HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-1-13
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JANUARY 13, 2010
9:30 a.m. - LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
1a. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
1b. From the Public: Matters not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
2. Consent Agenda (on next page).
3. PUBLIC HEARING to solicit public input on local housing and community development needs in relation
to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding available to the County.
4. PUBLIC HEARING: ZTA-2009-00010. Downtown Crozet District (DCD). Amend Secs. 4.15.2,
Definitions, 4.15.11, Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD zoning districts, 20B.3, Area and bulk
regulations, and 20B.7, Sidewalks and stre et trees, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County
Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 4.15.2, to add a definition of sandwich board sign; Sec.
4.15.11, to add the DCD as a zoning district subject to the sign standards in Sec. 4.15.11 and to
authorize sandwich board signs in the DCD subject to standards; Sec. 20B.3, to add setback standards
for secondary buildings on a parcel, to add definitions of primary and secondary buildings, and to clarify
the regulation pertaining to determining setbacks on corner lots; and Sec. 20B.7, to amend the
standards and procedures for waivers from the sidewalk and/or street tree requirements.
5. Work Session: Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Development Areas .
6. Adjourn.
CONSENT AGENDA
FOR APPROVAL:
2.1 Increase Department of Social Services (DSS) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employee Authorized
Staffing Level.
2.2 FY 2010 Appropriation.
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Increase Department of Social Services (DSS) Full-Time
Equivalent (FTE) Employee Authorized Staffing Level
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Authorize the increase in Authorized FTE Employees in
DSS from 100.2 to 103.2.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Downs; and
Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 13, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
To date, the County Executive’s Office has implemented various strategies to address the ongoing shortfall in County
revenues without resorting to employee layoffs and furloughs. One of these strategies is the voluntary reallocation of
County staff experiencing a reduced workload to a department with an increased workload. To date, these staff
reallocation efforts have contributed to generating the equivalent of fifty-eight (58) positions that have been eliminated,
frozen or offset with alternative revenue sources.
The Department of Social Services (“DSS”), a County Department experiencing an increased workload, has benefitted
from this strategy with several of its vacant positions being filled in this manner. In December, the Board authorized an
increase in overall FTE staffing for DSS by 2 positions to 100.2. Since the Board’s December meeting, the Human
Resources Department has identified three (3) additional employees that are qualified to perform work in DSS and are
eligible for reassignment. In order to proceed with relocating these employees to DSS, the Board must approve
increasing the number of DSS authorized FTE employees from 100.2 to 103.2.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal One: Enhance the quality of Life for all citizens; Objective 1.3: Increase the ability of those individuals and
families, who are living in lower income households, to become self-sufficient; and Goal Five: Fund the County’s
Future Needs; Objective 5.1: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the county’s needs.
DISCUSSION:
The rationale for seeking an increase in staffing for DSS is linked to the fact that DSS has experienced an
unprecedented growth in caseload over the past two years without additional resources to manage or address this
growth. Staffing was below state standards prior to this growth and continues to be a significant problem for DSS to
manage. The majority of growth has been seen in the Benefit Programs that provide Medicaid, TANF, Employment
Services and SNAP (formally Food Stamps) assistance to citizens. As set forth in the quarterly DSS workload
summary provided to the Board at its December 2, 2009 meeting, these areas have witnessed the following changes
since November 2007:
52% increase in SNAP (Food Stamp) cases; 55% increase in applications
63% increase in TANF cases; 23% increase in applications.
19% increase in Medicaid cases; 50% increase in applications
The following graphical information is provided:
Attachment A – Applications and case trends for Benefits programs
Attachment B – Workload Measures for Benefits programs
Attachment C – Overtime hours and overtime payouts for selected programs
Workload standards established by the State for line staff are monitored by DSS on a regular basis. Based on those
standards, the DSS Eligibility Division, as of November 2009 was understaffed by a total of five (5) positions. Given the
County’s financial situation, it is not possible to consider hiring new employees to fill those positions, or other vacant
positions; however, reallocating existing staff into the DSS Eligibility Division allows for federal reimbursement of up to
AGENDA TITLE: Increase Department of Social Services (DSS) Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Employee Authorized
Staffing Level
January 13, 2010
Page 2
50% of those employees’ compensation. For every two employees the County can move into the DSS Benefits
Programs from other departments whose positions are fully funded by County dollars, there is the equivalent savings
of one FTE’s cost.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Increasing the overall FTE employee total in DSS from 100.2 to 103.2 and voluntarily transferring three (3) existing
local government employees to fill these positions will generate the equivalent of 1.5 additional positions offset with
alternative revenue given that the County will receive 50% federal reimbursement for any position that can be allocated
to Benefit Programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize an increase in the number of authorized General Fund FTE Employees in
DSS from 100.2 to 103.2.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Trends of Applications and Cases
B – Trends of Workloads
C – Overtime Information
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Benefits (Food Stamps, TANF, Medicaid): Applications
Food Stamps: Applications Received
176
156
87
157
109
141 155
133 143
194
168 172
215
167 161
196 187 196
229
199 205
242
221
242
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Oc
t-
07
No
v-
07
De
c-
07
Ja
n-
08
Fe
b-
08
M
ar-
08
Ap
r-
08
M
ay-
08
Ju
n-
08
J
ul-
08
Au
g-
08
Se
p-
08
Oc
t-
08
No
v-
08
De
c-
08
Ja
n-
09
Fe
b-
09
M
ar-
09
Ap
r-
09
M
ay-
09
Ju
n-
09
J
ul-
09
Au
g-
09
Se
p-
09Number
48
43
28
32
25
53
31
38 37
42
56 53 54
34
46
33 36
44
48
33
45 45 48
53
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
NumberT ANF: Applications Received
149
102 94
137
107
118 125
103 101
128 125 114
139
97 87
103 106 109
133
111 105
125 127
153
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
NumberMedicaid: Applications Received
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
December 29, 2009
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Benefits (Food Stamps, TANF): Active Cases
1535 1551 1546 1552 1555 1548 1562 1586 1611 1663 1670 1701 1746 1775 1841 1858 1877 1935 2025 2025 2134 2241 2299 2352
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
NumberF o o d S ta m ps : Ac tiv e C a s e s
99 104
92 91 93 103 104 106 114 125 131
143 150 151 156 145 146
159
171
154 154
166 168 170
0
50
100
150
200
O c t-07 J a n -08 Apr-08 J u l-08 O c t-08 J a n -09 Apr-09 J u l-09NumberTANF: Ac tiv e C a s e s
Benefits (M edicaid): Active Clients
4742 4812 4717 4726 4810 4826 4821 4943 4990 5014 5113 5066 5115 5271 5193 5210 5214 5304 5361 5478 5506 5576 5720 5713
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
NumberM e d ic a id C lie n ts
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
December 29, 2009
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Prepared by Office of Program Accountability
December 29, 2009
Fuel Assistance 7207838008101043600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
1050
1100
2004-052005-062006-072007-082008-09Fuel and Crisis Assistance Approved Cases
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
Workload Measures 1
0.00
50.00
100.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
Workload MeasureMonth
Adult Benefits Workload Measures
Average W orkload Target W orkload Average W orkload Trendline
CURRENTLY DOWN!3!POSITIONS
1 Workload Measures is a standard, expressed as the number of hours required to handle a case, applied to
existing caseloads. The standard was first developed for Virginia in 2000 and updated in 2008 by Hornby
Zeller Associates for the Virginia Department of Social Services. The graphs are based on the 2000
standard set at 104 hours allocated for direct casework in a month, used through FY 09. The new standards,
effective July 2009, allocate 108.5 hours/month to Benefit Program casework. The position shortage for
each area is calculated based on the last 3 months of data.
Albemarle County Department of Social Services
90
110
130
150
170
190
210
230
250
270
290
Workload ValueMonth
Long Term Care Workload Measures
Average W orkload Target W orkload Average W orkload Trendline
CURRENTLY DOWN 1 POSITION
118.18
109.1
123.43 121.35 122.8 125.24
135.94 137.09 137.83
153.56
131.96
125.37
135.26 138.23
146.96
157.77
146.29
154.28
142.92 145.04 148.36
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Family and Children Benefits Unit Average Workload
Unit Average W orkload Target W orkload
CURRENTLY DOWN 3 POSITIONS
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09
HoursMonth
Overtime Hours -Benefits Programs
Adult Benefits Families and Children Benefits
3 000
3,500
Overtime C osts -J anuary 2 0 0 8 -Sep temb er 2 0 0 9 **
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May-09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09
HoursMonth
Overtime Hours -Benefits Programs
Adult Benefits Families and Children Benefits
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
-08
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepAmount ($)Month
Overtime C osts -January 2 0 0 8 -Sep temb er 2 0 0 9 **
Adult Benefits F&C Benefits
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Appropriation
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Appropriation #2010060 for $1,500,000 for
the Emergency Communications Center (ECC)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 13, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which 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 Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $1,500,000. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations will not exceed one percent of the currently adopted
budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of one (1) FY 2010 appropriation as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010060) totaling $1,500,000.00 for the ECC U. S. Department of Justice COPS
Technology Grant
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $1,500,000.00 and the approval of
Appropriation #2010060.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Description of Appropriations
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010060 $ 1,500,000.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 1,500,000.00
The Department of Justice awarded Albemarle County, as fiscal agent for the Charlottesville-U.Va.-Albemarle
Emergency Communications Center (“ECC”), a $1,500,000 COPS technology grant to obtain detailed digital imagery
of the 10 counties and 14 cities in the 5th Congressional District. Pictometry International will contract with the County
to provide flight-captured image software, which will be used by dispatch, law-enforcement, and fire and rescue
providers throughout the 5th Congressional District.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Virginia Community Development Block Grant
Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing – Information on Funds Available
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
January 13, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Community Development Block Grant (VCDBG) is a federally-funded grant program administered by the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Since 1982, the DHCD has provided funding
to eligible units of local government (non-entitlement communities only) for projects which address critical community
needs including housing, infrastructure and economic development. Albemarle County has received numerous grants
in previous years to support housing and community improvement initiatives.
The VCDBG application process requires that two local public hearings be conducted. The purpose of the first public
hearing is to provide information on eligible activities that may be funded by CDBG, the amount of funding estimated to
be available, past activities undertaken with CDBG funds and to receive public comment on this information and
potential community development and housing needs. The follow-up public hearing is held in order to consider
proposed project applications and must take place prior to the application due date of March 31, 2010. Applications
are to be submitted by the County to DHCD; however, the proposed activities may be undertaken by other agencies.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for those who work
and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCUSSION:
Albemarle County, as a non-entitlement community, is eligible to apply to DHCD for up to $1.8 million in CDBG funding
for projects that benefit low- and moderate-income persons, prevent slums and blight, or address urgent community
needs. Eligible activities include economic development, housing rehabilitation, housing production, community
facilities and community service facilities. Community development projects can receive varying levels of funding
depending on the nature of the activity or by combining multiple activities.
Over the years, Albemarle County has been successful in receiving a number of CDBG grant awards. The most
recent grant was awarded in 2008 to fund land development and infrastructure costs for the Crozet Meadows
Apartment development. The project, which is currently under construction, includes the rehabilitation of 28 existing
rental units and the construction of 38 new rental units to provide affordable housing to senior citizens. In 2004, the
County utilized CDBG funds for the construction of a community center at Whitewood Village Apartments, now known
as Parks Edge Apartments. The center hosts a variety of programs and classes for the benefit of the residents of
Parks Edge including neighborhood meetings, after-school YMCA programs, financial literacy classes, GED classes
and employment counseling/assistance programs. Prior to this project, CDBG funds were awarded for a
comprehensive community improvement initiative for the Porters Road/Yancey School neighborhood. This $770,000
CDBG grant leveraged over $2 million in other public and private funds to rehabilitate 28 houses, demolish 13
dilapidated houses, construct five new houses, and create a community park and community c enter.
AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Community Development Block Grant Program
January 13, 2010
Page 2
For a project to be considered by the County for CDBG funding, the applicant is required to submit a notice of intent to
request CDBG funds to the Office of Housing no later than January 30, 2010. This notice must include a brief
description of the project, the proposed use of CDBG funds and a description of the beneficiaries of the proposed
activity. A completed application, less attachments but inclusive of the proposed development budget, shall be
submitted to the Office of Housing electronically no later than February19, 2010 while the entire application must be
received no later than March 5, 2010.
The Office of Housing has held discussions with the Albemarle County Service Authority regarding a possible
application for CDBG funding for the extension of sanitary sewer lines to serve the Oak Hill Subdivision. There is also
interest expressed by the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA) to seek funding for the Southern Albemarle
Intergeneration Center.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no budgetary impact unless or until an application is made and approved for a funded project. However,
projects applying for CDBG generally require some level of local financial support.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board receive information on available CDBG funding and eligible uses and hold the public
hearing to receive input from the public on potential community development and housing needs. Staff also
recommends that the Board set a public hearing for Wednesday, March 10, 2010 for the second required public
hearing to review and approve the submission of any proposed applications.
Return to regular agenda
ZTA 2009-010 Downtown Crozet District Corrections
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing January 13, 2009
Staff Report Page 1 of 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA-2009-10 Downtown Crozet District Corrections
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request to amend the Downtown Crozet District
(DCD) to provide for several corrections needed to
the zoning district regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
R. Ragsdale
AGENDA DATE:
January 13, 2009
PUBLIC HEARING:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: X
BACKGROUND:
The Downtown Crozet Zoning District (DCD) and rezoning were approved by the Board on June 11, 2008 (ZTA
2007-005 and ZMA 2008-002). Since the DCD was established in June 2008, County staff has identified several
provisions in the zoning district’s regulations that should be added or revised to further clarify district
requirements. The Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent to initiate these changes on May 19,
2009. A public hearing on the changes was held on December 8, 2009 and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the ordinance changes, with two minor corrections:
Revise a comma to semi-colon
Clarify the definition of a primary building
DISCUSSION:
The two minor changes recommended by the Commission to the ordinance have been made and are reflected
in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approv al of the attached ZTA 2009-010. (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A. Amendments to the DCD (ZTA 2009-010) dated December 18, 2009
Commission Dec 8, 2009 Staff Report
View PC minutes: May 19 and December 8, 2009
Return to regular agenda
Draft: 12/18/09
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL REGULATIONS,
ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF
THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Regulations, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article III, District Regulations, are hereby
amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec. 20B.3 Area and bulk regulations
Sec. 20B.7 Sidewalks and street trees
By Amending and Renaming:
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Regulations
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
. . .
(46.1) Sandwich board sign. The ter m “sandwich board sign” means an A-frame sign with two (2)
faces that is periodically placed directly in front of the place of business that it advertises.
. . .
