitted for the agent’s signature. Once the agent has
signed the master drawing, he shall return the master drawing to the developer and the developer shall
submit four (4) print copies of the signed master drawing to the agent. (Added 5-1-87)
32.6.5 Unless otherwise approved by the agent, the final site plan shall be prepared to the scale of one (1)
inch equals twenty (20) feet or larger or to such a scale as may be approved by the agent in a particular
case; no sheet shall exceed thirty-six (36) inches by forty-two (42) inches in size. The site plan may be
prepared on one (1) or more sheets. If prepared on more than one (1) sheet, match lines shall clearly
indicate where the sheets join. The top of the sheet shall be approximately either north or east. (Added 5-1-
87)
32.6.6 The final site plan shall reflect conditions of approval of the preliminary site plan. The final site
plan shall contain the following information in addition to all the information required on the preliminary
site plan:
a. Specific written schedules or notes as necessary to demonstrate that the requirements of this chapter are
being satisfied. In addition to preliminary site plan information, indicate if sale or rental units; number of
bedrooms per unit, and number of units per building if multi-family; specifications for recreational
facilities.
b. Proposed grading (up to twenty [20] percent slope, maximum two [2] foot contours; over twenty [20]
percent slope, maximum five [5] foot contours).
c. Detailed plans for proposed water and sanitary sewer facilities, including: all pipe sizes, types and
grades; proposed connections to existing or proposed central systems; location and dimensions of proposed
easements and whether the same are to be publicly or privately maintained; profiles and cross sections of
all water and sewer lines including
clearance where lines cross; all water main locations and sizes; valves and fire hydrant
locations; all sanitary sewer appurtenances by type and number; the station on the plan to
conform to the station shown on the profile and indicate the top and invert elevation of
each structure.
d. Detailed construction drainage and grading plans:
1. Profiles of all ditches and channels whether proposed or existing, showing:
existing and proposed grades, and invert of ditches, cross pipes or utilities;
typical channel cross sections for new construction; and actual cross sections for
existing channels intended to remain;
2. Profiles of all storm sewer systems showing existing and proposed grades;
3. Plan view of all drainage systems with all structures, pipes and channels
numbered or lettered on the plan and profile views. Show sufficient dimensions
and bench marks to allow field stake out of all proposed work from the
boundary lines;
4. A drainage summary table for culverts, storm sewer and channels as described
in the following example:
Structure
Number
Description
Length
Invert
In
Invert
Out
Slope
Remarks
1 42" RCP
Class III
50' 424.50 424.00 100.00% Provide
2, EW
2 DI-3B L=8 426.00 432.00 - IS-1
Top
3 PG-2A 400' 420.00 400.00 5.00% D=12"
4 Grade Swale 200' 420.00 415.00 2.50% D=18"
5. A legend showing all symbols and abbreviations used on the plan;
6. General notes, typical sections, and details of all items not covered by Virginia
Department of Transportation standard drawings;
7. Flood plain limits for the one hundred year storm for all watercourses with an
upstream drainage area of fifty (50) acres or more provided that the county
engineer may waive this requirement for drainage areas of less than one hundred
(100) acres upon determination that such information is unnecessary for review
of the proposed development.
e. Typical street sections together with specific street sections where street cut or fill is five (5) feet or
greater; centerline curve data; radius of curb returns or edge of pavement;
location, type and size of proposed ingress to and egress from the site; together with
culvert size; symmetrical transition of pavement at intersection with existing street; the
edge of street surface or face of curb for full length of proposed street; when proposed
streets intersect with or adjoin existing streets or travel-ways, both edges of existing
pavement or travelway together with curb and gutter indicated for a minimum of one
hundred (100) feet or the length of connection, whichever is the greater distance.
f. Signature panel for department of planning and community development.
g. For all parking and loading areas, indicate: size; angle of stalls; width of aisles and
specific number of spaces required and provided, and method of computation. Indicate
type of surfacing for all paved or gravel areas.
h. The final site development plan shall be dimensioned to at least the following standards for accuracy:
1. Boundary, setback and zoning lines - nearest one-one hundredth (0.01) of a foot;
2. Existing contours - one-half (½) of the contour interval required in section
32.6.6.b above;
3. Proposed contours - within one (1) foot horizontally and vertically;
4. Spot elevations - within one-tenth (0.10) of a foot;
5. Existing structures, utilities and other topographic features - within two (2) feet.
For critical structures, accuracy should be within one-tenth (0.10) of a foot;
6. Proposed structures, roads, parking lots and other improvements - within one
hundredth (0.01) of a foot. (Added 5-1-87)
i. Landscape plan in conformance with section 32.7.9. (Added 5-1-87)
j. Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or
diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire.
(Ord. 98-18(1), 8-12-98)
Staff Contact: Scott Clark
Planning Commission: March 2, 2004
Board of Supervisors: April 21, 2004
SP 2003-082 Old Dominion Equine Associates
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
Request for special use permit to allow an equine veterinary practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18
of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for veterinary services and animal hospitals. This use would include
an office (located in the building formerly occupied by the Cash Corner store) and a horse barn. Operating
hours would be 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 8 a.m. to noon on Saturdays. The applicants
expect to have one staff person (beyond the two veterinarians) on site at a time, and to have fewer than
three clients visiting per day. The site would be used mainly as an office for off-site visits, with occasional
on-site evaluations and minor medical procedures. Any horses kept overnight would be housed in the barn.
The applicants are requesting a waiver of section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance, which includes
supplemental regulations for animal hospitals, veterinary offices, etc. These regulations largely address the
noise impacts of boarded animals.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
The property, described as Tax Map 50 Parcels 20C and 20D, contains 1.704 acres, and is zoned RA Rural
Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The site is located on Route 231 at the intersection of Route 640, in the
Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural
Area 2.
HISTORY
This site has no past planning or zoning applications. Records and an interview with an area expert
indicate that the original store was built in the 1920s, but the current store building (not now in use) dates
from 1966.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicants wish to open an equine veterinary service in the Rural Areas that will accommodate their
office and occasional on-site evaluation of a small number of horses. See Attachment D for a more detailed
description from the applicants.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of SP 03-082 with conditions. Staff recommends approval of the waiver of
section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit)
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below:
The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted
hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The use would consist of an office located in a former store building, plus a barn for overnight
observation of horses. The office use would generate fewer traffic impacts than a store, as it will
mainly be used by the applicants (the majority of whose patients are located elsewhere) rather than
visitors. The small horse barn is a typical feature of this portion of the County.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby,
An equine veterinary use is compatible with the Rural Areas.
This property is located in the Entrance Corridor overlay zoning district. On January 20, 2004, the
Architectural Review Board expressed no objection to this proposal, provided that the applicant
meets the following conditions:
1. Relocate the westernmost row of 3 parking spaces southward so the wheelstops are a
minimum of 28’ back from the front wall of the building. Aligning the wheelstops
parallel with the south wall of the existing building is preferred.
2. Provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape.
3. Provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the ARB.
4. If lighting is provided, it should be appropriate to the rural environment.
The Design Planner has found that condition number one has been satisfied on the applicant’s
revised plan (see Attachment C). Staff has recommended conditions below to ensure that the
remaining issues are addressed. These changes would be shown on the applicants’ site plan.
and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Equine veterinary services are supportive of rural area activities.
The former Cash’s Corner store is located in the Southwest Mountain historic district. Although it
is not yet considered a contributing structure to that district, it will become eligible for
consideration in 2016. The Historic Preservation Committee has encouraged reuse as a strategy for
protecting country stores, which are among the County’s most rapidly disappearing historic
resources. Thus this project would support the County’s historic preservation goals, provided that
the character of the building is not changed. The Historic Preservation planner encourages the
applicant to:
1. Adaptively re-use the structure by making renovations necessary for the use of the structure
while saving the original fabric and maintaining the character, and
2. Accommodate additional required space in a separate structure.
with the uses permitted by right in the district,
This use would not conflict with agricultural or forestry. The small scale of the use is not expected
to conflict with residential uses.
with additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance,
Animal hospitals are subject to the regulations in section 5.1.11:
5.1.11 COMMERCIAL KENNEL, VETERINARY SERVICE, OFFICE OR
HOSPITAL, ANIMAL HOSPITAL, ANIMAL SHELTER (Amended 6-14-00)
Each commercial kennel, veterinary service, office or hospital, animal hospital and animal
shelter shall be subject to the following:
a. Except where animals are confined in soundproofed, air-conditioned buildings, no
structure or area occupied by animals shall be closer than five hundred (500) feet to any
agricultural or residential lot line. For non-soundproofed animal confinements, an external
solid fence not less than six (6) feet in height shall be located within fifty (50) feet of the
animal confinement and shall be composed of concrete block, brick, or other material
approved by the zoning administrator; (Amended 11-15-89)
b. For soundproofed confinements, no such structure shall be located closer than two
hundred (200) feet to any agricultural or residential lot line. For soundproofed
confinements, noise measured at the nearest agricultural or residential property line shall
not exceed fifty-five (55) decibels; (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
c. In all cases, animals shall be confined in an enclosed building from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00
a.m. (Amended 11-15-89; 6-14-00)
d. In areas where such uses may be in proximity to other uses involving intensive activity
such as shopping centers or other urban density locations, special attention is required to
protect the public health and welfare. To these ends the commission and board may
require among other things: (Amended 11-15-89)
-Separate building entrance and exit to avoid animal conflicts; (Added 11-15-89)
-Area for outside exercise to be exclusive from access by the public by fencing or
other means. (Added 11-15-89)
These requirements largely apply to confined small animals, such as dogs, which would be a
nuisance to nearby residences. Horses, however, are an expected feature of rural Albemarle, and
their sounds are not expected to create a nuisance.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Virginia Department of Transportation has determined that the entrance to this property on
Route 640 will require a sight-distance easement in order to provide safe entry and access. Staff
has recommended a condition below requiring that such an easement be granted to VDOT before
this use may begin. VDOT and Engineering staff have determined that an easement affecting only
the subject property would provide approximately 350 feet of sight distance; the current speed
limit on Route 640 of 40 mph would necessitate 400 feet of sight distance. The applicants can
satisfy this condition by either securing a sight-distance easement from neighboring property
owners to increase the sight distance to 400 feet, or by asking VDOT to carry out a traffic study. In
the latter case, if VDOT determines that travel speeds are typically 35 mph or less, the necessary
sight distance can be provided by an easement affecting only the subject parcel.
The Building Official has determined that the former store building is suitable for this office use,
as determined by Chapter 34 of the 2000 International Building Code (which includes standards
for fire safety, means of egress, and general safety). The Virginia Department of Health has
approved the site for a septic system to serve an office of this scale (the horse barn will not use the
septic system).
SUMMARY
This is a small-scale veterinary use that fits well with the rural surroundings, and provides an opportunity
to maintain a historic structure through adaptive reuse. The use will require some modifications of the site
for safety and visual impacts, which have been addressed through revisions to the plan or will be required
by the recommended conditions of approval below.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the waiver of section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff also
recommends approval of SP 03-082 with the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion Equine
Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering.
2. The applicants shall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board.
3. The applicants shall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Board.
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction of
the Architectural Review Board.
5. The applicants shall grant sight-distance easements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Location Map
B. Site Map
C. Conceptual Plan for SP 03-082
D. Project Description from Application
E. Waiver Request
Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes, March 2, 2004
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2003-082 Old Dominion Equine Associates (Sign #27 & 30) - Request for special use permit to allow an
equine veterinary practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for
veterinary services and animal hospitals. The property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcels 20C and 20D,
contains 1.704 acres, and is zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The proposal is located on
Route 231 at the intersection of Route 640, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan
designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. (Scott Clark)
Mr. Clark summarized the staff report. This is a special use permit request to allow an equine veterinary
practice in accordance with Section 10.2.2.18 of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for veterinary services
and animal hospitals. This use would include an office (located in the building formerly occupied by the
Cash’s Corner store) and a horse barn. Attachment C is the concept plan for this use. The applicant would be
adding parking area and a horse barn on the site. The applicant is also requesting a waiver of Section 5.1.11 of
the Zoning Ordinance, which includes supplementary regulations for noise related to veterinary uses. The
office portion of the use will be located in the store building. Staff had expected that this building would have
been removed. Currently this building is not considered historic, but will be in 15 or 16 years. An equine
veterinary use is considered compatible with the Rural Areas zoning district. It is also located in an Entrance
Corridor Overlay District. The ARB reviewed the concept plan for this proposal and expressed no objections to
it. However, there are a few conditions that were not met on the concept plan that will need to be met on the
site plan, which are included as conditions at the end of the staff report. The next major issue is the noise. The
Zoning Ordinance has several regulations that are applied to veterinary offices, which are contained in Section
5.1.11. Those regulations are largely designed to reduce conflicts between confined animals, such as dogs, and
near by residential uses. Those regulations do not seem to apply to a horse veterinarian that will have
occasional on-site visits in a rural area. Therefore, staff supports the applicant’s waiver request. Under the
health, safety and welfare category there are two concerns. One was the sight distance for the entrances along
Route 640. The new entrance does not have sufficient sight distance, and staff recommends the condition that
the applicant obtain the approval of VDOT. The condition provides flexibility for the applicant to either obtain
sight easements from neighboring properties or alter the vegetation along the road in order to get sufficient
sight distance for the actual travel speeds on the road through a VDOT traffic study. The applicants have
already initiated the traffic study. The second concern deals with the older store building, which is being
converted to an office use. While staff supports the structure’s adaptive use, the Building Official wanted to
make sure it was suitable for the proposed use. The Building Official has done a site inspection and determined
that it is. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the waiver from Section 5.1.11 and the special use permit
request subject to the five conditions listed in the staff report.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and
asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission.
Jeffrey Beshear, representative of Old Dominion Equine, stated that they had been looking for a place to set up
an office for a long time. This area was where they do the majority of their work. When they noticed that this
property was not being used, they thought it might be a good location for their use. The property could not be
turned into another store due to issues with the septic. According to the Health Department, those septic
problems would not apply to this business because of the limited number of people coming to the site. This use
would fit in with the neighborhood because they do not have plans to be a true hospital with constant patient
traffic. It would be more of place for them to come in and out of during the day. Possibly once or twice, a week
a horse may come in that is from far enough away that they cannot go to them. He pointed out that they have
been through the ARB and answered most of their questions on the concept plan. The ARB felt that this use
would greatly improve the area. He stated that after they were done with the plan that it would really look like a
Attachment F
small farm.
Mr. Thomas asked if the Commissioners have any questions for the applicant.
Mr. Morris asked if they have talked with their potential future neighbors.
Mr. Beshear stated that they have talked with some of the neighbors, but first wanted to make sure that they
made it through the ARB review. They have done work for most of the people in that area. They plan to go
around and talk with all of the neighbors after they get through the basic administrative items.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application.
David Best stated that he owned a farm on St. John’s Road that was right around the corner from the
applicant’s property. He stated that he was in favor of this request because the store has been an eyesore for a
long time. The proposed plan for Old Dominion would support the rural character of the area, clean the site up
and make it something of value to the neighborhood. He requested that the Commission look favorably upon
this application.
George Forschler, owner of Misty Ridge Farm, stated that as a neighbor that he wanted to speak in favor of the
application. The property has been vacated for a long time and they have been worried about the security of the
area. There is a phone on that site that at times draws a lot of undesirables, etc. He stated that he reviewed the
plans and it would be a real improvement and an asset to the community, particularly since it was horse related.