Article II. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.15.11 Regulations applicable in the PUD, DCD and NMD zoning districts
The following regulations pertaining to the number of signs permitted per lot or establishment, the sign area,
sign height, and setback requirements shall apply to each sign for which a sign permit is required within the
Planned Unit Development (PUD), Downtown Crozet (DCD) and Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning
districts:
Sign Type Number of Signs Allowed Sign Area
(Maximum)
Sign Height
(Maximum)
Sign Setback
(Minimum)
Directory 1 or more per establishment,
as authorized by zoning administrator 24 square feet, aggregated 6 feet 5 feet
Freestanding
1 per street frontage, or 2 per entrance, per lot
with 100 or more feet of continuous street
frontage plus 1 per lot if the lot is greater than
4 acres and has more than 1 approved entrance
on its frontage
24 square feet, aggregated;
if more than 1 sign, no
single sign shall exceed 12
square feet
12 feet 5 feet
Projecting 1 per street frontage 24 square feet
30 feet, but not to
exceed the top of the
fascia or mansard
Not applicable
Subdivision 2 per entrance per subdivision 24 square feet, aggregated,
per entrance 6 feet 5 feet
Temporary 1 per street
frontage per establishment 24 square feet 12 feet, if freestanding
sign; 20 feet, if 5 feet
Draft: 12/18/09
2
residential wall sign or
30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign, but not to exceed
the top of the fascia or
mansard
Wall
As calculated pursuant to section 4.15.20
1 square foot per 1 linear
foot of establishment
structure frontage, not to
exceed 32 square feet if
residential wall sign, or
100 square feet if
nonresidential wall sign
20 feet, if residential
wall sign or 30 feet if
nonresidential wall
sign
Same as that
applicable to
structure
Within the DCD, one (1) sandwich board sign is permitted for each establishment subject to the following: (1)
the sign shall not exceed four (4) feet in height, two (2) feet in width or eight (8) square feet of area per sign
face; (2) if the sign is placed on a sidewalk or any other public pedestrian right-of-way, it shall be placed in a
location that provides a contiguous and unobstructed pedestrian passageway at least three (3) feet wide; (3) the
sign shall not be located in any required off-street parking space, driveway, access easement, alley or fire lane;
(4) the sign shall not be illuminated; (5) the sign shall be removed during non -business hours; and (6) if the sign
is located on county-owned right-of-way, prior to placement of the sign the owner shall agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the county against any claim or liability arising from the placement of the sign, and the agreement
shall be in a form and have a substance approved by the county attorney. Sandwich board signs shall be exempt
from review and approval under section 30.6.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.12.4; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 03-18(2), 3-19-03)
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-2280.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 20B.3 Area and bulk regulations
Area and bulk regulations within the DCD are as follows:
A. Area and bulk regulations, generally. Any buildings, structures (collectively, “buildings”) and
improvements established on and after June 11, 2008 and to which subsection 20B.3(B) does not apply,
shall be subject to the following area and bulk regulations and subsections 20B.3(C) through (J):
Building Setbacks (See Figure 1)
Primary Buildings
Front-Minimum
Front-Maximum
Side-Minimum except from accessway or alley
Side-Minimum from accessway or alley
Side-Maximum (See Figure 2)
Rear-Minimum
Secondary Buildings
Front-Minimum
Front-Maximum
Side-Minimum except from accessway or alley
Side-Minimum from accessway or alley
Side-Maximum
Rear-Minimum
1 foot
10 feet, except up to 20 feet with administrative modification (See
subsection 20B.3(H)
0 feet
3 feet, except 1 foot within a building façade break
20 feet, except with administrative waiver (See subsection
20B.3(H))
0 feet
1 foot
Prevailing building pattern, as determined by director of planning
0 feet
3 feet, except 1 foot within a building façade break
Prevailing building pattern, as determined by director of planning
0 feet
See also subsection 20B.3(C) for corner lots
Draft: 12/18/09
3
Parking Setbacks
Front-Minimum-As a primary use (stand alone parking)
Front-Minimum-As an accessory use
Side-Minimum-As a primary use (stand alone parking)
Side-Minimum-As an accessory use
Rear (Minimum)
Same as maximum front building setback (10 feet, except up to 20
feet with modification (See subsection 20B.3(J))
No closer to the right-of-way than any existing or proposed
primary structure on the lot. Parking areas shall be located to the
rear and/or side of the primary structures, as viewed from the
right-of-way to which the lot abuts. On corner lots, the parking
areas shall be located to the side or rear of the primary structure,
and not between the structure and any rights-of-way that intersect
at the corner.
0 feet
3 feet
0 feet
Stepbacks (See Figure 4)
Front-Minimum
Floors above 40 feet or the third story shall be stepped back a
minimum of 15 feet
Building façade breaks (See Figure 3)
Front-Minimum
Every 200 linear feet (See section 20B.3(E)), except with
administrative waiver (See section 20B.3(H))
Lot size
Minimum
1500 square feet
Density
Residential-Maximum
36 dwelling units per acre
Frontage
Minimum
None
Building Height (See Figure 4)
Minimum height-by right
Minimum height-by special use permit
Maximum height –by right
Maximum height-by special use permit
30 feet or 2 stories
1 story
50 feet or 4 stories
70 feet or 6 stories
B. Area and bulk regulations, pre-existing buildings, structures and improvements. Notwithstanding
subsections 6.3(A)(1) and (3), and subsection 20B.3(A) of this chapter, any building or structure
established before, and existing on, June 11, 2008, may be extended or enlarged without complying
with the maximum front and maximum side yard setbacks and the minimum front yard setback for
parking as an accessory use.
C. Corner lots; determination of front and other sides. Notwithstanding sections 4.6.2(b) and 4.6.3 of this
chapter to the extent they determine when front yard setbacks apply, for purposes of determining
setbacks on corner lots the director of planning (the “director”) shall determine which side of a corner
lot abutting a street shall be the front based upon the prevailing building pattern that has developed in
the vicinity of the lot, and shall then determine which other sides will be the sides and rear of the lot.
D. Minimum standards for a building façade break. Each building façade brea k shall provide either
pedestrian access or motor vehicle and pedestrian access to the side and/or rear of the building on the
same lot. A building façade break providing only pedestrian access shall be a sidewalk having a
minimum width of five (5) feet. A building façade break providing both motor vehicle and pedestrian
access shall have a travelway at least twelve (12) feet in width and a sidewalk on at least one side
having a minimum width of five (5) feet. The travelway and the sidewalk shall be desi gned and
constructed to the applicable standards in the design standards manual. Buildings separated by a
building façade break shall have a minimum separation of the width of the pedestrian access or motor
vehicle and pedestrian access at all points above the ground. See Figure 3.
Draft: 12/18/09
4
E. Building entrances. Each building abutting a street shall have a primary entrance from either the front
or side of the building. A building also may have secondary entrances on the side or rear of the
building. If the primary entrance is located on the side of a building, its doors shall face the front of the
building.
F. Stories. For the purposes of this section 20B, each story shall be visibly discernible from the street and
be composed of habitable space and/or oc cupiable space, as defined by the Virginia Uniform Statewide
Building Code. Visibly discernible stories shall be achieved through the use of windows or building
entries on each story, using varied building materials, special ground-floor design treatments, or other
façade elements or other architectural details. In accordance with the procedures stated in subsection
20B.3(HI), the director may waive the requirement that windows, building entries or other façade
elements be used to make each story visibly discernible if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the director that the use of other architectural details would render the stories visibly discernible to an
equivalent degree.
G. No structures within easements within setbacks. No structures shall be established within easements
located within setbacks.
H. Modifications or waivers to change maximum setbacks or minimum building façade break. In
accordance with the procedures stated in subsection 20B.3(I), t he director may modify the t en (10) foot
front building setback and authorize the front building setback to be increased to up to twenty (20) feet,
may waive the maximum side yard setback and establish a different setback, and may waive the
minimum building façade break and establish a different minimum building façade break. The director
may grant a waiver or modification in the following circumstances: (i) to allow outdoor café seating;
(ii) to accommodate public spaces and plazas; (iii) where topography, easements, or unusual phys ical
conditions make compliance with the requirement impracticable; (iv) where the required sidewalk and
street trees are located on the lot instead of in a public right -of-way; (v) the strict application of the
requirement would not further the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety
or welfare, and the waiver or modification would better achieve the goals of the comprehensive plan or
provide a design that better meets the purpose and intent of the DCD; or (vi) the waiver or modification
would allow the building to be consistent with the prevailing building pattern that has developed in the
vicinity of the lot.
I. Procedure for administrative modifications and waivers. Applications for modifications or waivers
(collectively, “waivers”) authorized to be reviewed and acted upon by the director or the agent
(collectively, the “director”), as applicable, pursuant to this section 20B shall be reviewed and acted
upon according to the following procedure:
1. Application. The applicant shall file a written request with the department of community
development stating why one or more of the applicable circumstances exist or criteria are
satisfied to allow the waiver to be granted.
2. Action by the director. The director shall act on the waiver request in conjunction with the
county’s action of the site plan, subdivision plat or special use permit or, if no such action is
required, within thirty (30) days of the date the application was submitted and determined to be
complete. The director may grant the waiver if he or she determines that one or more applicable
circumstances exist or criteria are satisfied. In granting a waiver, the director may impose
conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. If review of a site
plan or subdivision plat by the commission is requested, the agent may either act on the waiver
or defer action and allow the commission to act on the waiver as part of its consideration of the
plan or plat, in which case the commission s hall have the same authority as though it were
considering the waiver on appeal.
Draft: 12/18/09
5
3. Appeal to the commission or the board. The denial of a waiver, or the approval of a waiver
with conditions objectionable to the applicant, may be appealed from the director to the
commission and from the commission to the board, as the case may be, as an appeal of a denial
of the plat, as provided in section 14-226 of the Code, or the site plan, as provided in sections
32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9 of this chapter, to which the waiver pertains. If subdivision plat or site plan
approval is not required, the applicant may file a written appeal with the clerk of the board of
supervisors within ten (10) days of the date of the written action by the director or the
commission. A waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application for a
special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of supervisors without the filing of an
appeal. In considering a waiver on appeal, the commission or the board may grant or deny the
waiver based upon its determination of whether one or more applicable circumstances exist or
criteria are satisfied, amend any condition imposed by the director or the commission, and
impose any conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
J. Waiver to allow alternative location of parking area. The parking area setback requirements in
subsection 20B.3(A) may be waived as follows:
1. Consideration by commission. The commission may waive the parking area setba ck
requirements in subsection 20B.3(A) and allow a parking area to be located between a street and
a primary structure, subject to reasonable conditions that it may impose, upon a finding that:
a. There are unusual physical conditions on the lot or an adjoining lot including, but not
limited to, the location of existing structures and parking areas, steep topography or other
environmental features, narrowness or shallowness or the size or shape of the lot that make
it impossible or unfeasible to provide pa rking to the side or rear of a primary structure;
b. The potential safety of patrons and employees cannot be achieved with adequate lighting
and other reasonable design solutions; or
c. The strict application of the applicable regulations in subsection 20B.3(A) would not
further the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or
welfare or achieve the goals established in the comprehensive plan.
2. Consideration by the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors may consider a request
under this subsection only as follows:
a. The denial of the request, or the approval of the request with conditions objectionable to the
applicant may be appealed to the board of supervisors as an appeal of the plat, as provided
in section 14-226 of the Code, or a denial of the site plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or
32.4.3.9 of this chapter, to which the waiver pertains. If subdivision plat or site plan
approval is not required, the applicant may file a written appeal with the clerk of the board
of supervisors within ten (10) days of the date of the written action by the director or the
commission. A waiver considered by the commission in conjunction with an application
for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the boar d of supervisors without the
filing of an appeal.
b. In considering a request, the board may grant or deny the request based upon the findings
set forth in subsection 20B.3(J)(1), amend any condition imposed by the commission, and
impose any conditions it deems necessary for the reasons set forth in subsection
20B.3(J)(1).
K. Terms defined. The term “primary building” means the buildings or structures on a lot that comply with
the minimum and maximum front yard setback requirements for a primary buildin g as provided in
Draft: 12/18/09
6
subsection 20B.3(A). The term “secondary building” means any building or structure that is not a
primary building on a lot containing at least one (1) primary building.
(Ord. 08-18(3), 6-11-08)
20B.7 SIDEWALKS AND STREET TREES
For each development requiring approval of a site plan under section 32 of this chapter, sidewalks and street
trees in the DCD shall be provided as follows:
A. Sidewalk design. Each sidewalk proposed to be accepted for maintenance by the Virginia Department
of Transportation shall be designed and constructed according to Virginia Department of Transportation
standards or to the standards in the design standards manual, whichever is greater. Each sidewalk
proposed to be privately maintained shall be constructed using concrete, designed so that no
concentrated water flow runs over them, and otherwise satisfy the standards in the design standards
manual. Each sidewalk on Crozet Avenue, Three Notch’d Road and the street identified in the Crozet
master plan as the new Main Street shall be at least ten (10) feet wide. All other sidewalks shall be at
least eight (8) feet wide. See Figure 9.
B. Sidewalk ownership. Each sidewalk, including street trees, proposed to be accepted for maintenance by
the Virginia Department of Transportation, shall be dedicated to public use. Each sidewalk, including
street trees, proposed to be privately maintained, shall be maintained by the owner of the lot on which
the sidewalk and street trees exist or an owners association that is obligated to maintain the sidewalk
and street trees. The agent may require that a sidewalk proposed by the developer to be privately
maintained instead be dedicated to public use if the agent determines that the sidewalk serves a public
purpose and there is a need for the sidewalks to be publicly owned and maintained.
C. Street trees. Notwithstanding section 32.7.9.6 of this chapter, street trees shall be planted within grates
on each sidewalk or in a planting strip abutting the sidewalk, spaced at a minimum of twenty-five (25)
and a maximum of forty (40) feet on center and the distance of each tree from the edge of the sidewalk
shall be approved by the agent. Street trees shall be selected from a current list of recommended large
shade trees, subject to the approval of the agent when site conditions warrant medium shade trees. See
Figure 9.
D. Waivers from sidewalk and/or street tree requirements. In accordance with the procedures stated in
subsection 20B.3(I), the agent may waive the requirements for a sidewalk and/or street trees where the
developer demonstrates that: (i) either the Virginia Department of Transportation prohibits establishing
sidewalks and/or planting street trees; or (ii) or existing utility easements prohibit establishing
sidewalks and/or planting street trees; (ii) there are unusual physical conditions on the lot or an
adjoining lot including, but not limited to, the location of existing structures and parking areas, steep
topography or other environmental features, the narrowness, shallowness, size or shape of the lot, or the
width or alignment of the existing sidewalk, that make it impossible or unfeasible to provide the
required sidewalk and/or street trees as provided in subsections 20B.7(A) and (C); or (iii) the strict
application of the requirements of subsections 20B.7(A) and (C) would not further the purposes of this
chapter or the DCD or otherwise serve the public health, safety, or welfare or achieve the goals
established in the comprehensive plan.
Return to exec summary
Go to next attachment
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 19, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, May 19,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Linda Porterfield Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative
for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Joan McDowell, Principal Planner; John
Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Steward Wright, Permit Planner; Sherri Proctor, Permit Planner; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning;
Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: April 14, 2009
ZTA-2009-00010 Downtown Crozet District ZTA - Resolution of Intent (Rebecca Ragsdale)
SDP-2009-00018 Blue Ridge Shopping Center – Major Amendment
The r equest is for approval of a major site plan amendment and waiver of Section 18-21.7 to allow
grading and landscaping activities within a required buffer. The property, described as Tax Map 56,
Parcel 110 is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located in the Whitehall Magisterial
District at 550 Radford Lane [Private], at its intersection with Rockfish Gap Turnpike [State route 250].
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Cent er [CT 5] in the Crozet Community.
(Elizabeth Marotta)
SDP-2009-00021 Patricia Ann Byrom Forest Preserve Park Improvement – Preliminary
The request is for preliminary site plan approval to allow the construction of a sixty-five (65) space
parking lot, park access road, and gravel pedestrian path. This application includes a request to modify
Section 18-4.2 to allow for disturbance of critical slopes. The property, described as Tax Map 6 - Parcel
28D, contains approximately 213.9230 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The site, known as Byrom
Forest Preserve is located on the west side of Blackwells Hollow Road (SR 810) northeast of its
intersection with SR 629. This parcel is located in the White Hall Magisterial District and is designated
as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. (Summer Frederick)
Mr. Strucko asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item on the consent agenda.
Ms. Porterfield asked to pull the Blue Ridge Shopping Center site plan for discussion. She asked if the
violation was self-reported or by a neighbor.
Mr. Gatobu replied that the violation was caught by staff during review. There had been some
disturbance of the buffer and this was a remedy to that disturbance.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the adjacent neighbors were satisfied.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
2
Mr. Gatobu replied yes. Staff is trying to get the buffer reestablished in order to make it better than it is
now through getting the area revegetated. The applicant did not know that an undisturbed buffer meant
that they could not do anything or plant anything unless they come to the Commission for a waiver. The
applicant put in some plants, which staff caught during the site plan review. Staff suggested that the
applicant submit a waiver request, which could be placed on the consent agenda, so the applicant could
put back the vegetation even better with stringent constraints to make sure they put back a sufficient
amount of landscaping.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff would make sure it was an adequate buffer.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes that staff would make sure that the buffer was put back adequately.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the explanation was acceptable.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the consent agenda as presented.