The traffic problem should be solved when they move the exit and entrance onto Route 640. Therefore, he
supported the applicant’s request.
Manfred Nettick stated that he was the owner of Ashanti Farm, which was a quarter mile north of Route 640.
He pointed out that Cash’s Corner was always the thorn in their eyes. The veterinary office would be a great
improvement for this site for the local horse owners and the entire neighborhood. Therefore, he was in favor of
this application.
Mr. Edgerton arrived at 6:15 p.m.
Judy Sommer, owner of Kesmont Farm that was located directly across the street from Cash’s Corner Store,
stated that she had no objections to an equine vet use, but that she did have a few questions. She asked what
were the five conditions that staff recommended for the property and if there was an underground gas tank on
the property. If there was an underground tank, she asked if there was a plan to remove it in an environmentally
acceptable way.
Mr. Thomas asked that she note all of her questions, and then the Commission would have the applicant or
staff respond.
Ms. Sommer stated that the public pay telephone has been a nuisance. Many people stop there to use the
telephone at all times of the night, and therefore she would love to get it out of there. Regarding security, she
asked if there will be lights on all night. Since the site plan shows a lighted sign, she asked if the sign or any
other security lighting would be on 24 hours a day. She objected to having the proposed site lit up like a
Christmas tree since it was across the road from her farm. She asked if there would be an alarm security
system. She pointed out that there could be a potential problem with false alarms. She asked if the gate would
be closed at night so that people cannot drive in and park there. There is a large parking area with 10 parking
spaces. She asked if trucks or trailers would be parked in those spaces overnight on a regular basis. She asked
if drugs would be stored in the building that would be an attractive nuisance that might cause a security
problem. She asked if the drugs used for horses would be similar to those kept in pharmacies, which could
create a policing problem in the neighborhood. She asked if there will be a living space in the building. She
asked if there would be a caretaker overnight for the animals. She asked if there would be a surgical suite so
that horses could be brought in for surgery and stay more than overnight. She pointed out that the property is in
the Southwest Mountain Rural Historic District. She voiced no opposition to the proposed use, but would be
interested in knowing the answers to these questions.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that the conditions were listed in the staff report, which was located on the table in the
hall.
Mr. Thomas asked if there was anyone else present to speak concerning this application. There being none, he
closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. He
suggested that they move towards the point of answering some of the questions that Ms. Sommer brought up.
He asked staff to try to answer some of the questions.
Mr. Clark stated that he could answer a few of the questions. He stated that the first condition was to ensure
that the site was constructed in accordance with this plan. The second, third and fourth conditions were to
satisfy the requirements of the Architectural Review Board regarding the landscaping and parking areas and
the outer lighting appropriate to the rural environment. The lighting will be reviewed further when they get to
the site plan stage. The final condition is requiring the applicants to meet the sight distance regulations
imposed by VDOT. He pointed out that he was leaving that for the applicant and VDOT to work out. He
pointed out that he did not know if there was an underground storage tank on the property. The applicant wants
to remove the public telephone if their request is approved. From the discussions with the applicant, his
understanding was that the gate would be closed to keep the horses in. The only other question that he could
address was that the applicant has indicated that there will not be any surgery on the site. He pointed out that it
was true that this property was located in the Southwest Mountain Rural District, but because this building was
built in the 1960’s it is not yet considered as a contributing structure to the district. He deferred the rest of the
questions to the applicant.
Mr. Craddock requested that the applicant come back up to answer the remaining questions.
Mr. Beshear stated that an EPA Study had been done and the gas tank had been removed. He pointed out that
they had been through that information with the bank. The bank had information that showed that there was no
residual contamination and that everything seemed to be approved for that. He agreed that their plan was to
remove the phone. As far as the light goes, their plan shows that they will have very limited lighting. There
would possibly be porch lights over the doors, which would be very similar to a residence. There would be a
small light over the barn, which would not be enough to illuminate the parking lot unnecessarily. The light
would be just enough in case someone needs to get into the building. He stated that they wanted enough light
so that if the neighbors saw anybody prowling around that they could call them. He pointed out that they have
not decided about the alarm system, but would assume that at one point there would be an alarm system for the
building for the equipment that would call someone and not beep loudly. The gate would be closed whenever
they were not there. Therefore, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. the gate would be open and then closed after that.
The gate would be used for the double purpose of ensuring that they have a whole fence around the property in
case a horse got out of the barn. The fence would also keep people from loitering or coming up to the building.
Regarding the question concerning the horse and trailer, he would assume that if somebody needs to stay
overnight that the truck and trailer would stay there. However, they have no plans to keep horses for more than
a night at a time. He pointed out that would probably be such a rare occurrence and that he would doubt that it
would be any problem. Having been at a clinic before where they had trailers in and out, he felt that most of the
people came in for a night at the most and then left the next day. That is the type of cases that they plan to
bring in. There is another hospital in town where they refer their long-term cases. He pointed out that also
answered the surgery question in that they have no intention of having surgery on the property. Regarding the
question about the drugs, he stated that they have a limited supply of drugs that any human being would want
to use, but most of those are carried in their trucks. What would be considered controlled drugs would be
locked up at night in a type of safe or locked up in their trucks, but that there would be some drugs on the
property because of the nature of their work. Their pharmacy was not that substantial because there were only
two practitioners. Therefore, they keep almost everything with them and have a limited restocking supply at the
office. There are no current plans for a living space on the property. Both of the partners have homes outside of
this property. Because of the limited number of horses coming in, they do not feel that they would need a
caretaker. Therefore, if a horse stayed overnight one of the practitioners would come over in the evening to
check on them. There would not be somebody staying on the property full time in the evening. He stated that
was all of the questions that she had.
Action on the Special Use Permit:
Mr. Craddock moved for approval of SP-2003-082, Old Dominion Equine Associates, subject to the conditions
as recommended in the staff report.
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion Equine
Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering.
2. The applicants shall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the surrounding rural landscape
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board.
3. The applicants shall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the Architectural
Review Board.
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction of
the Architectural Review Board.
5. The applicants shall grant sight-distance easements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
Ms. Higgins seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Rieley - Absent)
Action on the Waiver:
Mr. Morris moved for approval of the waiver from section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance for SP-2003-082,
Old Dominion Equine Associates.
Mr. Craddock seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Rieley - Absent)
Mr. Thomas stated that SP-2003-082, Old Dominion Associates, would go to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval and would be heard on April 21.
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 22, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, September 22, 2009, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Members attending w ere Marcia J oseph, Calvin Morris , Bill Edgerton, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and
Eric Struck o, C hairman. Absent was Linda Porterfield. Julia Monteith, AIC P, nonvoting representative for the
University of Virginia w as present.
Other officials present w ere Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; W ayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Scott Clark,
Senior Planner; David Benis h, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Chief of C urrent Development and Greg Kamptner,
Deputy County Attorney .
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Struck o called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and establis hed a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800031 Old D ominion Equine
PROJEC T: SP2000800031 Old Dominion Equine Barn & Riding Ring
PROPOSED : R elocation of barn and addition of riding ring for existing veterinary prac tice.
ZONING C ATEGORY/GEN ERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential
density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); EC Entrance Corridor Overlay to protect properties of historic,
architec tural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist acc ess
SECTION: 10.2.2.18, v eterinary services, animal hospital (reference 5.1.11 and subjec t to performance standards in
4.14)
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND U SE/DEN SITY: Rural Areas pres erve and protect agricultural, forestal, open
space, and natural, his toric and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : Yes (Scott Clark)
AND
SDP200800149 Old Dominion Barn & Riding Ring Waiver
The request is for a site plan w aiver to allow an equine veterinary practice. The property, described as Tax Map 50
Parcels 20C and 20D, c ontains 1.704 acres, and is z oned RA Rural Areas and EC Entrance Corridor. The proposal
is located on Route 231 at the intersection of R oute 640, in the Rivanna Magisterial D istrict. The Comprehens ive
Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2.
Scott Clark presented a Pow erPoint presentation and summarized the s taff report. (See Staff Report)
Mr. Clark presented a Pow erPoint presentation and summarized the s taff report.
This reques t is for an amendment of an earlier special use permit for v eterinary servic es in the Rural Areas zoning
district. The area is largely made up of large farms, w ith large open pasture areas and extensive hardwood fores ts
(especially at higher elev ations). How ever, the veterinary office is located within an area of small residential lots.
The property is included in the Southwest Mountains Rural His toric District. Many of the surrounding and nearby
properties are under c ons ervation easements held by the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. The property is with 1,500
feet of the Blue Run Agricultural & Forestal Distric t and 2,750 feet of the Kinloch Agricultural & Forestal Distric t.
Gordons ville Road is an Entrance Corridor.
On April 14, 2004, the Board of Supervisors approved SP200300082, which permitted the current equine
veterinary practice, with the following c onditions:
1. The s ite shall be dev eloped in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old D ominion Equine
Associates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering;
2. The applic ants shall provide a preliminary landsc ape plan that reflects the surrounding rural
landscape to the satisfac tion of the Architec tural R eview Board;
3. The applicants shall provide landsc aping along all parking areas to the satisfac tion of the
Architectural R eview Board;
4. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction
of the Arc hitectural Review Board; and
5. The applicants shall grant sightdistance easements on R oute 640 to the satisfaction of the
Virginia D epartment of Trans portation.
The conceptual plan for that showed the office located in a former cornerstore building along Gordonsville
Road, an entrance on St. John Road, and a 20 by 40foot barn. Follow ing the approval of the special use
permit, the applicants obtained the Architec tural Rev iew Board and VD OT approvals required in conditions two
through fiv e, so those conditions have been previously satisfied.
On May 11, 2004, the Planning Commis sion approved a site plan waiver, SD P200400020, for this use.
The proposal includes the relocation of the original proposed barn (which has not yet been built) to allow for
easier horsetrailer turns, increase of the proposed barn from 20 by 40 feet to 40 by 60 feet for an additional
examination room (to reduc e waiting times, s o that horses and trailers will spend less time on the site), and the
addition of a 50foot diameter c overed riding ring for the examination of horses’ gaits. The hours of operation
would not change. Nighttime uses would only include occasionally keeping horses in the paddock s when
needed.
The proposed concept plan relates to the building layout and not the character or the intensity of the use.
Facilities are being added in this case to have examination rooms rather than one and the new enc losed ring.
The C omprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. Largeanimal v eterinary services , such as
this equine fac ility, are supportive of the County’s goals for maintaining the viability of agriculture and open
space uses in the Rural Areas.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. This equine v eterinary use s upports agriculture in the Rural Areas.
2. The proposed amendment would meet the applicants’ needs w ithout signific antly increasing impacts
on the area.
Staff has identified no factors unfavorable to this application.
The Planning Commis sion is being reques ted to take the follow ing three actions, as follows:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, s taff recommends approval of SP 03082 with the follow ing
conditions. There is a change suggested in condition 1 regarding the title and date of the plan for the current
proposal; also adding a condition for lighting to prevent light spill on neighboring properties; and deleting the four
conditions 36 since all of these conditions have been met in prev ious reviews and the process of the previous
application.:
1. The site shall be developed in general accord with the conceptual plan titled Old Dominion Equine
As sociates Concept Plan, revised 2/16/04, and prepared by Muncaster Engineering “Tax Map 50
Parcel D Propos ed Improvements”, revised April 2, 2009, and prepared by R oudabush, Gale &
As sociates, Inc.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot c andles
s hall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
3. The applicants s hall provide a preliminary landscape plan that reflects the s urrounding rural landscape
to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board;
4. The applicants s hall provide landscaping along all parking areas to the satisfaction of the Arc hitectural
R eview Board;
5. Any outdoor lighting shall be designed to be appropriate to the rural environment to the satisfaction of
the Architectural Review Board; and
6. The applicants s hall grant sightdistance eas ements on Route 640 to the satisfaction of the Virginia
D epartment of Transportation.
Staff also recommends that the Commission approve the requested waiver of section 5.1.11 of the Zoning
Ordinanc e. This is supplemental regulations for veterinary offices all of which relate to soundproofing and setbac ks
for ess entially barking dogs. That does not apply in this case.
Staff also recommends approval of the site plan w aiver, SDP 200800149, with the following conditions that are
based on using this conceptual plan for the special use permit in place of the site plan:
1. Architectural Rev iew Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the two new structures.
2. Approval of WPO application, to include Erosion and Sediment C ontrol Plan and Stormw ater
Management.
3. Health Department approval of the use.
Mr. Strucko asked if there w ere any questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if
the applicant w ould lik e to address the Commission.
Mr. Edgerton asked to see a copy of the plan previously approved.
Mr. Clark displayed a c opy of the previously approved plan on the document camera.
Mr. Edgerton noted that would help him take into consideration some of the comments made in the letter that arriv ed
via email this afternoon from Ms. Schurecht.
Ms. Joseph questioned how staff would enforce the c onditions if something changes if they remove the conditions .
Mr. Kamptner replied said that in this particular case in looking at condition 3, which essentially requires ARB
approval under the ARB and Entrance Corridor regulations would be enforceable through section 30.6.
Mr. C ilimberg pointed out that the site plan waiver ac tually has the Certificate of Appropriateness requirement as a
condition.
Mr. Kamptner noted that condition 4 and 5 would be the same and number 6 is a State requirement. The applicant
would alw ays have to be in complianc e w ith VDOT’s regulations. In this case the conditions are addressed by other
regulations.
Ms. Joseph questioned what was different in the new plan.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the riding ring was much different from just a pasture. There is also a shed that is not on
the original plan. The barn is about 1 ½ times bigger than what was originally proposed. The riding ring and the
covered pen are all new additions.
Mr. Clark noted that the riding ring show n is an open fenced area and not a structure.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the use is the issue. He felt that the letter made a good point. If it is actually going to be
used as a riding ring on a regular basis it is going to kick up a lot of dust as opposed to a pasture. It looks lik e a bit
more intense than what w as originally proposed. He w ould certainly want to hear from the applicant on this.
There being no further questions for staff, Mr. Strucko opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address
the Commission.
Keith Brady, representative of Old D ominion Equine, said that he was an Equine Veterinarian and had been
practicing in Albemarle County for 15 years. He made the following comments.
His partner J effrey Beshear had been here for 9 years . They started in prac tice together in 2002 and then
bought this property in 2004. Their initial special use permit allowed them to modify the abandoned store. They
modified it by renovating the inside and putting in a second floor. They took away the off road parking and put
the parking lot behind the building. As they have gotten to the point of being able to afford to build the barn it
has occurred that after having lived in the facility that there is no way that a horse trailer is going to be able to
get turned around with the other cars already there.
After looking at this and realizing that they had to come bac k in front of the C ommission and Board they noted
that their applic ation needed revamping in order to get it right this time. That is w hy there is a fair amount of
change from the prev ious request. In the previous diagram the grassy area in the center of the parking area w as
where the initial barn was located. They are simply moving the barn over s ome. That is the real thrust of what
they are doing here.
The covered round pen is sec ondary in importance. Their intent is to treat the horses on the barn. They try to
keep their practice style very simple. They don’t want to have a hospital facility on site. They are going to
continue to treat the horses on the farm, but what will occasionally happen is that they will hav e a client locally
who is considering purchasing a horse from out of town where they will need to bring the horse in. C urrently
they have to figure out an arrangement to meet them at another stable that is a safe enc losure to bring a horse
in to do their examination. This is definitely not going to be any k ind of a boarding facility where hors es are
going to be living day in and day out. The horses will not be turned out on the paddock overnight. The paddock
will be useful because some of the younger horses are not yet trained to be ridden and nobody can get on them.