Ms. Joseph noted that the park looks fabulous.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the three consent agenda items were approved as recommended by staff, as
follows.
SDP-2009-00018 Blue Ridge Shopping Center – Major Amendment was approved with the following
condition:
1. The applicant revises the Schedule of Landscaping on Sheet SP1 so that Juniperus squamata is
properly spelled and listed as “L18”.
ZTA-2009-00010 Downtown Crozet District
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Crozet Master Plan describes downtown Crozet as the historical focal point for cultural
and commercial activities in Crozet and the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, one of the findings and recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan is to focus on the
redevelopment and invigoration of the downtown area; and
WHEREAS, one of the strategies recommended in the Crozet Master Plan to implement the Plan is to
establish a zoning district specific to downtown Crozet having regulations specifically designed
to be consistent with the Crozet Master Pla n; and
WHEREAS, on June 11,2008, the Board of Supervisors established the Downtown Crozet zoning district
in Section 20B of the Zoning Ordinance for the purpose of implementing the Crozet Master Plan
and adopted a corresponding amendment to the zoning map to establish the district's boundaries;
and
WHEREAS, since the Downtown Crozet zoning district was established, County staff has identified
several provisions in the Downtown Crozet zoning district's regulations that should be revised to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 19, 2009
3
further clarify district requirements and to promote the redevelopment and invigoration of the
Crozet downtown area, and these provisions recommended for amendment include, but are not
limited to, the regulation of signs, the standard of review for waivers from sidewalk r equirements
considered by the Planning Commission, and the applicable setbacks for secondary buildings
when multiple buildings exist on the same lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good zoning practices, the Planning Commission hereby adopts a resolution
of intent to amend Section 208 of the Zoning Ordinance and any other related regulations of the
Zoning Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
zoning text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to Exec Summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-0010 DOWNTOWN CROZET DISTRICT
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 8, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on
Tuesday, December 8, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane
Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, C harlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Don Franco,
Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia
Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the Uni versity of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Gerald Gatobu,
Principal Planner; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Director of Current
Development, and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public :
Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
ZTA-2009-00010 Downtown Crozet District
Amend Secs. 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.11, Regulations applicable in the PUD and NMD
zoning districts, 20B.3, Area and bulk regulations, and 20B.7, Sidewalks and street
trees, of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec.
4.15.2, to add a definition of sandwich board sign; Sec. 4.15.11, to add the DCD as a
zoning district subject to the sign standards in Sec. 4.15.11 and to a uthorize sandwich
board signs in the DCD subject to standards; Sec. 20B.3, to add setback standards for
secondary buildings on a parcel, to add definitions of primary and secondary buildings,
and to clarify the regulation pertaining to determining setbacks on corner lots; and Sec.
20B.7, to amend the standards and procedures for waivers from the sidewalk and/or
street tree requirements.
Ms. Ragsdale presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is a public hearing to make a few corrections and additions to the
Downtown Crozet District. The Crozet Master Plan identified the need for
zoning changes in order to fully implement the Plan’s recommendations to
promote the redevelopment and invigoration of the Crozet downtown are a.
The Downtown Crozet zoning project was initiated by the Board of
Supervisors in September 2006, based on the urging of Crozet business and
property owners, along with endorsement of the project by the Crozet
Community Advisory Council. On June 11, 2008 , the Board adopted a new
zoning district for downtown Crozet, as well as a zoning map amendment to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-0010 DOWNTOWN CROZET DISTRICT
2
rezone most of Downtown to the new district. At that time the Board
recognized that this was a new type of zoning district for the County and
future amendments could be anticipated. Since the DCD was established in
June 2008, County staff has identified several provisions in the zoning
district’s regulations that should be added or revised to further clarify district
requirements. The Planning Commission pas sed a resolution of intent to
initiate these changes on May 19, 2009.
There are three provisions in the ordinance that need changes. These
provisions relate to signs, sidewalk and street tree waivers, and setback
provisions for secondary buildings. The proposed ordinance with changes
underlined is attached.
Signs- When the DCD district was adopted signage regulations were
inadvertently omitted. No sign provisions currently apply to the DCD district. The
proposed amendment will apply the sign regulation s currently in place for the
PUD and NMD districts (Section 4.15.11) to the DCD. Staff believes that these
regulations are appropriate for Downtown Crozet, without the need to craft
separate regulations because of the smaller sign area maximum requirements ,
with one exception. Sandwich board signs are a type of sign commonly allowed
in most downtown areas and staff believes would be appropriate for Downtown
Crozet. Staff is recommending that sandwich boards be allowed in the DCD only.
Front Setbacks for multiple buildings on the same lot- Having multiple
buildings on one lot is a building scenario that was not provided for with the front
setback provisions in the DCD district. The current district regulations require that
all buildings on a lot meet the fr ont setback requirements and be built to the
street. This situation is problematic for lots that may have building(s) behind the
building fronting the street. Therefore, provisions to allow multiple buildings on a
lot and secondary structures are proposed. The Planning Director will be given
authority to determine front setbacks for secondary buildings based on the
prevailing building pattern that has developed in the vicinity of the lot.
Section 20B.7. Sidewalk and Street Tree Requirements Waiver Provisions-
The DCD requirements for sidewalks and street trees represent the desired
ultimate streetscape. The DCD District currently stipulates that sidewalks along
Crozet Avenue, Three Notch’d Road and new Main Street shall be at least ten
(10) feet wide. All other sidewalks shall be at least eight (8) feet wide. Street
trees are also required and may be planted within grates on each sidewalk or in a
planting strip abutting the sidewalk, spaced at a minimum of twenty -five (25) and
a maximum of forty (40) feet on center and the distance of each tree from the
edge of the sidewalk shall be approved by the agent. (See illustration in staff
report)
This section of the ordinance was written ahead of the County’s final streetscape
design for Downtown, which includes a planting strip and variable width sidewalk
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-0010 DOWNTOWN CROZET DISTRICT
3
of up to 6’-7’. Unfortunately, the ordinance section as written limits the waiver
criteria granted to the agent and does not grant broader authority to Commission:
Waivers from sidewalk requirements. In accordance with the procedures stated
in subsection 20B.3(I), the agent may waive the requirements for a sidewalk
and/or street trees where the developer demonstrates that: (i) the Virginia
Department of Transportation prohibits establishing sidewalks and/or plant ing
street trees; or (ii) existing utility easements prohibit establishing sidewalks
and/or planting street trees.
Staff is finding that more flexibility is needed to deal with existing development,
right of way widths, easement constraints, on-street parking and bike lanes, and
the potential of a historic. To better meet the intent of the DCD, staff believes
there should be broader discretion in granting waivers and modifications. The
proposed amendments would provide for additional criteria . These criteria would
allow for waivers if there are unusual physical conditions on the lot or an
adjoining lot that make it impossible or unfeasible to provide the required
sidewalk and/or street trees.
Staff recommends the Commission forward a recommendation for app roval of
the attached ZTA 2009-010 for Downtown Crozet District corrections as noted in
Attachment B of the staff report to the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, said that the Downtown Crozet project is a
fascinating process to see the county go through since it puts the county in the role of
the applicant seeing some of the challenges that are put forth by strict rules and strict
interpretations.
Many Commissioners sat on the DISC II Committee and heard again and again
the need for flexibility. He was reminded of that as he read the staff report since
staff is finding that more flexibility is needed to deal with existing development,
right-of-way width, easement constraints, etc. All of this speaks to the specificity
of the programs that have been put forth.
Regarding the sign ordinance he has one concern with the grandfathering. The
Crozet Pizza wall sign may exceed 20’. He asked if they are going to outlaw the
Crozet Pizza wall sign. Finally, the Commission has said over the past few years
that waivers should be rare. This is a good example of the idea of administrative
waivers with clear direction, which should not be rare but in fact they should be
frequent in order to make the overall vision of the master plan occur.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring
the matter before the Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Loach noted that he was very supportive of this. Allowing the sandwich board by
Mud House is good idea. He agreed with Mr. Williamson to the extent that they d o need
flexibility particularly with some of the significant changes that will probably come about
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-0010 DOWNTOWN CROZET DISTRICT
4
with the lumber yard and the area from the Fire H ouse down to Con Agra in looking at
changes in zoning for those. These changes probably come at an opportune time to
coincide with some of those changes. He noted that Mr. Williamson did raise a
question about the sign at Crozet Pizza.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the existing signs that exceed the size limits of the new
regulations would be allowed to continue as non- conforming signs. As long as the signs
are used they are allowed to continue.
Ms. Porterfield noted on page 5 where they are adding the verbiage within the DCD
about the sandwich board it talks about the agreement shall be in the form and have the
substance approved by the County Attorney. She asked if there was going to be a
broiler plate agreement available so that somebody could just come in and sign it
instead of everybody having to create their own agreement.
Mr. Kamptner replied that typically they do get to that point where they do have a
template to offer to anyone who is subject to this requirement.
Ms. Porterfield noted that would be most useful if they could do that. She pointed out
several grammatical items.
In the third line after right of way add a comma.
In the definition of primary building (Page 8K) take out “primary building” changing
the definition to read as foll ows, “The buildings or structures on a lot that must
comply with the minimum/maximum front yard setback requirements.” She assumed
that there was only one building.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that on one parcel there could be two buildings along the front
or more. Based on ownership there could be more than one primary building. The
primary is setting next to street and the secondary building would be behind it that
would be beyond the maximum setback.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Morris seconded for acceptance of the draft
ordinance for ZTA-2009-00010 Downtown Crozet District as recommended by staff with
the additional comments as noted below.
In the third line after right of way add a comma.
In the definition of primary building take out “prima ry building” changing the definition
to read as follows, “The buildings or structures on a lot that must comply with the
minimum/maximum front yard setback requirements.”
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that ZTA-2009-00010, Downtown Crozet District will be forwarded to
the Board of Supervisors on January 13 with the recommendation for approval.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – DECEMBER 8, 2009
DRAFT PARTIAL MINUTES - ZTA-2009-0010 DOWNTOWN CROZET DISTRICT
5
Return to Exec Summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern
Development Areas
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A work session to introduce the Places29 Master
Plan and to request the Board’s guidance on several
items related to the Master Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Wayne Cilimberg, David Benish, Elaine Echols, Lee
Catlin, Judith Wiegand
LEGAL REVIEW: N/A
AGENDA DATE:
January 13, 2010 – Board of Supervisors
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: VWC
BACKGROUND:
In 2004, the Board directed staff to prepare a master plan for the County’s four Northern Development Areas:
Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, the Community of Hollymead, and the Community of Piney Mountain. In conjunction
with the Thomas Jefferson Regional Planning Commission (TJPDC), the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT), and a team of land use and transportation consultants, staff has prepared the Places29 Master Plan
(hereinafter referred to as ―the Plan‖).
The Plan incorporates the results of the US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study that was managed by the TJPDC
and was overseen and funded by VDOT. In May 2005, staff and consultants began the public proce ss of preparing the
Plan. The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study Final Report was completed on August 18, 2008. The MPO
Policy Board adopted a resolution endorsing the Final Report on November 24, 2008.
Over the course of work on the Plan, there were over twenty public meetings held, including those held by the Planning
Commission and Board. In addition, information about the Plan has been available at the County’s website. A list of
the meetings, including work sessions, is included in Appendix 3 of the Plan. At a public hearing on October 27, 2009,
the Planning Commission voted to forward the Plan to the Board with a recommendation for approval.
A copy of the Master has been provided under separate cover. In addition to the Plan, a summary fact sheet on the
Plan is provided for additional background (Attachment A). At this juncture, staff will provide the Board a summary
review of the components of the plan and asks that the Board offer guidance regarding two specific areas in advance of
future work sessions on the details of the Plan: possible expansions of the development area (not endorsed by the
Planning Commission) and transportation improvements on US 29 North.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Relevant Goals:
1. Develop Policies and Infrastructure Impr ovements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
2. Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development.
DISCUSSION:
The Plan contains sections covering existing conditions, needed infrastructure improvements, a future land use plan, a
transportation plan, and an implementation strategy. The Plan integrates land use and transportation planning and
represents the ultimate vision desired for the area. The vision does not have a timeframe, but includes a list of public
and private actions—the implementation projects—that will be needed over the next 20 years.
The Implementation section of the plan includes the existing backlog of needed infrastructure improvements, as well as
new projects, to support growth and development in the Places29 area. Projects ar e grouped into four categories:
Transportation, Land Use and Development, Community Facilities and Services, and Parks and Green Systems. With
the exception of the enhanced transit recommendation, all of the projects listed would also be necessary under th e
current Land Use Plan adopted in 1996. The enhanced transit project is considered fundamental to fully enabling the
form of development recommended in the Plan and eventually reducing future vehicular traffic in the corridor.
Overall, the land use component of the Plan and most of the ―local‖ level transportation recommendations (pedestrian,
bike, transit, and local parallel and perpendicular road system recommendations) have been generally supported by the
public. However, there are two important areas where public and minority commission concerns were expressed that
staff believes warrant early discussion and guidance from the Board of Supervisors:
Expansion Areas: Since adoption of the 1996 Land Use Plan the Board has generally maintained the Develo pment
Area (DA) boundaries in an effort to preserve the Rural Areas with two exceptions. Boundaries were changed in Crozet
to balance the addition of north downtown with removal of an area along US 250. The boundary of Pantops was
reduced to balance simil ar areas on the west and east side of Route 20 North.
Expansion Areas in Places 29 were requested by property owners and were considered in two areas: adjacent to Piney
Mountain and the southern end of Hollymead. Early in the Plan review process, the cons ultant and staff recommended
expansion of the area south of the existing Hollymead boundary west of US 29 as a way to potentially enable
development that would include construction of Berkmar Drive Extended, a high priority parallel road improvement. The
recommended land uses in this area were primarily neighborhood and urban density residential and neighborhood -
scale commercial uses, different than the property owner request for regional service and mixed use land uses in part of
this area. The Board also directed staff and Commission to consider expansion of the east side of the Piney Mountain
Development Area to compensate for the loss of land to the federal military installation (Rivanna Station Military Base),
a second property owner request. In this case, the consultant and staff recommended against the expansion as
sufficient residential area appeared to be available nearby.
The majority of the Commission believed that sufficient capacity and opportunities for development were available within
the existing Development Areas and that the DA boundaries should not be expanded until absolutely necessary.
However, the Commission did have staff draft a potential map and text amendment for the southern Hollymead
Development Area expansion, which is provided a s Attachment B. Most public comments received to date have
opposed the expansions.
Does the Board need additional information to advise staff on whether expansion areas should be included in
the Master Plan? If so, what information is needed?
US 29 Road Improvements: The US 29 North Corridor Transportation Study transportation modeling demonstrated
that a series of improvements to the road network would be necessary over the next 20 years to remedy existing
congestion and to provide for future growth an d development. These recommended transportation projects form a
unified set of improvements. Several of these improvements are on US 29: widening to six lanes from Polo Grounds
Road to Hollymead Town Center and constructing grade -separated intersections at Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, Hilton
Heights Road, Ashwood Blvd., Timberwood Road, and Airport Road. The primary reason these grade separations
would be needed is to enable increased traffic volumes both on US 29 and the east-west crossing roads to flow through
these intersections without unacceptable delay. Traffic on US 29 is given preference over traffic on the cross streets. As
traffic increases in all directions, eventually there will not be enough time within each signal cycle to permit all of the
necessary crossing and turning movements with at-grade intersections. By raising the cross street over (or under) US
29, traffic can adequately flow in both directions simultaneously. The grade separations would also be designed to
include pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and to integrate with the adjacent private lands so as to maximize their
development potential and minimize disruption .
What additional information does the Board need before completing its review of the transportation component
of the Master Plan?
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Master Plan contains a list of approximately 60 projects that are deemed to be necessary over the next 20 years to
fully support growth and development of the US 29 North corridor. As mentioned previously, the infra structure projects
identified—transportation, schools, parks, and others—would generally be necessary with or without the land use
recommendations of Places 29. Much is a result of already approved development projects in the area and would be
necessary to address future projects that would result from the 1996 Land Use Plan. However, Places 29 coordinates
the needs identified with its land use recommendations, providing the opportunity for incremental improvements based
on available resources and the possibility of reduced vehicular traffic demands if development occurs as the Plan
recommends.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests Board guidance regarding the Expansion Areas and US 29 Improvements as well as any other
information the Board needs for future c onsideration of the proposed Plan. Staff will schedule future work sessions
based on the timeframe needed to provide requested information and the Board’s upcoming agendas.
ATTACHMENTS
Separate cover--Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern Developmen t Areas
A – The Places29 Master Plan: Ten Important Facts
B—Expansion Area memorandum and potential amendment language
Note: All eleven Technical Memoranda from the US 29 North Tra nsportation Study are available on the County’s
website.
Planning Commission minutes:
February 10, 2009
April 14, 2009
May 12, 2009
June 16, 2009
July 14, 2009
September 15, 2009
October 27, 2009
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5832
Fax (434) 972 - 4126
The Places29 Master Plan: Ten Important Facts
1. Places29 is one of five master plans for the County’s Development Areas. It
covers the four urban areas along US 29 that are north of the City of Charlottesville:
Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, the Community of Hollymead, and the Community of
Piney Mountain. The Plan recognizes that almost one-quarter of the County’s residents
live in this area, and it is one of the County’s main commercial, retail, and employment
areas.
2. Based on existing development and expected future growth, the Plan coordinates
land use and transportation so that homes and businesses are well-served by
roads, transit, and community facilities. The Plan also establishes priorities for the
location of public investments and to guide land use decisionmaking.
3. Places29 recommends a comprehensive, regional, multimodal transportation
network. The network includes improvements on US 29, grade-separated
intersections that minimize ramps, and a system of roads that are parallel and
perpendicular to US 29. The parallel and perpendicular roads will give local traffic a
choice of routes—all trips won’t have to be on US 29. Offering local traffic alternative
routes will make it easier for regional traffic to move through the US 29 Corridor more
quickly and safely. The transportation network is also multimodal, which means that
people will have a choice of driving, walking, bicycling, or using transit to reach their
destination.
4. With or without a Places29 Master Plan, there is a backlog of needed
transportation improvements due to growth that has occurred and can be
anticipated based on existing plans and project approvals. However, development in
accordance with the Plan’s coordination of land uses and transportation may ultimately
allow some of the road improvements to be postponed or even avoided.
5. Future needs for schools, libraries, parks, and other community facilities have
been included in the Master Plan.
6. The Master Plan preserves open space, provides connections to existing
County parks, and encourages provision of amenities in Centers and
Neighborhoods.
7. The Places29 Master Plan is a Vision Plan. The Plan’s Future Land Use Map shows
the community’s ultimate future vision for the area. It will be decades before the area
is completely built out and fulfills the vision. Every five years, the County will review
ATTACHMENT A
and update the Master Plan to revalidate the vision, see how far we’ve come, and
determine what else needs to be included in the implementation program.
8. The list of implementation projects in the Master Plan lays out the initial steps
necessary to move towards the ultimate vision. These implementation initiatives
are planned to take place over the next 20 years, although economic and funding
conditions may affect the timing. But even if the transportation improvements and
other community facilities are limited, delayed, or not constructed, the Places29 area
will still benefit from development of the pattern of mixed land uses, walkable
neighborhoods, and transportation options recommended in the Plan.
9. While road improvements and the access management program may change
the way some properties are accessed, Places29 calls for minimal disruption
of existing businesses, provides opportunities for redevelopment as property owners
feel market conditions warrant, and increases business vitality by improving access for
vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders.
10. It is important to recognize that this Master Plan does not change the zoning of
property. Individual properties continue to be regulated under the zoning that exists
on their property. The Master Plan does provide policy direct ion should changes to
current zoning be sought and general guidance for future development.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5832
Fax (434) 972 - 4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: Interested Parties
FROM: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
SUBJ: Places29 Expansion Areas
DATE: August 18, 2009
During its on-going review of Places29, the Albemarle County Planning Commission has considered four
areas for expansion of the plan’s Future Land Use Map boundaries. The four areas are:
1. Piney Mountain—South: east of US 29 and south of the existing Piney Mountain Development
Area, adjacent to the National Ground Intelligence Center complex.
2. Hollymead—South: immediately west of US 29, north of the South Fork of the Rivanna River, and
south of the current Hollymead Development Area, extending westward not as far as Rio Mills
Road.
3. Piney Mountain—West: a parcel west of Dickerson Road and between the Briarwood subdivision
and the North Pines subdivision.
4. Piney Mountain—North & East: some or all of the Rural Areas north and east of the eastern half
of the existing Piney Mountain Development Area (east of US 29).
These areas are shown on the map in Attachment 1.
The Piney Mountain - South expansion area (noted as Area 1 in Attachment 1) was considered a t the
direction of the Board of Supervisors. (Please see Attachment 2 - Resolution of Intent.) The remaining
three expansion areas were considered at the request of the landowner.
After deliberating in several work sessions, the Commission decided not to include any of the four
expansion areas in the draft Places29 text and on the Future Land Use Map now being made available
for public review. Instead, the Commission is concurrently seeking public input on possible plan text
language and land use map for one of the areas, Area 2. Staff had provided this text language and land
use map to the Commission on August 11, 2009 at the Commission’s request. (Please see Attachment 3
- Chapter Four Proposed Text Amendment and associated map of Future Land Use Nor th.) Therefore, at
the Planning Commission’s direction as part of the Places29 review process, this package is being
provided separately for your review and feedback as to whether Area 2 should be included as part of
Places29.
ATTACHMENT B
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(434) 296 - 5832
Fax (434) 972 - 4126
ATTACHMENT 3
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPT ER 4:
The following is a draft of language that could be added to Places29 Master Plan text should the Board of
Supervisor choose to include this area in the Master Plan. The text change would be added to Chapter 4.
Hollymead Southern Expansion Area
The newly expanded portion of the Hollymead Community is located west of US 29 approximately 2000 feet
north of Rio Mills Road, east of the critical slopes and stream adjacent to Rio Mills Road, and south of an
unnamed stream. This area is to the east of the Templeton Hills Subdivision located off of Rio Mills Road.
This area consists of approximately 140 acres of rolling terrain, with wooded and open areas. Existing
development consists of radio and cellular communication towers.
This expansion of the Hollymead Community is related to the proposed extension of Berkmar Drive north
across the South Fork Rivanna River to Meeting Street in the Hollymead Town Center. The cost for this
improvement is significant and will require a combination of public and private funding. The Master Plan
expands the Development Area and designates urban uses along the alignment corridor for Berkmar Drive to
support the development of the road. An alignment for Berkmar Drive through a Development Area (as
opposed to a Rural Area) will create more opportunities and incentives for new development to finance the
new road, and the road would be necessary to support the new development around it.
The selection and distribution of the land uses within the expansion area reflect the community’s desire to
maintain the appearance of the forested stretch of US 29, and to facilitate a transition from the high intensity
of the Hollymead Town Center to the open space at the south end of this corridor and along the South Fork
of the Rivanna River. A Neighborhood Service Center designation is provided, surrounded by an Urban
Mixed Use designation that would permit a single large-format retail store as an additional incentive for
development to finance the road. It is important that commercia l development (Neighborhood Service
Center/Urban Mixed Use) be oriented primarily to the side street(s) and Berkmar Drive and not directly to
US 29 in order to avoid replicating the commercial strip development pattern currently prevalent along the
US 29 corridor. VDOT’s access management regulations and the Access Management Plan component of
Places29 will also guide access decisions in this area.
Expectations for development within this expansion area include:
Within the Urban Mixed Use area, one large-format (big box) retail use of up to 120,000 square feet
may be constructed, provided it is developed in a manner otherwise consistent with
design/development expectations for the Urban Mixed Use designation. If no large-format retail use is
developed, the area designated Urban Mixed Use should retain the character described in the
definition of that designation.
The large-format retail building should adhere to the following guidelines for the purpose of creating
an appropriate streetscape:
The building’s facades and rooflines should be of visual interest and should reduce the massive scale
and the uniform, impersonal appearance of such large buildings.
The building should have architectural features and patterns at a pedestrian scale to pr ovide visual
interest, reduce massive aesthetic effects, and recognize local character. These elements should be
integral parts of the building fabric and not applied trim, graphics, or paint.
A large building’s design should integrate small liner stores with entrances onto the sidewalk in
order to break up the façade of the larger user.
The large building’s location should be integrated with other buildings and site
features to encourage a more pedestrian-friendly composition.
All large buildings should present at least a two -story elevation to the streetscape.
Loading docks, trash collection facilities, outdoor storage and related facilities
should be incorporated into the building design or site to limit visibility.
Retail uses within the Neighborhoo d Service Center should be those neighborhood scale uses
typically expected in such a Center (see Land Use Table 1).
Office/R&D/Flex and space for contractor services are encouraged to be provided within or near
(north of) the Urban Mixed Use area.
All development, including the Neighborhood Center and Urban Mixed Use area, should be primarily
oriented to Berkmar Drive and/or the east -west connecting road(s) from US 29 to Berkmar Drive.
Access to all development within the Expansion Area, including the Neighborhood Service Center
and the Urban Mixed Use area should be provided from Berkmar Drive and/or the planned
perpendicular roads (consistent with the recommendations of the Access Management Plan). No new
commercial entrances should be constructed on US 29 to serve individual properties or developments.
Provision of public active recreation space (playfields/practice fields) in this area should be considered
to meet the larger community needs.
A wooded, naturalistic buffer along US 29 from Rio Mills Road to the southern edge of the
Hollymead Town Center development should be provided to avoid or minimize the appearance of
uninterrupted urban development from the City to northern end of Piney Mountain.
This expansion area is not within a Priority Area fo r public capital investment and land use activity. Approval
of any development within this new DA expansion area, as with other lands within the non-priority areas, will
be predicated on the completion of a number of transportation and infrastructure impr ovements needed to
support development in these areas. These improvements include:
The widening of US 29 to six lanes total between the South Fork Rivanna River and the existing six-
lane section near Hollymead Town Center, including the grade separation/jug handle road system at
US 29 and Ashwood Blvd.
The extension of Berkmar Drive north across the South Fork Rivanna River to Meeting Street in the
Hollymead Town Center.
The construction of the east -west road from US 29 to Earlysville Road.
The construction of a road connecting Rio Mills Road to Berkmar Drive Extended.
All of the above improvements are needed to better distribute traffic generated from within this
Expansion Area to various roads in the transportation network and to minimize t he impact to US 29.
Provision of an easement for the upgrade to the RWSA water distribution line to serve the Hollymead and
Piney Mtn. Development Areas. The easement is expected to run approximately adjacent to Berkmar Drive
Extended and must be acceptable to RWSA.
8-4 version-desktop
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 10, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
February 10, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on
Tuesday, February 10, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor,
401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach,
Vice Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Bill Edgerton was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; Ron
Lilley, Project Manager Department of Office of Facilities Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner;
Bill Letteri, Director of Office of Facilities Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Places 29, Chapters 1 – 6
Staff will present the revisions to Chapters 1 – 6 of Places29: A Master Plan for the Northern
Development Areas. These chapters were first presented to the Commission between July and
December 2007. Staff will focus the presentation on major changes made in response to the
Commission’s requests during the 2007 work sessions and on matters needing further direction from the
Commission. (Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the revisions to the Chapters 1 – 6 of
Places 29. (Attachment - See PowerPoint Presentation) The purpose of the work session was held to
review the status of and changes to the Places 29, Chapters 1 – 6 and to obtain the Commission’s
direction regarding several questions from staff.
The Commission discussed and asked questions about the changes, took public comment and answered
staff’s questions as noted in the summary below.
Public comment was taken from the following persons:
Jeff Werner, City resident, felt that if they build the road network that the uses would take care of
themselves. The establishment of the road network is critical.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum;
Morgan Butler, of Southern Environmental Law Center and
John Erkmark, resident of Carrsbrook.
Staff noted that there would be other opportunities to received public comment in the future and reviewed
the upcoming schedule as outlined in the PowerPoint Attachment.
The Planning Commission provided the following comments, questions, suggestions for map changes
and responses to the four questions posed by staff, as follows.
The following four questions were posed by staff during the presentation:
1. How should the two proposed boundary expansion areas be shown on the Future Land Use
Map?
The majority of the Commissioners stated that they wanted the two expansion areas removed
completely from the Future Land Use Map. Ms. Porterfield noted that by removing the expansion
area north of Polo Grounds Road and west of Route 29, it would be less easy to encourage
developer(s) to extend Berkmar Drive. The draft Master Plan notes in Chapter 2, Transportation,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 10, 2009
2
section 10: “The road network that will best serve the Northern Development Areas includes US
29, roads that are parallel to US 29, and good east-west connecting roads.”
2. Should the area occupied by the NGIC be added to the Development Area?
The Commission indicated that, until the County actually receives a plan for development on the
site, no change should be made in the Development Area boundary.
3. Is the distinction between the 20-year Master Plan Implementation Timeframe and the longer
Plan build out clear?
The Commission did not think the language was clear enough. Mrs. Porterfield also pointed out
that the Master Plan would be adopted at best almost five years into the original 2005 – 2025 20-
year timeframe.
4. Should further changes for industrial land designations be deferred until after adoption of the
County’s Economic Development Policy?
The Commission indicated that they wanted staff to wait for possible adoption of the updated
policy. Hopefully, adoption will take place in enough time that any follow-up study can be done in
time for any necessary changes to be made in the Master Plan before it leaves the Commission’s
purview.
The Commission also had several questions and pointed out some changes that need to be made
in the maps:
1. On the Future Land Use Map, the two parcels near the Airport that are occupied by Avionics need
to be changed to Light Industrial.
2. The strip of property between the Heavy Industrial designation and Airport Acres that is now
designated Urban Density Residential would be better as Light Industrial.
3. The Commission asked if the language on the transit goal could be beefed up.
4. Mr. Loach stated that the maps should reflect what the public expects; the maps should not be
changed unless the public will have an opportunity to review the changes before adoption.
5. Mr. Strucko requested a stronger statement about the possibility of and impact of by-right uses.
6. Mr. Loach requested that the transportation portion of Chapter 4 include the wait times at
intersections and the LOSs there. This will show the consequences of not making the
improvements.
7. At the Commission’s request, the date of the work session for the text of Chapter 8 was changed
from March 17 to March 31. Staff will be prepared to present the Future Land Use Maps and
Tables from Chapter 4, with examples on March 17.
8. The Commission requested that public comment be put at the end of all upcoming work sessions
so the public can hear the detailed discussion between the staff and the Commission.
9. Ms. Joseph asked if the UVa students’ work on pedestrian crossings of US 29 had been
incorporated. She was assured that there were pedestrian crossings listed in the Implementation
Table part of Chapter 8.
10. After the work session, one commissioner and a member of the public pointed out textual errors.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out the next steps in the process, as noted below.
Staff will incorporate the Commission’s comments into the draft docum ent as summarized.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 10, 2009
3
Future work sessions have been scheduled. The Places29 work session on Chapter 8 was changed
from March 17 to March 31.
Staff will review the maps and charts in Chapter 4 on March 17, after the Village of Rivanna work
session.
Staff plans to meet with Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield to bring them up to date on Places29.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 14, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, April 14,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield and Thomas Loach,
Vice Chairman. Absent were Marcia Joseph, and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-
voting representative for the Univ ersity of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Melissa Barlow of Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner, David Benish, Chief of Planning and
Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Places 29, Chapter 8 - Implementation
Staff will present the details of the text of Chapter 8 to the Commission and the public. Staff requests
direction from the Commission about the contents and level of detail in Chapter 8. Public Comment will
follow the presentation and discussion with the Commission. (Judy Wiegand)
Mr. Benish presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the implementation portion of Chapter 8 of
the Place29 Master Plan Chapter Draft Master Plan. Primarily he would review the implementation tables
that had been handed out, answer questions and receive guidance from the Commission and provide an
opportunity for the public to ask questions or comment. (Attachment – Places 29 Master Plan Chapter 8
Implementation Table – Planning Commission April 14, 2009 PowerPoint Presentation)
Implementation Table:
1. The implementation tables identify the order in which the projects are expected to begin. It is
based on the transportation consultants and modeling experience regarding the transportation
improvements. The non transportation items are based on facility planning and service
standards, which identify a level of service needs as it relates to population or service demands.