Therefore, they could not look at those horses in the riding ring.
They would put those hors es in the paddock to move them around to see the way that they move in looking for
lameness and that kind of thing. They have enhanc ed the property greatly with landscaping. They are very
committed an aesthetic environment. Therefore, they are not going to allow the horses to damage the trees and
the other foliage that is out there. The riding ring is going to be used occasionally for examinations. It is going
to be a very limited us e. In his las t practice this type of riding ring was used 2 to 3 times per week.
He wanted to address the w ater consumption issue. Currently being that they travel around the country s ide
they are really not there all day. They have tw o staff members that work in the office that use the restroom.
They have some equipment that has to be cleaned. There is not much water us age. Having horses there will
require some drinking w ater. There is no plumbing planned for the inside of the barn. So there w on’t be any
increase in w ater. Horses drink from 6 to 10 gallons in a 24 hour period if there all day. Typically the was te
water from that w ill be us ed to water the landscape. The water buckets will be thrown outside the barn to water
the landscaping.
The visual impact is minimal since the barn should not be v ery visible from the Entrance Corridor. The existing
building that is fairly c lose to the road is going to shield the barn. There are also some mature trees along the
Entrance Corridor. From the other side of the property they hav e an existing row of Leyland Cy prus trees, which
are about 6’ tall. Another row of trees have been planted on the ins ide of that, which will be staggered. Once
thos e trees reach mature height there should be very little v isual impac t. As far as any type of dust from the
riding ring eac h tree w ill probably be 6‘ to 8’ in diameter. There will be about 6’ to 8’ of dense foliage, which will
prev ent any type of dust from carrying over. Again, this riding ring will be used very minimally.
They don’t plan any additional s ignage. As far as disposal of solid w aste, as they perform procedures and they
have any additional trash accumulation, they have a recycling bin and a dumps ter. He did not expec t that they
would need anything more than that. They don’t use the existing dumpster and recy cling bin to capacity as is .
The horses will obviously have some manure, w hich they plan to tak e that offsite. They w ill be keeping the
manure in a waste bin and then will be having it hauled off to be c omposed.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach assumed that the riding ring was really being used for diagnostic purposes to put the horse there and to
watch their gait, etc. It is not riding jus t for riding.
Mr. Brady replied that is correct. It is an important distinction bec ause their lameness exams will typically lasts 15
minutes at the most as oppos ed to someone exercising a hors e for 30 to 40 minutes . It is a much less amount of
time that the ring is being in use.
Mr. Edgerton said that s everal structures are on the new plan. He asked what is going to happen in the barn and
why do they need to mak e it so much bigger.
Mr. Brady replied that one of the realizations they had was w ith the s maller barn there would not be any additional
room for the ancillary things such as hay storage, bedding storage, rakes and brooms. With the additional barn they
are going to have more room for storage and prevent clutter outdoors.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the barn will hav e s ome horses in it w ithout water.
Mr. Brady replied that was correct. The horses will have a buc ket of water. H e would need some type of hydrant
outside or adjacent. The procedures need to be done in very c lean sterile conditions in a treatment room. It is just
basically a clean space with safe footing that the horse can be on out of the weather to receive treatment such as
an injection.
Mr. Edgerton noted that there is a proposed paddock, riding ring and covered pen. H e asked w hat the difference in
the activities w as from the original plan.
Mr. Brady replied that this being their third time amending the spec ial use permit they were very motivated in putting
everything down that they would ultimately w ant to do to w ith the property to get the maximum benefit. As they
have taken this s mall cinder block building and slow ly renovated the interior and added the second s tory it has been
an expensive time consuming process to come back. They looked at the plan to see everything they would want to
do with the property. That motivated them to put all of these things on the plan. The paddocks are w here they
would turn a horse out so that they can move around and graze, w hereas, a riding ring is a place w here they have
good footing where the horse can be ridden on that would be completely lev el. A lay up paddock is small and would
be used if you have a horse that perhaps has an injury and needs to be put out to get some sunshine and a little
grass w ithout exercise. The paddoc k on the southeas t of the property does not have a lot of trees and he could s ee
that being used less frequently. The other important des ign element is the perimeter fence becaus e Route 231 is a
fairly heavily traveled road. They need s ome k ind of an enclosure so that when the horses come in as they are
being loaded on and off the trailer in case if one should ever get away that it would be a safe environment for them.
The shed would be intended for implements or just for a storage shed. The covered round pen w ould be another
exercise area.
Mr. Edgerton asked if he got a copy of letter from his next door neighbor, Ms. Schurec ht.
Mr. Brady replied no.
Mr. Edgerton as ked if he had gone over his plans with Tia Schurec ht. It appears in the photograph that her front
door is foc used right at the proposed riding ring and the paddock. She is concerned about that.
Mr. Brady noted that he w as not sure it was relevant in the w ay this all unfolded. They bought their property in 2004
and then the 1.5 acre land L shaped land around it went on the market. It turns out there w ere 3 building lots there.
So the 3 homes were built around them just afterwards. They obviously realized that would potentially create
conflicts . Unfortunately they did not get the jump on the real estate deal. They did offer the man w ho had the
contrac t or the dev eloper to buy the contract from him. They were unsuccess ful in doing that. That w as the w ay
things unfolded. They feel that their us e of the land is more in line with rural area.
Mr. Edgerton said that she represents in her letter that the original special use permit had been based on a promise
that this would primarily be an office space. Actually in the beginning of the presentation he had said that the
primary use of the property they would be off the property. But it look s like they are planning on doing a lot more on
the property now than what they were originally planning. He was just curious about that.
Mr. C lark noted that in the original approval that barn site was essentially the same on site examination use that
they were seeing here, but obviously a lot smaller. But there were no restrictions.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was surprised that the barn had increased in size, but the other activities such as the
riding ring is a new one and the new covered pen.
.
Mr. Brady noted that the original plan had a riding ring on it as well.
Jeffrey Beshear, representativ e of Old Dominion Equine, noted that it w as basically where the barn is now. When
they redes igned this they planned to the design as a small farmette, which is similar to others in the area. They are
not try ing to stick out but actually to blend into the area.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the three surrounding houses were built after their original approval.
Mr. Bes hear replied that w as correct.
Mr. Morris asked if the plan reflects what they perceiv e to be their needs for the future.
Mr. Brady replied that was correct.
Mr. Struck o invited other public comment.
Judith Somme, resident across Gordonsville Road from Old Dominion Equine, said the store was clos ed w hen they
bought the property. They have improved the appearance of the property and hav e kept it neat and tidy. H er
concern w ith this configuration is that the s ize of the barn has tripled and she did not know what was inside it.
Originally they were planning a three stall barn w ith two paddocks. That indicated five horses max on the property
at any one time. Her concern about w ater usage has been allayed by Dr. Brady because he said they are not
planning on hav ing running water or additional bathroom facilities. It is not going to increas e the w ater intensity .
There is a water problem in the area. The Cas h Corner Store w as a gas station and there was a gasoline leak. She
thought that it w as dis covered in the ‘90’s. The tanks were removed when Dr. Brady and his group bought the
facility. But of the three houses that the county issued 3 building permits on an acre and a half. The minimum
building lot in Albemarle County is s upposed to be 2 acres. So of the 3 houses 2 of the 3 had gasoline in their
water. The State is now in the process of remediation by digging new wells for 2. She did not have all of the details
and w as not an expert on this. But she was not sure that the problem has been completely addressed. She knew
that the recharge rate there is low. If it is no worse w ith this change, then maybe it does not matter. She would like
to know the number of stalls in the barn, the configuration of the interior and the elevation, is it going to be a one
story or tw ostory barn and what is the roof line going to look like. That is her primary concern at this point. The
water is sue she would leave to the neighbors and the Commission.