2. The responsible parties and traditional funding sources have been identified. Staff has listed the
traditional funding sources so that users at the table will understand how these types of projects
were typically funded. Other funding options will be discussed later. But the focus has been to
primarily identify those traditional funding options.
3. In the table the purpose of the project has been identified, which is under the issues to be
addressed. It also identifies those types of issues that they would encounter as they undertake
the projects. It also identifies under milestones as being a way to monitor the success of
achieving the improvements.
Organization of Projects:
The tables are broken down into four types of projects by time period.
•Transportation
•Land Use & Development
•Community Facilities & Services
•Parks & Green Systems
Three Time Periods:
Ongoing projects which are those that continue to be ongoing throughout the 20-year period.
Projects that need to be started within the first ten years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
2
Projects that need to be started during the second ten years in order to satisfy expectations for
improvements in the Places29 area.
Examples:
Ongoing Project: Access Management Improvements along US 29 from 250 Bypass to the Greene
County line
First Ten Years: Plan/Design/Construct widening of US 29 from Polo Grounds Road toTown center Drive
Second Ten Years: New Elementary School
Important to Remember:
1. Many of the projects are needed to serve existing and approved development (a backlog of
infrastructure needs).
2. These improvements would be needed whether or not this Master Plan is adopted or stayed
under the current Comprehensive Plan.
3. Existing development, zoned land/approved projects and regional impacts/growth will account for
much of the growth and infrastructure demands in the future particularly in the first 20 years of the
plan.
The Master Plan sets a vision for the future.
The implementation section provides a general course of action/guidance tool for addressing needs,
allocating staff and financial resources.
The Master Plan (and Neighborhood Model Principles) encourages a form of development that can
eventually reduce the demands for road improvements and land/site development needs (vehicle
trips/parking, etc.) The form of development is one of the implementation measures to address some
of the infrastructure needs that they have.
Places29 Required Project: TRANSIT
Significantly enhanced transit system. The transit system is necessary to support the form of
development in terms of intensity of community centers and vice versa. The transit system really
can’t be supported by a lower sprawl form of development with less density that would currently occur
in our Comprehensive Plan.
Places29 does recommend different forms of development for the needed projects. An example is
that a grade separation could be a typical interchange whereas the concepts in the Places29 plan call
for more of a jug handle type approach or utilizing parallel road systems in lieu of typical ramps. In
terms of the need for the improvements a grade separation at a particular location really all of those
are necessary regardless of whether they develop in the future under the current Comprehensive
Plan or Places29.
Density: Comp Plan v. Places 29
One of the questions and concerns has been the amount of development that is assumed within the
current Comprehensive Plan and Places29. Staff wanted to provide some of the numbers the consultant
had provided in late 2007, which accesses the development potential under the current Comprehensive
Plan and Places29. For residential development by dwelling unit actually Places29 is very similar at the
low (29,100 dwelling unit estimate Current Comp Plan) (28,000 dwelling unit estimate Places29 Master
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
3
Plan) and mid-point (48,100 versus 49,600) of the range of densities and is only slightly higher at the
higher end. (67,100 versus 71,400)
Employment: Comp Plan v. Places29
For the employment growth, which for the most part is all non-residential growth, there is actually a
decrease in the amount of employment opportunities at all levels under Places29 versus the current
Comp Plan.
Recommended Priorities Areas Established
Existing facility, service, & infrastructure needs - The implementation sections calls for the creation of
priority areas, which are based on the existing facility needs and in those particular areas where
existing development is in place or has been approved and where they perceive that there will be a
significant transportation need.
Acute regional transportation needs in the area
Investments needed to support approved developments
Implementation Objective:
The objective of this implementation plan and the tables is to focus the implementation of those
improvements that are necessary for those identified priority areas first. The maps are identified in
the attachment.
After that it focuses on the remaining areas of the Master Plan.
Five Essential Transportation Projects
Improvements Recommended in 29H250 Studies, which improvements to the corridor from
Hydraulic Road to Emmett Street and Hillsdale Drive Extended in the City. Includes grade
separation at Hydraulic Road
Berkmar Drive Extended
Grade-separated intersection at Rio Road & US 29
Widen US 29 to 6 lanes north of Polo Grounds Road
Enhanced Transit System
Approach to the ―Big Five‖ Projects
After Adoption of the Master Plan, proceed with:
Identification of additional funding sources
Small Area Plan for Rio Road/US 29 area
Profile study for Berkmar Drive Extended bridge over the South Fork of the Rivanna
Preliminary design for widening of US 29 north of Polo Grounds Road
Form an RTA/ implement an enhanced regional transit service
Support City’s efforts to obtain funding for and proceed with design of 29H250 improvements
It is important to note that each one requires important starting points. As an example, for the
interchange at Rio/29 what is going to be an important first step is to establish a more specific study for
how that interchange could be located in that area and how surrounding land uses can relate to that
interchange area. That would establish a more detailed plan by which they could work towards things
such as official maps to establish the amount of right-of -way that they need and establish a more specific
plan by which they would have better estimates for cost and told to use to acquire rights-of -way and move
towards utility improvements. As an example those are some of the important first steps for a number of
the five important projects.
Funding Mechanisms
Funding mechanisms are certainly important in the consideration of the implementation plan.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
4
o Traditional (Federal, State, local property tax) sources are currently more l imited. Alternative
sources may be needed.
o Chapter 8 includes several alternative funding mechanisms.
o Mechanisms will require a policy decision by the Board of Supervisors for local options
How We Fund—Mechanisms:
o Traditional Sources (Fed, State, Local/CIP, Proffer)
o Bond (G.O., Revenue)
o Special Taxing Districts (Service District, CDA)
o Impact Fees
o Pursue ―nonstandard‖ federal and state funding sources (grants, etc.)
o Partnering with the City, University, and Public-Private
o Private funding for maintenance of the public realm
Funding Options
Local funding options previously reviewed by ―Funding Options Working Group,‖ Oct. 2005
(MPO/City/County reps)
BOS Review of Revenue Options in 2007
o - Transportation Service Districts
o - Road Impact Fee, others
Funding Options Working Group
Federal and State funding should continue to be major source of transportation funding; increase
gas tax for additional funding
State should look for other sources beyond gas tax
Standing authority granted to localities to raise/enhance taxes through local referenda
State should grant more flexibility to locality to use existing/future funds
State funds should match local contributions
Transportation Service Districts –
Current Estimated Annual Revenue
4. Assuming .25/$100 additional tax on non-residential Parcels ($000)
1. Places 29 $ 2,700
2. Pantops 962
3. Neighborhoods 6 & 7 (Western Urban Area) 776
4. Neighborhoods 4 & 5 (Southern Urban Area) 524
5. Crozet 184
6. Rivanna 10
2. Could fund debt service for transportation projects called for in Master Plans
- Funds would have to be spent in district where generated
Road Impact Fees – There are complications to this. This is an impact fee that could be applied at the
site plan or subdivision plat approval level. It is equitable that it can be applied across a by-right
development and not just on legislative acts. There is a number of complications both legal and
management issues with impact fees. It is fairly compl icated to administer. Staff brings this up more to
highlight that the Board has been looking at various funding sources and options that are available to
them to fund our infrastructure needs both county wide and not just the Places29 area.
Enabled in 2007 by General Assembly
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
5
Opportunities
Potential long-term funding source for road projects
Applies at time of subdivision or site plan
Would be charged in addition to proffers
Credits would be provided for previous road proffers
Challenges
Outstanding legal questions – e.g. Chesterfield County
Requires County commitment to construct roads
Well-defined projects & organizational readiness
Other sources would need to be committed
Complex to establish & administer
Additional staff analysis needed
Legal and administrative challenges
Potential revenue
Alternative Funding Recommendations
Why staff is not making specific alternative recommendations:
Community desire to continue to encourage traditional funding sources (state and federal) to
provide the bulk on needed funds
Choice will need to be made by the Board
Public will need to be involved in the choices
Questions for the Commission:
Does the Commission want to make specific recommendations on funding options to use/pursue?
Receive questions and comments from the PC
Mr. Benish asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Edgerton noted that staff pointed out that regardless of whether Places29 is adopted or not the
priority projects are going to have to occur just to support the existing development and what is in the
pipeline already. Actually it was just to support the existing. Staff listed the five top projects. Earlier it
said that the projects are listed in order of how they should be done. He was curious why the top five
high priority projects were not the first five that you come to. He asked why staff had other projects folded
in the list. If they really want to make a strong point from a planning perspective he thought that they
need to reinforce that in the layout of the table unless there is a good reason that he missed. To go one
step further if in fact the projects are so important perhaps this should be factored into the Six Year Plan
for Road Improvements as well so that they are speaking as a community with one voice about what has
to be done. The 29 Corridor affects everybody in this community on a daily basis. If they can pull the
community together, city and county, and make the case that regardless of whether they find non-
traditional funding sources it will keep the focus where the focus needs to be. He thought that would
probably be the most valuable piece about this table. There is no money available right now, but when
and if the economy turns around again they will have their shopping list prepared ready to go.
Ms. Porterfield noted even taking that a little farther there has not been any money available for a while
because VDOT’s plan is that they fix stuff. They don’t build something new.
Mr. Edgerton noted that in 7 ½ years he had never seen a single project on the Six Year Plan approved,
built or done.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
6
Ms. Porterfield agreed that they needed to put the emphasis there as suggested.
Mr. Benish said that it was a good point. They tried to deal with that. The mechanics of the table are a bit
complicated the way that it is broken down. The way that staff tried to address providing some emphasis
on the table, if they get past some of the ongoing items, the next category in the first ten years on the
second page they will see transportation and US29 they began to list out some of the high priority
improvements. On the far right under milestones there is a bullet in all bold for a high priority
implementation program. So within reading the table that was the tickler note for someone to read it that
was an important project to step through. This table was set up to help provide some instruction to staff
as to the steps necessary to undertake these plans. There are a number of steps necessary to get the
ball rolling for some of these plans. So as they step through the plans over the first ten years and the
second ten years they will see certain steps of things that have to take place in order to ultimately get that
plan built. Staff tried to identify the top five projects in the text before even getting to the table. T hat is
why that whole section was stepped out and said that these were the important five projects. Staff will
certainly look at it to see if for reason they would randomize this a little too much. But the order was
based on what the consultant gave staff as an order to try to get all of these things done.
Mr. Edgerton noted that on page 2 of 8 on the tables the first high priority implementation project is the
Southbound W est 250/29 By Pass where the congestion is. If the next two projects, which are not high
priority, are necessary to make it possible to move on to the second high priority project from a structural
point of view perhaps they should be folded into that first one. Then there are listed at least a half dozen
or more smaller projects.
Ms. Monteith noted that it might really get complicated to do that. The suggested that first they could
explain in the text that the way projects are ordered in the table relate to the way that they need to be
phased. The way certain elements have to be done in order to support the phasing would be useful to
have. She felt that they would have graphics related to this. But the way these tables are set up it really
sort of allows for the graphics to occur afterwards. If one could literally see a side by side graphic on a
table assuming that they were going to have an open book format, that there was some way to number or
letter these projects so that people could easily see them on a diagram as they are reading the project.
Then they would start to better understand the fact that there are relationships between these steps that
they are creating. Third, having text that says high priority implementation project somewhere on the left
side of the table would be useful. Since people read from left to right they notice that later as they are
looking at this table. The text in the first box for the high priority project could be made to stand out by
some type of special treatment such as red font. It would make it more obvious to those reading the
table. She agreed with Mr. Edgerton, but was just thinking of different ways. She felt that a graphic was
needed because the list became a sea of projects that she could not really understand how they did not
work together.
Mr. Benish noted that they had discussed color coding as another way to address it. Also, a query could
be done on line using an Access spreadsheet so that one could query the table in different ways
depending on what they were trying to use the table for. The projects could be broken down in different
ways. That is a good point and staff will go back and look at that. .
Mr. Franco agreed with what they were saying. It was just hard to organize the information. One of the
things that he did not see in any of the tables has been what happens if they don’t implement this in a
certain way. They have talked about it is a set of improvements and that it all has to be approved
together. But, they are prioritizing projects. The first ten years there is a lot of money, but he was not
sure how it related to UnJAM. He was not sure what happens if they don’t get all of the funding. He was
not sure if it was partially funded that he would not prioritize things differently. It seems on the planning
side that he needs to know what the consequences are of not doing a particular project. He did not think
that they need to break it down into the traffic study and getting all the way into that level of detail. He
suggested that there may be some gross standards that they could use to help us understand the
importance of a project or a series of projects.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
7
Mr. Morris noted that was a good point.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that it may be in the form of providing another column that indicates that if not
done what are some of the consequences.
Mr. Edgerton said that he wanted to restate Ms. Monteith’s point about the graphic because he was quite
familiar with a lot of these problem areas, but he would have to say when reading the description on the
actual project he had to set back think about where it was located. A graphic would help people see that.
A lot of this was done earlier in discussions with Harrison Rue was before the Commission giving some of
the transportation suggestions of what could or could not be done way back. They had at least at that
time some very rough schematic graphics of how some of these things could be adjusted. If they could
figure out a way to fold those into this chapter it would make it a lot more powerful. He felt that it would
reassure a lot of the people who are unhappy about adopting a master plan incorporated into our day to
day business without providing any thought for the implementation.
Mr. Benish agreed with Mr. Franco that staff could come up with another table or may be better use the
issues to be addressed since that identifies why the project is defined and leads into what might be the
implication if it is not done. It is to address a level of service or to maintain a certain flow that is expected
within a section of roadway. Staff can look at it one or two ways better using that table or creating
another measure of what the implication is.
Ms. Monteith said that it might be useful at the very beginning to do a sample project and talk about how
they are using those cells just for somebody to be able to understand how to read the table.
Mr. Franco encouraged staff to incorporate the graphics in smaller groupings. He thought adding another
column to the table would make it more confusing. He would rather t alk about the group of projects. If
they are going to start studying the Berkmar Bridge then they are going to fund the Berkmar Bridge and
then fund the road going north. He asked how all of that integrate together. He suggested showing the
graphic on that particular series or group projects that hav e to be done together to complete a particular
component. The graphic could relate to that and then have the need in a separate thing and then have
the table simplified at the end when they organize the priorities.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that it does not have to be a table. She suggested following what Mr. Franco
was saying and just doing the graphics and the verbiage of sections. To take his example of the Berkmar
Bridge farther, there is already verbiage in the original information that indicates that they need to do
Berkmar Extended when doing the widening of the section of 29 north of the river. Those things go hand
in glove. So maybe that section and then down south of there and pick up a couple of sections so that
when you look at it an area makes sense.
Ms. Monteith noted that she would disagree with that a little bit because she thought that what they were
trying to create here was something like a timeline. It seems that there has been a tremendous amount
of work and thought that has been put into this already. She thought the matrix works well, but it just
needs to have some graphics. Once they start grouping projects together they lose the timeline because
they are only talking about a geographic area. She would prioritize the time line. It could be a similar
graphic on the opposing page each time that just shows where these projects are so that they always
have a page of matrix and a graphic opposing it rather than kind of deconstructing this time line that has
been put together.
Ms. Porterfield disagreed about the timeline. When looking at the first ten years, the fourth item is the
widening of Rte. 29 which has to be hooked to the item down 12 more, building the Berkmar Bridge, and
then going 8 more down and there is constructing Berkmar Drive Extended. She felt that all of those
pieces fall together. Therefore either they have to move the projects together in the table or a group.
Mr. Franco said that the time line is important and he did not feel that should be changed. He was trying
to propose collecting this other information about how things interrelate and all of the other things they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
8
have talked about such as dependency, financing, the impact of those projects in a separate table
elsewhere and then end with this time line table.
Mr. Benish pointed out that they can get the priorities within the ten year period focused at the top to
make it clearer. There are some other strategic things that need to be done. If they are within that same
ten year period he felt that might create a little bit of the confusion as to how the high priority projects
relate to one another. Staff will do an appendix that describes in more detail what the high priority
projects are and they were going to have some mapping of what those improvements entail. There are a
lot more projects listed that might need some graphics. Staff will build on what they were going to do with
an appendix back up anyway.
Ms. Porterfield recommended that the notes on the column heading on the table should be on the front as
opposed to being on the bottom.
Mr. Benish agreed staff could do that. He was hearing that that it would be helpful for the table to be
clearer visually. Also from the last meeting there was a request to limit the cost and try to consi der right-
of -way cost. The existing figures are based on non -right—of -way costs. Staff has not made those
adjustments yet. Staff will work on how they can deal with that. He acknowledged some of their prior
comments on the specificity of the information and they will be working on those. He noted that Mr.
Cilimberg had pointed out that the graphics help would help because it was hard to follow what the
description of the project is. He had provided a number of changes, but he felt like it might be worth
waiting to see if the Commission had any problems understanding the descriptions of the product in the
implementation project on the left side. He heard that it would be helpful to have some kind of graphic to
show it.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested that they focus around a few less words and a few more visuals. For example,
Berkmar Bridge is one of the five top priority projects. It has increments of work to be done. It could all
be in a box showing the sequence of how to get Berkmar Bridge done and have actually a visual on a
map of where those things are. By being on a map there would not have to be directions, turning
movements or things like that. It might be helpful. He was hearing that it was a little hard to get their
mind around all of the things on the table because there is a lot here. They have been struggling with that
for a while.
Ms. Porterfield agreed that a picture is truly worth a thousand words.
Mr. Benish pointed out that they did not have a base mapping of this master plan that t hey can quickly
use. They have the transportation network maps, but the scale of them are such that it may not provide
the graphics that are truly going to help depict what is needed to be done. Staff will go back to see how
long it will take to create a good base map. He noted that it might take a little bit of time.
Mr. Edgerton said that the detail of what will happen to these areas of priority projects should be left to the
consultant that actually designed them . But they could at least bring focus to where these are located. He
wished the maps were a little bigger on the UnJAM report. He thought that they could go back and forth
and say that is Georgetown Road, etc. It was not that detailed a line. It jumped out because it was a
different color. There might be an easier way to do that.
Mr. Benish said that particularly in the Greenbrier intersection with 29 might be enough. That would get
them focused in and they could interpret the left and right turn lanes. The first one on column 2 where
they talk about the lanes from northbound to southbound three lanes along the main line with two-lane
ramps could have been done in a larger scale kind of showing those improvements a little bit more so.
That is what he was thinking. Some may need a little bit more d detail than circling an intersection. Staff
will take a fresh look at it to see what they can do.
Mr. Loach invited public comment.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
9
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said that he had all kinds of questions, which he would try to
narrow down in hopes of trying to get some answers.
It was clear in the presentation and in the chapter that the Berkmar Bridge is a priority project and
#2 on the list. He was questioning that in so much that he had heard from a member of the Board
of Supervisors in this room that Places29 works without the Berkmar Bridge. There is a
disconnect and he would love to know what this Commission believes is the case there.
The other questions that have come up: They have three sets of documents with the numbers in
it if they count the original May document that was presented to the MPO, which he asked
questions about, the technical memorandum 11, which has numbers with some right-of -way
included but not utilities, and now they have this document. This document does not have any
tabulation for how much it is going to cost in the short-term, mid-term or long-term. They put
some time lines on that, which he thought was helpful. It would be equally helpful to use VDOT’s
project escalation costs to really talk about what they are talking about which is going to well in
excess of ½ billion dollars for this project. In looking at the report he wondered if it was a private
entity coming forward with a master plan or for a plan for development would they be accepting
this level of detail. He would leave that as an open question for the Commission in considering
what is effectively a county plan coming forward. The Free Enterprise Forum is projecting this to
be over ½ billion dollars in this project. Based on that they anticipate that the cost will exceed 25
million dollars annually regardless of the source they come up with.
They have talked about the Places29 super tax, which is going to be on the business community
located in that area that could raise 2.5 million dollars a year. That is a far shy way from 25
million dollars a year. That is exclusion of any other Albemarle County transportation priorities.
He thought that this idea of a transportation district has worked in the past in other places that are
privately generated. He knew it worked in the early 80’s in Loudoun County for the intersection of
Route 7 and Route 28. But, those are private entities coming forward to improve their smaller
areas. This would be a huge area for a CDA or a Transportation District. He was questioning the
funding. He appreciates all of the effort that has gone into this. He wanted to thank staff for
getting him the charts and everything else. There is a lot here. But there are a whole lot more
questions than answers.
Morgan Butler, on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, raised the point that funding
would certainly be a challenge. They have to remember that the price tag only increasing with
every moment that they operate without a plan in place along the corridor that lays out the steps
for improving it. With that in mind he had to focus his comments tonight on some of the bright
spots of the implementation chapter as well as a few of the areas where they recommend
changes.
o First, they were glad to see access management listed among the ongoing projects on
page 1. They think that implementing an access management plan needs to be included
on the list of high priority transportation projects, which was an absolute prerequisite to
smoothing out traffic along Route 29 this limiting and consolidating the many entrances
and driveways along the corridor. If they don’t begin that process immediately they are
just letting the hole that they have dug get deeper.
o Second, they are also glad to see Hillsdale Extended listed as a top parallel road priority.
Hillsdale embodies the parallel road strategy because it would allow people to get
between Rio and Hydraulic and many of the destinations in between without having to
use 29 or enter either of those very busy intersections.
o Third, as he has stated before, the section of 29 between Hydraulic and the 250 By Pass
is the most congested part of the corridor. It must be the first area the implementation
strategy focuses on. Transportation studies show that a grade separated interchange is
needed at Hydraulic to avoid failing traffic conditions regardless of what other traffic
improvements are made. They realize that the interchange itself may not be built
immediately, but they do urge them to at least make sure that the planning and design
pieces are marked as a high priority item and scheduled for the first ten years. When he
says the planning and design pieces he means for the Hydraulic Interchange.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
10
o Also, if there is a list of improvements to the intersection of the 29/250 By Pass it must
take place before the Hydraulic Interchange can be built. They think the master plan
must identify those improvements and make them a high priority. He noticed that only
two improvements to that intersection are listed as high priority projects. He also knows
that 29H250 listed several more than that. They need to make sure that all of the
prerequisites for the Hydraulic Interchange are included as high priority.
o Finally, he wanted to reiterate some of the comments that have already been made that
the list of transportation projects seemed a bit unwieldy. He was going to offer a couple
of ideas, but they primarily have already been covered.
One idea was to color code based on the five priority projects and that any
projects that fell from the Berkmar Extended be one color.
The second idea was to color code based on the geographic area along the
corridor, which would help break them up a bit.
They plan to offer a set of more detailed comments to staff in the coming weeks.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public comment to bring the matter before
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was curious that none of his fellow Commissioners answered the first question
that Mr. Benish put up there. They did not want to make any specific recommendations on funding. He
thought that it was a tricky question. One of the thoughts he had about this project because of the scale
of it and the impact it has on the entire county is that maybe it should be considered as a county wide tax
issue if local funds are sought for this as opposed to a taxing district. If they can really do what our
Comp Plan is trying to do long term and direct growth into these development areas it will benefit the
entire county. So to put the burden of a local tax on just this community he thinks should be thought
about long and hard. It will benefit the preservation of the rural areas and the entire community. If it can
be made to work it will benefit the transit i ssues and the through traffic issues. He hoped the Board will
consider that when they struggle with the enormous problem with how much can be absorbed by the local
community and who in the local community ends up paying that price. He did not think that the taxing
district model necessarily works in this particular case.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the bottom line gets into the area of where they pay for this from. Except for the
enhanced transit everything else that they see is not a cost of Places29. It is a cost of a region that has
not dealt with all of its transportation issues and the result of proposed development that has come along
over the years. So thinking of it in terms of where is the fairest place to try to pay for the projects he felt
that the starting point is to think of it in terms of costs that really are not about Places29. They are not a
result of Places29 as they plan. They are a result of some much bigger dynamics.
Mr. Morris noted that both points were very well put. He agreed that it is regional. They may not be able
to do much about the region but they can sure do something about the county. He felt that they should
face it as a county project. He supported Mr. Edgerton.
Mr. Franco noted that in following up on that what concerns him is how does that relate to other
dev elopment areas.
They have heard tonight about Rivanna Village. They have heard in the past about Crozet.
When they talk about Places29 and the improvements with a county wide tax he did not disagree
wi th what he was saying, but he felt that it has to pull in all of the other growth areas and all of the
other projects that they have committed to or they have recommended take place on those to see
what those total impacts are. He was trying to get his hands around this. There has been past
debate. Until they have seen the approved version he was not ready to recommend anything.
Last time there was discussion on the Berkmar Bridge and whether there should be an expansion
of the growth area. He thought that in a way they have already recommended that is not going to
be a funding option there. So the Commission is weighing in on funding already by saying don’t
expand the growth area. That may be a tool that the Board decides that they would want to use
to fund the extension of Berkmar. He was not sure that they should take it off the table at this
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
11
point if they are not going to get more information about funding or total recommendations on
funding. So he was not sure how to get his hands around that. He thought that was part of what
he heard Ms. Porterfield talk about last time they had this discussion in saying is there a way for
them to say let it in if they get the right circumstances maybe they should revisit that as part of
this funding aspect of things.
He kept hearing over and over that these are improvements that are required today for existing
development. He suggested that better emphasis on that in the report would help. He was also
not sure that there was a direct direction yet that says they are not going to get these
improvements for at least ten years to fix the current problem. He did not think that it comes out
that direct and says that. But, again that was related to the funding. If people understood that
clearer would they be willing to consider a county wide tax or some other mechanisms to fund
these. That is what he was trying to get at when he talked earlier about what are the impacts and
whether it be delays, levels of service or whatever they use to evaluate these projects i n trying to
get that understanding out there that it is going to be ten years plus if they continue along the
road that they are going to fix the existing problems.
Ms. Monteith asked to comment on the issue of specificity. On page 3, item 6 of the staff report it is a
rationale for adopting the master plan. In that portion it talks about this more as a guide than an actual
plan. She felt that in the time they have been reviewing it is something that they have struggled with a
little bit in exactly how specific this plan should be given the large geographic area, the long build out and
the uncertainty about funding. She knows that they have grappled with whether they should be more
specific. She thought that the idea of talking about this as a guide is very useful rather than a plan but as
a document. It does bring one thing to question to mind regarding updates. Is it possible that these
priorities might change? They are talking about five major priorities. But if things play out a little bit
differently then how they think they might, if something should happen in the first ten years and something
in the ten to 20 years gets a higher priority, is it possible to revisit these priorities and sort of reshuffle the
deck with a five-year update.
Mr. Benish replied absolutely because that was one of the reasons that a second 20 years is also a
secondary influence. What they tried to so in this table is indicate those things that they need to do in the
first ten years based on the current priorities. But in five years there could be a whole different
circumstance. NGIC, for example, could create a whole different dynamic for other improvements. They
could have areas that they think were approved for a form of development that is going to change to put
different proposals in place. So yes, certainly it is going to be subject to reevaluation of a possible
change.
Mr. Franco said on the tables shown earlier there was one on residential densities. He questioned how
they are dealing with that and if there is a potential for the densities to go up with adoption of Places29 in
allowing by-right zoning to take place.
Mr. Benish replied that the table that he was referring to shows the overall number of dwelling units for
residential and then the employment generation. Most of the areas that are in the current land use plan
the way that they are designated the Places29 master plan kind of followed in terms of the intensity of
development. There are not many areas in the Places29 proposed plan that is decreasing the densities
of development that might risk by-right development overdeveloping those areas. The areas where they
did change land use and arguably made them less intensive were mostly areas that did not have zoning
associated with it. As an exampl e, the Piney Mountain area north of NGIC is in the current Comp Plan
largely as industrial service. They have changed that to residential. But almost all of i t, for example, is
land zoned for a retirement community and zoned RA. That is an example that is pretty typically of how
the existing Comp Plan relates to the proposed Places29. He did not think that they were going to see
that occurring. That is part of their comfort level that they are not going to have that happen.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the designations are at least at the level of the zoning that exists on that
property.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 2009 MINUTES
12
Mr. Benish pointed out that the centers would have the most density changes because of the mix change
where they can have some net density increases. He thought that was consistent with his concerns in
looking at a particular example of a neighborhood and how that might develop. Most of the larger
centers, the designation centers as an example, are largely based on what has already been approved.
An example is Albemarle Place where those changes are not significant in the underlying Highway
Commercial designation.
Mr. Franco said that speaks to the intensity so he could accept that. He asked about the other
improvements such as the non-transportation, the green spaces and so on. He asked if they have any
issues like they have seen on Pantops where by-right dev elopment could mess up a plan for a large
green space or park.
Mr. Benish replied that staff does not think so in this plan. But staff is going to go back and make sure
that they did not over designate areas that have by-right development on them. Most of these maps were
largely driven by existing open space areas that are defined by ownership. Examples include the Forest
Lakes open space, flood plain or critical slopes. An example of Places29 is where the boundary was a
little too stylized and did not follow the rigid boundary. Staff is going to go back to look at that. The
consultant for Places29 has adhered pretty consistently to those types of designations. He felt that they
have captured it fairly well. It is not so much that the open space is inaccurate. He was not sure how
accurate the development bubbles were to the planned development. But, underlying that is a whole
planned development and the by-right development is governed by a more detailed plan. Therefore, he
thought that they were covered in those areas. Staff will look at that again.
There being no further comments, Mr. Loach noted that the meeting would move to the next item.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
May 12, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on
Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice
Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Linda Porterfield was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Brent Nelson, Landscape Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Places29 Chapter 8 – Implementation - Follow up to the Commission’s April 14 work session on
Places29 Chapter 8, Implementation Table Format - Review of sample entries for a list of implementation
projects and an appendix with more detailed information about each implementation project. The
Commission will provide feedback and guidance so that the complete list and appendix can be completed
for review by the Commission at a subsequent work session. (Judy Wiegand/David Benish)
Mr. Benish said that the purpose of this work session is to receive some comment on a possible format
for the implementation table, which was discussed at the last work session. Staff asked for guidance on
the format and feedback on whether this format addresses some of the concerns raised.
The Commission reviewed Chapter 8, Implementation Table at a work session on April 14, 2009. At that
meeting, the Commission requested that staff:
Improve Implementation Table by simplifying it and making it easier to read and understand.
Consider adding mapping/graphics to help locate and explain the projects.
Include right-of -way costs for transportation/road projects, where appropriate.
Provide a clearer distinction among High Priority Projects within the Table to make each one
easier to find in the list.
Emphasize the purpose of the Implementation Table and how it is intended to be used.
For this work session, Staff would like to receive input on a new format for the Implementation Table, now
referred to the List of Implementation Projects.
Staff has provided a mockup of the new List of Implementation Projects that includes two sample
projects. For those same two examples, staff has also provided mockups of pages from a new Appendix
that will give a detailed description of each implementation project. Staff would like to be sure that this
revised format is acceptable to the Commission prior to completing these changes for all 60+/- projects.
Once input on the proposed format is received from the Commission, staff will complete a revised draft of
the List of Implementation Projects and Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions. The complete
new List and Appendix will include revised information on project costs and will be forwarded to the
Commission for review and discussion at its June work session.
Staff’s mockup presents the following changes to the format for the List of Implementation Projects:
Consolidate related projects
Eliminate some of the more detailed information for each project and move to the information to
the new Appendix
Clarify the sources for the cost estimates
Make a distinction between primary and secondary funding sources
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
2
And, in the new appendix, staff proposes:
A more detailed project description
To include the “issues to be addressed” and “milestones” sections formerly included in the
Implementation Table
A Location Map or concept diagram of the project where one is available
Recommendations
Questions for the Commission:
Overall, does the format for and samples of the List of Implementation Projects and Appendix 2,
Implementation Project Descriptions make the information easier to read and understand?