Tia Sc hurecht, an adjoining neighbor, noted that she wrote the letter about the water situation which is in a s tate of
flux sinc e nothing has been resolved. There might be a better time to make a decis ion and moving forward with this
property after the other iss ues get res olved.
Jake Oldstein, a friend of Tia Schurecht, said that they can’t have horses w ithout water. There is water being used.
If have indoor round pen there has to be w ater or the horses will choke on whatever s urface because it w ould get
very dus ty. As far as the outdoor ring w ith one horse at a time isn’t as big an issue, but there will be some dust
from it especially in the summer. In the dry point of year the water table is lower and the water is sue has not been
resolved w ith D EQ. They think Tia’s well is alright, but not the other 2 w ells. The w ater flow is very w eak and
additional water use, which there would have to be, could really be adv erse.
Ms. Schurec ht noted that there were 3 houses where they don’t have their water issues resolved. They may be
resolved. Therefore, it seems that there would be a better time to make a decision about this area.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko clos ed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning
Commis sion.
Mr. Struck o invited the applicant to address a few iss ues .
Mr. Loach questioned the number of stalls and roofline.
Dr. Brady replied that the plan for the barn is to have four stalls. One end of the barn would be stalls and the other
end would be two separated treatment rooms. The Architectural Review Board reviewed the barn. The vis ion is it
to be a onestory barn struc ture, but because the pitch of the roof on the building is fairly steep they imagine hav ing
a center piece that would have a little more pitch to it so it would match. He ass umed it could be c alled a story and
a half. The middle of it w ould hav e a floor in it to store hay or anything else. Bas ically it is a onestory barn with a
slightly raised middle portion.
Mr. Loach asked what the status of water is on the property. He ask ed if they had a problem with water.
Dr. Bes hear said that they were familiar with the situation w ith the gasoline. The way that worked was that there
was a known water contamination of the ground water in the 1970’s when the c ountry store was operated. In the
80’s they remov ed the tanks. By the time they bought the property they did additional soil samples, whic h all came
back clean. It w as not until these new homes were built the two houses along R oute 231 when they drilled their
wells detected gas oline in the wells. They went back and determined that it was obviously from the previous
contamination. So w hat they think is that the gasoline seeped dow n through the dirt into the aquifer. That is w hy
when they sampled the dirt underneath w here the tank was they did not find anything. What has happened in the
meantime is that they have c ooperated fully with the DEQ. They came onto their property and drilled five monitoring
wells where they tapped to try to determine which direction the aquifer is flowing and determined where gas is and
isn’t. Once that was done they gave permission to go across their land with additional well drilling rigs and they
have now drilled two additional supply w ells to replace the two contaminated wells on the additional properties. His
last communication with John Pepper from Vista Environmental Serv ices indicated that they did get a good clean
water s ource on those two additional wells. H e did think that there was additional tes ting going on and he was not
sure of the exact status at this time.
Dr. Brady noted that their wells seem to be fine since they tested them as w ell.
Mr. Struck o asked if there are any other questions.
Mr. Franco asked if they w ater the covered ring.
Dr. Brady pointed out there are a lot of footings that can be bought in a small area like that w hich require less . They
have all sorts of synthetic footings that can be used to cut down on that. He thought that there w ould be no more
watering than one would do for their garden. Again, being that they might use it onc e or twice a week it won’t be a
lot. They need to have a hydrant near the barn, but it is not going to be plumbing inside the barn. There will be
nothing different than watering flowers . It will happen oc casionally, but once or twice a week probably at most.
Dr. Bes hear reiterated that by time the foliage grows in they will have about 16’ deep and about 30’ high of dense
foliage. So he w ould think there would be very little dust if any that can penetrate that thick foliage to get to the other
side.
Mr. Loach asked if there is any formula or limitation they have to meet as criteria for a minimum amount of water
that they can use.
Mr. Kamptner replied there is a limitation in certain distric ts where the by right uses in that district require a special
use permit if they are going to c onsume more than 400 gallons per ac re per day. That regulation does not exist in
this district.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it was in commercial distric ts where there is no public w ater. There is a limitation on how
much ground water can be pulled for the commercial us e before one w ould have to get a special use permit.
Ms. Joseph said that she was looking at all these uses and her neighbors has a riding ring and can put up a barn
any size as long as they meet the required setback s. They only need a zoning clearance to put in a barn in a rural
area dis tric t. They can have the tallest manure pile in the world if they w ant it. W ith this special use permit they are
getting more regulation than they would for a normal farm. If they sold this to someone who wanted to put horses on
there they could put as many horses as they want to. They could do every thing they are requesting to do here
except practice veterinary medicine. They are putting a lot of regulations and requirements on this, which are normal
activities that one would s ee within the rural areas exc ept for the trailers coming on and the horses c oming in and
out a lot. There are horse traders that do a s imilar ac tivity and there are no regulations on that. Therefore, she sees
this as something that is supportive of agricultural uses. She was sorry about the water problem, but had been
apprehensive knowing that those houses were going on such small lots in the rural area. Therefore, she did not have
a problem supporting the request.
Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Joseph in support of this request. The uses described are consistent with veterinary
service and horse treatment purposes. He had not heard anything that indicated the water usage w as going to larger
than what they are us ing now .
Mr. Morris agreed. The applicant had taken an old country store which was an eyesore and turned it into something
useful. It does concern him that they are putting so many restrictions on something that otherwis e if it was for a
private individual that they would not have those restrictions.
Mr. Struck o noted that there w ere three actions for the Planning Commission to consider.
Action on the Special Use Permit:
Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Franco seconded moved for approv al of SP200800031, Old Dominion Equine Barn &
Riding Ring, subject to s taff’s recommended conditions , as amended.
1. The site shall be developed in general accord w ith the conceptual plan titled “Tax Map 50 Parcel D
Proposed Improvements”, revised April 2, 2009, and prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates , Inc.
2. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cutoff fixtures and shielded to reflect light aw ay from all abutting
properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles
shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Kamptner asked a question about the w aiver for Sec tion 5.1.11. Since the use clas sification is broad enough to
include any type of veterinary office s hould the waiver be conditioned to veterinary s erv ices for horses or something
other than any veterinary service other than dogs.
Mr. Loach suggested equine veterinary s ervices.
Mr. Clark noted that it w as done when the waiver was is sued last time. That would be a change.
Ms. Joseph noted that it was a waiver from 5.1.11. What they are doing is limiting this because they want it to be
limited to equine services. She asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied that either that or it applies to any animals other than dogs. H e asked if the applicant treats
any other types of animals.
Dr. Beshear replied no.
Dr. Brady s aid that equine would appropriate.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the condition w ould be that the w aiver would be limited to veterinary services for equine.
Action on the Waiver of Section 5.1.11:
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Franc o seconded for approval of a waiver of Section 5.1.11 with the follow ing
condition.
1. The w aiver is limited to equine veterinary serv ices.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Action on the Site Plan Waiver:
Motion: Mr. Morris mov ed and Mr. Franco seconded for approval of SP200800149, Old Dominion Equine Barn &
Riding Ring – site plan waiver subject to the following conditions:
1. Architectural Rev iew Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. Approval of W PO application, to include Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and Stormwater
Management.
3. Health Department approval.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0).
Mr. Strucko noted that SP20080031 Old D ominion Equine will go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be
determined with a rec ommendation for approval. SDP200900149 Old Dominion Barn & Riding R ing – Waiver w as
approved.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Work Sess ion on Family D ivisions/Priv ate Streets
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work ses sion to discuss potential ordinance changes
to permit division of land where multiple dwellings
currently ex ist.
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Fritz
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On Augus t 5, 2009, the Board of Superv isors heard an appeal of a subdivision denial for Timmy Wy ant in which Mr.