How would the Commission prefer to depict project cost estimates, including right of way (ROW)
cost:
1) Combine in one total cost figure both the construction and total potential ROW cost, or
2) List total construction cost and total ROW cost separately?
Examples:
1) Ring Roads, $14,800,000 total
2) Ring Roads, construction $9,250,000, potential ROW $5,550,000
3) Include cost estimates for that part of projects where private construction and/or dedication of
ROW is possible or likely?
Attachments to Staff Report:
Sample List of Implementation Projects
Sample lists of Project Nos. 10 and 34 from Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions
Staff has changed the prior implementation table and is referring to it as a list. That replaces the
more in depth table received the first time. The information in the table provides the very basic
information that describes the project and literally creates more of a list that somebody can look
at quickly. Staff is creating a new section, Appendix 2, which will provide a more detailed
description of each project and would include a map or some sort of graphics to help show the
location and the scope of the project. The hand out provides examples of two of those, one is a
transportation project and one is a community facilities project. Staff picked one that is somewhat
complicated. One of the things they are doing in the list is combining projects that are related to
one another into one project list and then providing a more detailed discussion within the
appendix. Staff will go through each of those projects and provide the detail. That is the approach
for this concept and staff has provided a new list.
The description of the cost estimates has changed to state the primary source for funding that
project. The secondary would provide for discussion and a description of other possible ways to
fund the project, but are secondary in nature in terms of what they can assume will be available
for the project. Also they indicate the cost estimate for this table. Staff suggests that they provide
the consultant’s cost estimate and any other cost estimate that they have from any other adopted
document. Last month the Commission was presented the UNJAM Regional Transportation Plan
that had cost estimates for some of the similar projects. They would provide both cost estimates
that were available at the time for those projects.
One question about the table is how the Commission would want the information presented for costs,
particularly regarding right-of -way.
As an example under the ring road it shows a total cost and then it breaks it down by construction and
right-of -way cost. He asked if the Commission prefers to keep right-of -way cost broken down separately
and do the construction cost and show it as a total. Appendix 2 shows a project described as one project,
which is a series of related projects. It goes through each of those and ends up being a fairly long
appendix. Staff tried to balance the table and make it simple to read, easy to see the priorities and costs
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
3
and simplified by taking out some of the detail and discussion. That would be provided in another place.
It would answer some of the other concerns raised about knowing information about that project. From a
format standpoint what staff has given the Commission is consistent with the type of content that they
would expect in the appendix.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out in the updated version staff looked again at the way the appendix for the grade
separated intersection at Rio and US29 was formatted. Staff realized that the costs and funding sources
may not have been as consistent as the list on the overall table as it should have been. He distributed a
handout that shows a better version of that example.
The Planning Commission reviewed the questions posed by staff as follows.
Overall, does the format for and samples of the List of Implementation Projects and Appendix 2,
Implementation Project Descriptions make the information easier to read and understand?
Mr. Benish asked if staff is going in the right direction in providing the information as requested.
Mr. Franco said that he liked the tables and separating it out. He has more specific comments about the
cost of the right-of -way and utilities. He would like to see that detail. One of the things hard to figure out
for instance is the grade separation versus the ring roads in the right-of -way costs in the grade separation
now. He assumed that the 35 million does not include right-of -way or utilities, but that is an assumption.
He asked to be able to figure that out a little easier and if that was just the construction costs.
Mr. Benish replied that the answer would be generally yes. If they look at the ring roads below the 14.8 it
would include the right-of -way and then parenthetically they have broken it down. If for some reason they
have not included the right-of -way costs, the idea would be that they would explain why.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the handout goes into a little more detail under estimated costs and notes for
grade separation for b, c and f for Places29. It does not include right-of -way since the existing right-of -
way is being assumed to be sufficient. That interchange is being built in a different way than the UNJAM
plan interchange, which would be more of a general urban interchange. The Places29 interchange is
essentially a very tight interchange within the right-of -way and the ring road served to provide the
additional access.
Mr. Benish noted from a format standpoint once they have that information if there are questions about
that or the Commission would want the right-of -way calculated anyway using the methodology used, at
least they would know how the right-of -way is accounted for or not accounted for and could ask staff or
add that number if necessary. By and large on most of the projects staff will be going back and adding
right-of -way. Staff has to do that calculation, but it can be done based on the consultant’s and VDOT’s
methodology.
Mr. Cilimberg reiterated what he was hearing was the Commission would like on the list to have those
cases when the right-of -way is not separated out to have a brief explanation of that and the reason why.
Mr. Morris replied yes.
Mr. Franco asked if it was important to anyone to know where the right -of-way is coming from. In other
words, is it worth identifying tax map/parcel numbers or strategic land pieces that ought to be part of the
important steps in here? He has read in the paper about the theater and how it has the ability to take up
the whole Hillsdale Drive connection. He asked if they should be identifying significant pieces of right-of -
way here that they need to be targeting.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that they don’t have interchange or road designs. Therefore it was a bit
speculative. The right-of -way costs are based on percentages and not based on the actual land that is
out there. It could become a little problematic in a plan like this when they are looking at something over
20 years or more to say the right-of -way is going to come from specific properties.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
4
Mr. Franco said that he could see that being a problem, but may be there is significant ones that are
going to be impacted.
Mr. Cilimberg said that if they know that there is an alignment in a very specific location they could
certainly note that. But it may not be altogether clear at this point.
Ms. Joseph noted with the city he is not asking for any special permit or rezoning. It is all by right what he
is doing. This is a comprehensive plan and they just have these roads drawn in approximate places
because sometimes it may move over one way or the other as far as the alignment is concerned. She
noted that staff was talking about existing right-of -ways. She did not think they should get that specific.
The only way that theater could not be expanded is if they needed a special use permit or a rezoning for
that property in the city and they don’t.
Mr. Franco said or if the plan had that for the connections had identified early on in the process that was
important piece.
Ms. Joseph said that in that case it would not matter. Again, they would be dealing with the same thing
that if somebody is doing it by right and it is going over a road way it does not matter. It can still happen.
The applicant can be told that the community needs this road, but it is not going to matter. She would
rather keep it loose so that it can move around if it needs to move around.
Mr. Franco said that he not trying to tie it down so much as identify again what are the important pieces
that they should be trying to secure. The other choice is to go out and buy that right-of -way or that piece
up front and to make that part of the plan and be able to say it is going to run through that area. For
example the Berkmar Bridge only has so much area and it is going between Route 29 and the dam. So
there is not a whole lot of debate on what that alignment is. He asked should they make acquisition of
that parcel an important step to making sure that parallel road is constructed.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that there is a good example with the grade separated intersection. The first
project listed is to prepare the small area plan. That small area plan is intended in part to identify just
what she mentioned. There is usually a step by step process. But it is too early to get very definite. It is
the next step when doing more specific plans. As an example under the Berkmar project one of the
elements of that project would be the location and design of the road and the bridge. That would be a first
step. Once you have that you can actually incorporate that location into an official map. Then it becomes
very evident for anybody who is interested where that road is going to go and it can be part of the
consideration for landowners. In the near future there will be an official map, as an example, based on a
design that VDOT has agreed would be for how Hydraulic and 29 will be improved in the future. They
can’t do that at this level of planning since they have not gotten far enough along in specifically tying it
down. They realize that Berkmar will essentially be connecting from point A to point B and pretty much
know where it is going to go, but until they do the design and have that on paper he did not think they can
say it is going to specifically go across a particular property. They would not want to put that in a plan
because parcels get divided and those parcels numbers will mean nothing in a few years.
Mr. Franco asked what happens when the small area plan is done and after five years they are going to
come back and update this table. He asked if they would then add those parcels because they know
specifically where they are. Or is it something that never gets included into this document.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would think they would want to avoid putting parcel references in a master
plan or comprehensive plan because those could be subject to change.
Mr. Benish noted that they would probably amend the Places29 Comp Plan section to refer to the small
area plan, which would provide the updated guidance. Doing that would keep Places29 current. If they
read through the appendix an example for this one it does lay out some sequence of projects a through h
and which is more important than the other. So given the map and knowing the locations and the
quadrants it does provide some guidance as to where to focus your efforts. That is what the consultants
knows pending an update getting that small area plan done, which they may find given the circumstances
by the time the plan is completed there may be some changes to it. Where there is some sequencing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
5
and priority of these multi-stepped projects they are going to try to provide that guidance. It sounds like
they are okay with one.
Mr. Edgerton said that it is great and so much clearer than what they saw before. It leads you through the
process. He noted that Mr. Franco’s point was good, but unless someone comes in and requests a
rezoning they are not going to have any authority to secure those right-of -ways at this point.
Mr. Benish said that they are going to provide right-of -way costs, construction costs and then describe
any exceptions where they would not be doing that.
Mr. Franco asked what about the utilities, which has been raised as a significant cost.
Mr. Benish said that the method that the consultant and VDOT used is actually a multiplier that includes
utilities and right-of -way. He should be clearer about that. When he says right-of -way it includes utilities.
The other question is whether to provide for cost estimates for projects that they expect or are
recommended to be done in the plan but done through private means. So there are some projects that
are non essential to the network and they recommended them as interconnections as an example that
they would expect to get through the development review process at some point in time. So there is not a
cost estimate for those.
Mr. Strucko said to reach a little bit and may be represent some of Ms. Porterfield’s views he thought that
she would appreciate having what the potential savings would be to the county listed i n the plan.
Ms. Monteith assumed that would be listed separately in some way.
Mr. Benish said that staff would probably use the primary funding to say that is going to be a private
developer project, but what they would be doing is providing a cost estimate or value. Some of these the
consultant did not do. Staff is going to have to create those with the help of VDOT. There are not a lot of
them. Staff has the cost estimates for the major projects. The consultant’s cost that the Places29
provided they provided in current dollars at the time that they completed the study, which is 2007 dollars.
He was guessing that this group is going to want those costs projected to the estimated cost year.
Mr. Strucko said that they have to time stamp these estimates so that they understand that they may be
several million dollars off depending on where the year is. He sees one that is dated 2025. He assumed
that they got there from using some assumptions.
Mr. Benish noted that the way UNJAM did it was that list of projects is broken down in to four time frames.
One is a current time frame for the first five years and he did not believe they adjusted those costs. They
used the costs that were in an existing Six Year Plan, which they assume has some factor already in it. It
is under some sort of plan design process. The next three increments are over 5 year periods. If a
project was identified as a mid-point project he believed that mid-point period was 2016 -2020. They
used the mid-point of that time frame of 2018. All projects were thought to be built in the beginning of that
five year period or at the end and they used the mid-point.
Mr. Strucko asked if staff was getting VDOT v alidation of these figures. They ventured to say that number
looks about right.
Mr. Benish replied that staff is going to sit down with VDOT and validate these numbers. VDOT was part
of the consultant’s process and the consultant used the VDOT cost estimate process to come up with
these. As they adjust them staff wants to make sure that VDOT is okay with what they looked at before.
Mr. Loach said that on the funding sources for the primary and secondary can and would it be to any
benefit to allocate percentages to them so that people know where the funding sources with percentages
is coming from where either through VDOT or private party proffers, etc.
Mr. Cilimberg said that right now would be very difficult to determine because they just don’t know based
on timing what funding is going to be available from VDOT. They are saying that they should be the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
6
primary funding source for the grade separation as an example. But they may over time through the cash
proffer system as an example collect funds that can be put towards that project that would reduce
VDOT’s part of the project. That is why the cash proffer policy was adopted. But they don’t know how
much private funds they might have at that point in time. So the percentages would be really hard to
figure out. They will see cost figures, primary and secondary funding sources, for all of these projects.
They are going to actually put together of what staff thinks will really get built with the funds available.
That will essentially indicate to the Commission that out of these there are five very primary priority
projects that have a number of elements in them each. They are only going to be able to identify a few of
those elements that they think can actually get funded based on current resources that staff can project
being available. It is going to leave the question of how do they do the rest. Staff can say who the
funding sources should be and that the project is needed in this point of time based on the first ten years
versus the second ten years. Even if this Places29 Land Use Plan were in play right now the situation
would be the same and they would still have that circumstance. Staff will try to outline what seems
realistic as part of the plan, which raises the question of whatever the Land Use Plan is they will still have
this question of how do they fund the rest of what is needed in these projects. They can say here are the
sources that they should go to, but who knows what decision may be made down the road to change how
they fund projects.
Mr. Strucko questioned if the Commission would want to venture down the road to say that they
determined based upon the current situation given VDOT’s financial situation and the county’s reluctance
to build roads that these projects will be built.
Mr. Cilimberg suggested built or in some cases like a small area plan i t is not even building anything, but
is doing a plan and developing plans to do a project.
Mr. Strucko noted that they are looking at roads here, but he was sure there were other things. He
questioned what he thinks can afford to get done. They will have to take some leaps of assumptions
there.
Mr. Benish pointed out that priority was going to also identify the essential first things they have to get
done. The Berkmar Drive connection is a very important step. They need to know where the bridge is
going to get built. They have proffers monies that are potentially available up to about $60,000. In the
CIP that was funded this year they do have some level of funding that was put towards implementing
Places29. So they do know that there is some money that they control. As an example, if that is
something they feel they can do and it is an essential first step in the small area plan in which they
actually get a more detailed design about the interchange and find out about the right-of -way and what is
needed, then that allow them to move towards the design. It can also identify what projects they need to
create official maps for to protect the right-of -way, which has surveying costs. He thought that is probably
what they are going to see in this list. At the beginning of the meeting they talked about not having 6
million less maintenance money much less construction money. But to the extent that they do have
monies to continue to move these projects along to the extent they can that is probably what they are
going to be identifying.
Mr. Loach said that it was a good idea that they let the public know the gap between the planning and the
reality.
Mr. Benish noted that his opinion on the primary and secondary, as Mr. Cilimberg said, they don’t know
the percentage. They are looking at the primary basically up to 100 percent. The secondary is what can
help augment it, which may get it done sooner or is a tool that a future decision might allow that project to
move forward. He thought that they have looked at primary with a project that they expect to be done as
an interconnection through a redevelopment project. It is a project that will sit there until that gets done. If
it is a public road project most of them are going to be VDOT roads to build. Until something changes at
the state and at the Board level they are responsible for the public road system. That is the best staff can
do in terms of the percentages.
Mr. Loach noted that they would not have the opportunity to have another table with these projects and
then a longitudinal graph that shows what the funding would be expected and an expected date of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
7
completion based on those funding sources coming in.
Mr. Benish said that they could potentially do that to some extent the constrained long range plan and
UNJAM over 20 years. That is what that exercise does. There is certainly no guarantee as to when they
get that money along that timeline and whether they project out those X amount of dollars per year are
going to come in that short, mid and long term
Mr. Loach asked how far out VDOT projects out the dollar costs.
Mr. Cilimberg replied six years.
Mr. Loach pointed out that they have a six -year time frame that they know how much money they are
going to have.
Ms. Monteith pointed out that they don’t always get that.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that it was not very reliable in this day and age.
Ms. Monteith said that his first question was about escalation and whether that should be included.
Obviously it is in these UNJAM costs which staff has noted. The assumption is that escalation is always
going to go up. But right now it is down. From her position she suggested to say what the date of the cost
was unless they get to a point where they are updating this and not try to add in the escalation costs
because they are in a pretty volatile market.
Mr. Benish noted that he had a discussion with Chuck Proctor at VDOT who did the long range plan
numbers. For the MPO he used the 2006 formulas and multipliers. The indication is when those new
numbers get updated next year they probably will go down because the market over the last couple of
years has been a positive market for contracts. The sheet that they use is reflective of their true costs.
He agreed that if they use the new numbers the multipliers could very well go down. But there is no
guarantee that it will stay that way in the next five or ten year increment. They can do it both ways. They
can maintain the consultant’s costs in their current year or just update it to the current year of our adopted
plan. Then anyone using those numbers can apply with multipliers out of their crystal ball, which they
think the best projection is. Or staff can take their best shot at it.