Wyant s ought the proposal approval of a family division. The property was developed w ith two hous es and was
served by an access easement that was shared with several other parcels. In order for the subdiv ision to be
approved, the entranc e onto the public s treet had to receive VDOT approval. The ex isting entrance does not meet
VDOT sight distance standards and the applicant does not control the land necessary to provide adequate sight
distance to meet the requirements. Further, the acces s easement is not approved as a private street.
Approval of the family division required private street approval. This would require the approval of all the properties
that the access easement crosses betw een the property being divided and the public s treet. The applic ant
requested that the Board defer action on the appeal to allow staff and the applicant to identify possible solutions that
would permit approval of the subdivision. The Board also requested that staff review the circumstanc es of the case
to determine if any revisions to ordinances or policies would be appropriate to addres s the situation.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 4: Effectively Manage Growth and Development
Adoption of regulations designed to address access and multiple dwellings in the R ural Areas can promote this
goal.
DISCU SSION :
Four options have been identified:
1. Revise the Subdiv ision and Zoning Ordinanc es to allow the creation of family division lots w ithout street
frontage.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling per lot is permitted unless the lot has public street
frontage.
3. Revise the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling is permitted on a lot unless approval from VDOT is
received.
4. Revise the Subdiv ision and Zoning Ordinanc es so that lots that have two dw elling as of a set date may be
divided so that each lot is on a separate parcel without the need for private street or VDOT approval.
1. Revise the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to allow the creation of family division lots without
street frontage.
W hen an existing access easement serves a lot, the County has not required that all lots cross ed by the
easement agree to it being approv ed as a priv ate street as a c ondition of family division approv al. Recently ,
the County Attorney’s Office has advised that this was an incorrect application of the ordinanc e because the
lands being approved as a private street were included as part of the subdivis ion and, therefore, the consent
of the owners of all parcels crossed by the ac ces s easement was required, as provided by state law and the
Subdivision Ordinance. Therefore, all subdivisions, including family divisions, will be required to receive
approval from all parcels crossed by the easement prior to receiving County approval if a private street is
required. Amending the Subdiv ision and Zoning Ordinances to allow the creation of family divis ion lots
w ithout street frontage would allow family div isions to continue to be proces sed as they his torically have
been, and without the need for approval of a priv ate street.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling per lot is permitted unless the lot has public
street frontage.
Provided that all density, development rights and other criteria are met, current regulations allow tw o or more
dwellings to be loc ated on a parc el. Revising the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling per lot is
permitted unless the lot has public street frontage w ould limit development in the Rural Areas and prevent
multiple dwellings from being c onstructed on a parcel in a manner that may mak e future div ision difficult or
impossible. This proposal may reduce the number of new dw ellings constructed in the Rural Areas but is
not intended to reduce the total number of potential dw ellings. The same number of dwelling c ould be
c onstructed but would require a subdivision plat to be approved prior to the c ons truction of multiple
dwellings.
3. Revise the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling is permitted on a lot unless approval from
VD OT is received.
C urrently, if a lot is served by an existing entranc e no additional VD OT approval is required for the
c onstruction of the second dwelling on the parc el. This can result in two dwellings being located on a parcel
but not being able to subdivide due to an inability to obtain approval of either a new private or public street to
s erve the lot or because the entrance onto the state road is inadequate. Rev ising the Zoning Ordinance s o
that only one dw elling is permitted on a lot unles s VD OT approval is obtained would limit development in the
R ural Areas by preventing multiple dw ellings from being constructed on a parcel. H owever, it also would
prevent the creation of circumstances where future division is difficult or imposs ible and w ould prevent
increased usage of entrances that are below minimum standards .
4. Revise the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances so that lots having multiple dwellings as of a set date
may be divided so that each lot is on a separate parcel without the need for private street or VDOT
approval.
Such a revision would permit the division of land so that existing dwellings c an be located on individual
parcels. This revision would not increase development potential but w ould allow the sale of dwellings that
may currently only be rented. As this proposal would apply only to situations w here the dw ellings already
exist, the land impact would be neutral. Bec aus e the dwellings already exist, the only new feature would be
a property line betw een the dwellings. No additional dwellings or traffic would be generated.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not anticipate any of the lis ted options would result in changes to funding or staff needed for review
of subdivisions.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board Consider Options 2 and 4.
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance so that only one dwelling per lot is permitted unless the lot has
public street frontage.
4. Revise the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances so that lots that have two dwelling as of a set
date may be divided so that each lot is on a separate parcel without the need for private street
or VD OT approval.
Option 2 would prevent multiple dwellings from being constructed on property in a manner that mak es future division
difficult or impossible. Option 4 would allow those w ho have previously constructed multiple dwellings to divide the
parcel s o that each dw elling could ex ist on its own, separate lot.
In effect, either of thes e two options c lose an existing problem with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances that
allow multiple dw ellings on a single parc el but which may prohibit div ision of the parcel due to factors that may be
beyond the subdivider’s control.
ATTAC HMENTS
Augus t 5, 2009 Executive Summary
Ret urn t o regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SUB 2008100 (Wyant) – Subdivision Appeal
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of disapproval of W yant Family Subdivision
Plat
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham,
Fritz, and Lawrence
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
August 5, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Timothy W yant propos ed to subdivide Tax Map and Parc el N umber 02600000004200 (the “parcel”) into tw o lots as
a family subdivision (see Attachment A). The parcel is 5.2347 acres and is zoned Rural Areas. If s ubdivided, the
resulting lots w ould be 2.7018 and 2.5329 acres. There are currently two houses on the parcel. The building permit
for the second house on the parcel w as issued by the Building Offic ial in 2004. The parcel fronts on and obtains its
access from Old Breakheart R oad, a road that is neither a public street nor an approv ed private street under the
Subdiv ision and Zoning Ordinances. The subdivision agent disapproved the plat on May 12, 2009 (see Attachment
B), and Mr. W yant appealed the decision to the Board of Supervisors on May 19, 2009 (see Attachment C).
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance quality of life for all citiz ens
Goal 4: Effectively manage growth and development
DISCU SSION :
VDOT Approval is Required
The County’s approval of the Wyant family subdivision plat is contingent, in part, upon VD OT’s approv al of the point
at which Old Breakheart Road intersects with Slam Gate Road, a public street, under C ounty Code §§ 14212(C)
and 14316. County C ode § 14212(C ) provides:
Each approval of a plat for a family subdivision s hall be subject to the following c onditions:
. . .
C . The entranc e of the principal means of acces s for each lot onto any public street shall comply with
Virginia Department of Trans portation standards and be approved by the Virginia D epartment of
Transportation.
County Code § 14316 provides:
The subdivider shall submit, prior to or w ith the final plat, evidenc e s atisfactory to the agent that the
entrance of the principal means of ac cess for each lot onto any ex isting or propos ed public street complies
with Virginia Department of Transportation standards.
These regulations have been consistently applied to require VD OT approval of the intersection at whic h the
travelway provides access from the proposed subdivis ion lots (Old Breakheart Road) to the public street (Slam Gate
Road).
County Code §§ 14212(C) and 14316 facilitate VDOT’s required review to determine compliance w ith applicable
State regulations. VD OT did not approv e the intersection because the sight distance criteria under 24 VAC 3071
130 were not satisfied and, related thereto, because the c riteria for a commercial entrance under 24 VAC 3071140
were not met because a sight distanc e easement was required. Both of these regulations are part of VD OT’s
minimum s tandards for entrances for s tate highways.
Because the applicant was unable to obtain the required VDOT approval, the family subdivision plat w as
disapproved by staff because the applicant failed to s atis fy County C ode §§ 14212(C) and 14316.
Consent to Approval of Old Breakheart R oad as a Priv ate Street is Required
As explained below, new lots must have frontage on an approved public or private street. In the past, s taff has
approved preexisting roads as private streets in conjunc tion with the approval of a family subdivision. Though this
situation appears to be rare, staff’s practic e has not required the consent of the owners of the other parcels along the
preexis ting road. In this case, the W yant family subdiv ision plat is unclear as to who owns and controls Old
Breakheart Road, or whether it exists as a separate parcel or is an eas ement across several parcels. Because
approval of Old Break heart Road as a private street requires that it be part of the proposed family s ubdivision (for
example, C ounty Code § 14232(C)(1) provides that the agent may authorize family “subdivisions to be developed
with one (1) or more new private streets or shared drivew ays”), it is the County Attorney’s opinion that the consent
and signatures of thos e persons having an ownership interest in Old Breakheart Road is required.
Without the required signatures, Old Breakheart Road c annot be approved as a private s treet. If Old Breakheart
Road is not approved as a private street, the family subdivision plat cannot be approved because the proposed lots
would fail to satisfy other requirements. County Code § 14211(C) provides that a “family subdivis ion shall be
approved only if, in addition to satisfying all other applic able requirements of this chapter, the agent is satisfied that .
. . [e]ach lot proposed to be created c omplies with all applicable requirements of the z oning ordinance.” County
Code § 14400, applicable to family subdivisions under C ounty Code § 14208(D), prov ides that “[e]ach lot within a
subdivision shall satisfy the minimum lot requirements established in the zoning ordinance.” In this c ase, the
proposed lots would not comply with the Zoning Ordinance’s requirement that each lot front on an exis ting or
proposed public street or a private street approved under the Subdiv ision Ordinance. County Code § 184.6.1(a).
County Code § 14403, als o applicable to family subdivis ions under C ounty Code § 14208(D), prov ides that “[e]ach
lot within a subdivision shall have frontage on an exis ting or proposed s treet.” “Frontage” means “the c ontinuous
uninterrupted distance along w hich a parcel abuts an adjacent street.” C ounty Code § 14106. The term “street,”
when not preceded by either “public” or “private,” means either a public street or a private street. County Code § 14
105(E).
When the applicant obtains the consent and signatures of the other owners, Old Breakheart Road can be approved
as a private street under County Code § 14232(B)(1) (authority for the agent to approve a private street for a family
subdivision) because it meets the requirements of County C ode § 14234(C ), including the requirement that the
street be adequate to carry the traffic volume that may be reasonably expected to be generated by the subdivision.
However, VD OT’s approv al of the inters ection of Old Breakheart Road and Slam Gate Road under County C ode §§
14212(C) and 14316 remains a separate requirement for approval of the family subdivis ion plat.
Summary
The Wy ant family subdivision plat was disapproved because the applicant failed to s atis fy the requirements of
County Code §§ 14212(C) and 14316 because he has not obtained VDOT’s approval of the intersec tion of Old
Breakheart Road and Slam Gate Road. In addition, Old Breakheart R oad must be approved as a private street in
order for the proposed lots to comply w ith the lot frontage requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances.
One of the prerequisites for that approv al is the consent of the owners of Old Breakheart Road.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDA TION S:
For the foregoing reasons, staff recommends that the Board affirm the decision of the s ubdivision agent disapprov ing
the W yant family subdiv ision plat, and that it adopt the proposed res olution stating the reasons for the disapproval
included as Attachment D.
ATTAC HMENTS
A – Subdiv ision Plat
B – Letter of Denial
C – Applic ant’s Appeal
D Res olution
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, SUB 2008100 (Wyant) is a pla t proposing to subdivide Tax Ma p a nd Pa rce l Numbe r
02600000004200 into two lots a s a fa mily subdivision (he re ina fte r, the “pla t”); and
WHEREAS, the pla t fa ils to comply with seve ra l provisions of the Subdivision Ordina nc e a s se t forth
be low.
NOW, THER EFORE, BE IT RESOLV ED that the Albemarle County Boa rd of Supervisors he re by
disa pprove s the plat be ca use it fa ils to comply with County Code § 14212(C) bec a use the Virginia Depa rtme nt of
Tra nsporta tion (he re ina fter, “V DOT”) did not a pprove the entra nc e of the principa l mea ns of a c c ess for e ac h lot
(Old Bre akhea rt Road) onto a public stre et (Sla m G ate Road) bec ause the inte rsec tion does not c omply w ith the
applica ble sta nda rds in 24 VA C 3071130 a nd 24 V A C 3071140. In order to c omply with County Code § 14
212(C), the subdivide r must sa tisfy the sight dista nc e c riteria unde r 24 VAC 307130 a nd the c rite ria for a
comme rc ial entra nc e unde r 24 V AC 3071140 by obta ining a sight dista nc e e a se me nt tha t is approve d by VDO T;
and
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board disa pproves the pla t bec ause it fails to c omply with
County Code § 14316 be c ause the subdivide r did not submit, prior to or with the plat, e vide nc e sa tisfa c tory to the
subdivision a ge nt tha t the entra nc e of the principal mea ns of a cc ess for e ac h lot (Old Bre a khe art Roa d) onto an
existing or propose d public stree t (Sla m Ga te Roa d) c omplie s with a pplic a ble VD O T sta nda rds in 24 VA C 3071
130 a nd 24 V AC 3071140. In order c omply w ith County Code § 14216, the subdivide r must sa tisfy the sight
distance crite ria under 24 VA C 307130 a nd the criteria for a c ommercia l e ntra nc e unde r 24 VAC 3071140 by
obtaining a sight dista nce ea se me nt that is a pproved by VD OT a nd submit sa tisfa ctory e vide nc e of tha t a pprova l
to the subdivision agent; a nd
BE IT FU RTHER R ESOLV ED tha t the Board disa pproves the pla t bec ause Old Brea khe art Roa d
ca nnot be a pproved a s a priva te stree t unde r County Code § 14232(B)(1) w ithout the signa ture s of the owne rs of
the parce ls c omposing O ld Bre akhea rt Road or ove r which tha t road trave rse s e videnc ing their consent to the
subdivision sinc e Old Bre a khe art Roa d must be part of the subdivision. Without approva l of Old Bre akhea rt
Roa d as a private stre et, the lots propose d on the pla t do not ha ve the fronta ge required by County Code §§ 14400
and 14403 a nd County Code § 184.6.1(a ). In orde r to obtain a pproval of the pla t, the subdivider must obtain the
signatures of suc h ow ners to a llow O ld Bre akhea rt Road to be approve d a s a private stre e t.
Re turn to exe c summa ry
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FiveYear Financial Plan Work Session
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Work Sess ion on the C ounty’s FiveYear Financial
Plan
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
November 4, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFOR MA TION:
ATTACH MEN TS: No
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
Wednesday’s work session is the firs t of several conducted on an annual basis to dev elop and approv e a FiveYear
Financial Plan for the County. This process is not designed to be an approval of the c oming fiscal year’s operating
budget, but w ill help create a framework within which the next fiscal y ear’s budget development will take place. In
addition, this process helps inform thinking on future fisc al year planning and the priorities of the Board.
At the Board of Supervisor’s Strategic Planning Retreat on October 16, 2009, staff reviewed with the Board the
County’s preliminary rev enue and expenditure projec tions for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. In addition to the
review, the Board provided input on a v ariety of revenue and expenditure assumptions that have now been
incorporated into the fiveyear projection. Based on that input and the latest information on revenues and
expenditures, staff will be presenting the Board with a balanced Financ ial Plan at its meeting on Nov ember 4, 2009.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County’s future needs.
DISCU SSION :
Information on the specific assumptions used by staff to balance the Fiv eYear Financial Plan will be presented to
the Board W ednesday . A second work s ession on the Plan is scheduled for November 11, 2009. A third w ork
session, if necessary, is s cheduled for December 2, 2009. The purpose of these work sessions is for the Board to
provide direction on future priorities for funding given the financial projections over the next five years.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
No final action is expected on Wednesday, but will be sc heduled at one of the follow ing work sessions based on
direction from the Board on potential c hanges to the Plan.
Ret urn t o regular agenda