Mr. Edgerton said when and if this is adopted it will become part of the Comprehensive Plan and as such
will be open for review and amendment on a five year cycle. He felt that the appropriate thing would be to
have the numbers all keyed to the same adoption year. He noted confusion in the chart with the UNJAM
num bers at 2025 dollars and the consultant’s numbers at 2007 dollars. The big picture is that the more
precise information they can have about this the wiser the decisions of future Commissions and
Supervisors in whether it makes sense to go ahead with projects. He noted that a lot of the anxiety in the
Crozet work is that the infrastructure has not been there and projects have been approved. It will be hard
to deny rezonings or requests without this information in the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan is supposed to
help make wise decisions. Therefore, the more information they have the better. But they do need to be
consistent about how the numbers are presented.
Mr. Cilimberg noted if they were to use adoption year dollar amounts, which staff hopes will be 2009, for
all of our project cost estimates he asked if the Commission felt it would be necessary to include the
UNJAM plan cost figures, which were projected out for different periods of time. Or staff could remove
that column if they don’t think it is that valuable. It is shown here so that they get the insight that there are
two estimating sources they can go to. One is more current and the other is projecting.
Mr. Franco noted that it would be a lot more useful and helpful for everything to be in today’s dollars. He
would prefer to see a footnote if there is a different number that exists out there. The footnote should say
UNJAM by the way was slightly different but that it was twice as much. He thought it was confusing to
have both sets of numbers in the chart. There are a lot of estimates but he suggested that staff should
put in what they felt was the appropriate number and a footnote that there is another number out there
with a footnote and commentary. He suggested that an estimate would be helpful if the amount does get
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
8
committed to on how it relates to a county wide tax or some funding mechanisms. It would also be helpful
to know how to generate a certain amount so there is a way to relate this information back when talking
about secondary sources.
Mr. Loach noted that the percentages makes some justification about where the money is coming from
and say where it is going to come from.
Mr. Benish noted that staff has a couple study examples that the Board asked for regarding types of
alternate funding methods that can give what a typical cost would be. Staff certainly could not say that
was what would be generated, but it is an example of a level of funding that is possible under a system
that could give people an understanding of the order of magnitude to cover the cost.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out what they were still talking about is trying to give the Commission an idea of
what they think would be funded under the sources that are available. At least there would be a picture of
what they think they can do. There will be a lot more that they can’t find identifiable sources of money for.
Mr. Strucko asked how specific would staff get. He asked if they would talk about debt issuance.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that staff would base it on a couple of different approaches such as what the CIP is
providing for as staff sees it and what the Six Year Plan would provide. They can’t get into a real
elaborate analysis of all of that. Very honestly, they would get into all sorts of scenarios. Staff will try to
take their best shot on what seems realistic. Then beyond that they will see price estimate in 2009 dollars
for projects that they will see there is no funding source readily identified to do them. If they are able to
give them that and they see the cost will be an X amount of dollars, then they can give as an example
what 1 cent on the tax rate would be versus some scenarios if they had a gas sales tax or other particular
mechanism. He asked if that is what the Commission is looking for.
Mr. Loach pointed out that the funding decision would be made by the Board of Supervisors and not the
Planning Commission. Once the Planning Commission knows what money and what is available, then
staff can come back to the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the project needs don’t go away just because the money is not there. He
suggested that it would be a mistake just to say they are going to remove projects because they don’t see
funding out there. Plans are supposed to tell them what they are going to need. Currently they have a
back log of needs that are not getting addressed. So they want to be honest about what seems to be
needed.
Mr. Strucko felt that they could do that with costs. He felt comfortable with staff’s suggestions in the
secondary column about taxes that they don’t have right now. He reiterated Mr. Loach’s comment that
the Planning Commission does not make policy decisions.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Commission was just getting information and not deciding which ones to use
Mr. Strucko suggested that they come up with the projects, rank them according to needs, list the costs,
list some suggested ways of funding it and then leave it at that.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they would not be doing what Mr. Franco said.
Mr. Franco said that he was not proposing that they make a decision on how it is going to be funded. If
he was one of the decision makers he would want to know how he generates 25 million if that was what it
was going to be a year. He would like to know what that looks like in different forms.
Mr. Strucko pointed out that there would be different impacts from a 1 cent tax increase in 2009 and
2025. They can do the scenarios and say here are the various options, but they run the risk of timeliness.
The Commission does not have the power of the purse and maybe the Supervisors might not want that.
He was trying to find the right demarcation line.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
9
Mr. Benish said that this implementation table is not to adopt that level of detail. They were not asking
the Commission to say that VDOT will be the primary source and they are going to select 20 percent out
of these secondary options. What they are laying out is the need. They are identifying and being
transparent about the impacts, the costs of those needs and outli ning the possible ways in which the
Board and the public (state) can address these needs. This table helps staff on the CIP Technical
Review Team when he makes the request to implement these plans and then makes that presentation to
that group how important it is for the Executive to be able to tell over the ten year plan and the CIP what
sort of order of magnitude of cost are going to be for urban improvements to make some long term
judgments about financing. This plan does not do that. It is just telli ng the public what options are there.
Ms. Monteith said that it would seem like rather than tying it to any kind of project that it appears that staff
is giving a few examples just for somebody that is reading it. Rather than anything that would go into the
tables something that would be in the text that is typically an implementation text beyond saying
something like well funding sources could be grants, etc. that is very generic language. If there are some
mechanisms staff has considered that are beyond the really basic funding sources that they have it would
be useful to have that. But not have it tied specifically to projects.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out in the chapter that leads into this table they actually talk about very different
funding sources. They don’t try to estimate how much money could be generated, but do talk about the
sources that are out. They should be correlated to make sure the secondary identified here fits within
those potential sources. Beyond that where they are talking about generation of potential revenue from
different sources the Commission has to advise staff as to whether that is a good idea to do it. He was
hearing mixed things here.
Mr. Strucko said that it is a good idea to list the potential sources. But if they are saying that a 1 cent
increase in the property tax rate will generate this amount of money he thought it over simplifies and
misleads. The variables are all over the place. It is great to think about giving all this information, but it
may defeat the purpose.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff was not planning on giving estimated revenues from different sources.
It was raised tonight and staff is telling them how they could do it.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Strucko that it was a good idea to list those sources. But he had already heard
allocations on the radio that the Planning Commission was planning on implementing some sort of
taxation scheme to do this, which is untrue. He wanted to make sure that there was a clear demarcation
between those priorities and the Board of Supervisors is responsible for that.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed that he was correct that the Planning Commission did not want to get into that.
Ms. Joseph said that it is perfect what they have here. She did not think they needed any more detail
because it leaves the options open. She did not think they should assume that they themselves were
going to pay for these roads. She thought they were put in here because the Comprehensive Plan helps
guide us in rezoning applications and it helps us understand where our needs are. If the particular
property that is undergoing a rezoning is going to impact these even further then at least they know what
they need to be improved right now. So that is how she was using this. She agreed that it would help with
the CIP and Six Year Plan. But that is not where she was aiming to decide that the community is going to
pay for these roads at this point.
Mr. Morris said that they have gotten this information and with the funding sources it is all the Commission
needs.
Mr. Edgerton asked to revisit one thing because he wanted to simplify it a little bit. Mr. Franco suggested
that they pull out the UNJAM column because it was a little confusing. He recalled the presentation they
received from UNJAM and it is a separate item and needs to be presented. He was not sure that it should
be adjacent to the consultant’s figures. The one take away he remembers from that presentation is that
regardless of what happens to the land on either side of 29 the road improvements recommended in
UNJAM are going to be required just to keep things moving. He was not sure to just put that in the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
10
footnote. He would like to see if they could adjust the numbers so that it is not so confusing when you
look at 35 million versus a 50 million and they have a typical urban interchange versus something that
they worked out that was much less than an urban interchange. It is confusing the way it is being
presented. He was trying to figure out how to give it some significant place some where other than the
footnote.
Ms. Monteith felt it should stay in also. She thought that it could go on the far right column so that it is
presented as additional information rather than right next to where they want to provide the cost that the
consultant gave. It is a little confusing in having the different time frames, but it does not bother her as
long as it is noted. It is actually kind of useful because it shows what they are projecting as far as
escalation and comparison to what they would have in for any given period of time. In addition, in the
estimated cost column put in parenthesis what the year is that cost would be. If they finish the plan in
2009 it would say 2009. Then if they updated it would show that year.
Mr. Cilimberg said that one idea he heard was they could get rid of Place29 consultant and move the
UNJAM source where there is comparable information from UNJAM into that far right column. Then
simply have one column that says estimated cost 2009.
Mr. Edgerton asked if the UNJAM plan was going to be folded into this Master Plan.
Mr. Benish said that hopefully there was consistency in the projects. The UNJAM plan covers major
network roadways and does not cover up the smaller secondary roadways in some cases as a general
rule.
Mr. Edgerton said that he would like to keep it in, but felt it is confusing the way it was presented. He
suggested that they line it up with the same projects but pull it away.
Mr. Benish reiterated that it be listed as additional information for a competitive cost of some sort.
Mr. Edgerton agreed.
Mr. Franco noted that they had focused on the column of UNJAM and got off the estimates for a while.
He wanted to make sure everybody was clear what he asking for. He was happy to have the majority of
the Commission move this forward, but he was not proposing they make the funding decisions so much
as help the next level up to understand what those are. He envisioned in the section where they had a
discussion of specific funding types that was in the text to quantify what those things look like. He
understands the difficulties of property values going up and down. That is why he likes the idea of
keeping it in today’s years. But he thought that because these things are improvements that are required
today the Board is going to have to make decisions on how to fund these projects. It is more for him that
this plan is a transportation plan on how to meet the existing needs and it is less about rezonings. When
he first listened to the meeting two meetings ago it was his understanding that most of the rezoning that
will be coming forward will be coming forward to address form with some density changes but it is really a
rearranging of the density and addressing form. So he was not sure that they were going to find that a lot
of rezonings are coming forward in this area that will be creating huge funding sources. There may be
donated right-of -way and improvements they do. But because they are addressing the form that they
want he felt that it is going to be a difficult decision later on when a project like the Berkmar Drive parallel
road system is needed and a project comes in that will donate a portion of that right-of-way, but they say
they still need 35 million dollars so stop the project. Then that project will move forward, like the theater,
in a by right form and they lose that opportunity or create hardships in the future. When they talk about
service districts as a possible funding source he would like some text in there that says if they create a
service district like the sheet that came through the second time that said a service district that is all of the
northern area would generate a certain amount of money. That is what he would like to see for
something that helps to quantify that so that those decision makers could understand how those sources
work.
Ms. Joseph noted that they have never gone into that kind of detail.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
11
Mr. Franco said that he thought they saw that at the last meeting.
Mr. Loach said that is why he asked what the percentages would be between VDOT and the secondary
source. They are saying that would be very difficult.
Mr. Franco noted that when they talk about gas sales can they tell him what it takes to generate 10 million
dollars for revenue for gas sales in 2009.
Ms. Joseph said that the next step if they decide that during the planning process that these
improvements are so expensive our next logical step would be to remove land from the growth area
because they can’t afford it. They can’t afford what they have now. So why are they adding more land to
be developed when they can’t afford what they have right now. That is why she did not know where he
was going with this at this point honestly.
Mr. Loach agreed with that Ms. Joseph’s pointed was good if they can’t afford what they already have.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the reality is that most everything on this list except for the form of the public
transit is necessary even if they decided to scale back the development areas. If they started bringing the
boundaries in they would still need it because the rezonings have already been done, the growth is
happening and if it is not in that development area it is somewhere else. So he did not think that is the
issue here per say. Most everything in this plan that is being shown for implementation purposes to deal
with growth that has nothing to do with this land use plan.
Ms. Joseph said she differed with him a little bit. If it is already out there and they have already had these
approvals they still have land that is vacant within the growth area. She was saying should they even
have that in there if they can’t afford what they have already approved.
Mr. Loach said that was his point about taking this up to the Board of Supervisors for funding to decide
whether there is going to be a funding mechanism for them to move forward on a plan.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the question is what the plan is. The funding mechanism for the land use
component of this plan is not the question. The funding mechanism for the transportation and the
infrastructure component is the question. That does not have much at all to do with the land use plan or
the form. If they remove those people from this area those people are still going to be in the county and
would be using infrastructure and roads.
Ms. Joseph said that it is not telling us what we need, but it is telling us where we want to go.
Mr. Edgerton said that the more information it has the better the document.
Mr. Strucko noted that the Commission was in general agreement that it is enough for planning proposes
to have the projects that this vision, Places29 will demand. They have cost estimates roughly based on
2009 numbers and those which are not they would get. They can list potential funding mechanisms for
the county, which could involve everything from waiting for current capital capacity to free up from existing
debt to replace it with something like this thereby not putting an additional financial hardship on the
community or various taxing mechanisms, proff ers or asking VDOT for more money. They will not get
into actual calculations because that gets into a level of precision that the Commission would be
misleading. He would not even venture into guessing that. The Supervisors have the power of the purse
in this community and they have to determine what combination of things they would put into place to
fund what project on what date. He asked if staff needs anything more from the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that what staff understands right now is what he just said. They already have a
funding option section already written into the text. Staff can revise the table to reflect what the
Commission mentioned tonight in terms of how they provide cost estimates and how they reflect UNJAM.
He asked the Commission to provide any further specifics to staff.
Mr. Benish pointed out that staff would be providing totals so that when they have the individual cost they
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
12
will be subtotaling them in some way that they can see the order of magnitude of the cost.
Mr. Strucko agreed that the Commission needs to see that information. He invited public comment.
Jeff Werner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, made the following comments:
Several years ago the transportation funding work group met for a year and a half or two years
with the TJPDC. Every group imaginable participated and came up with a list of priority projects
and a series of funding options on how that revenue could be raised. He suggested that the
Commission review that list since it outlines a series of scenarios that included many different
things. Also the Board of Supervisors a year or so ago during the Hollymead, North Pointe and
Albemarle Place reviews had a lot of discussion about community development authorities and
special tax districts. Some very concise summaries were put together on what those tools can
and cannot do. In the last General Assembly session this community did seek the ability to put to
a vote to the residents of the community the ability to tax to build infrastructure. But that was
defeated in the General Assembly. He noted that a lot of what the Commission is discussing is
discussed at almost every Board of Supervisors meeting. For years he has tried to figure out how
to bundle all of this together in a neat argument, but he did not know if there is one.
The Commission raised some excellent points. If they are going to need these roads how are
they going to fund them because they have already approved all of this growth. Therefore, those
improvements are going to have to be made. The question is who is going to stand up and say
this is what it is going to cost us. They are asking the right questions, but there is the reality that
really the community has to face that they are ultimately going to have to step up in front of these
things. He did not know if there was a choice that they could simply say no because of what the
situation they have gotten themselves into.
However, he agreed that this was a comprehensive plan and they are looking towards the future.
Therefore, they have to have a plan. He did not know if they need all this level of detail for
something that they will face in 20 years.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, noted that this is so much better. The information is much
more manageable and understandable. It is the step in the right direction. The three things that they
have asked for all along are: transparency, accuracy and totals and they are headed that way to that
end. It is important when they look at the chart they see UNJAM has a 50 million dollar cost and if it is
added up it totals that. It is important to pick that up somehow. He did not know how to capture that for
the reader, but if they look at it in one way it is a very different cost. It is important that informatio n is
captured.
To that end he had to disagree with the entire Planning Commission with regard to the project
year data. This plan sets out a time when they are going to do things. The mid-year point that
was discussed by staff makes good sense. The fact that they could finance it is a different issue.
This is really dealing with implementation. They are saying when they are going to do it and then
turning around and saying that they are going to use dollars from today. Well they are not going
to use dollars from today, but are going to use dollars from tomorrow. There is going to be an
increase in the cost of highway construction. Ms. Monteith is correct that there have been some
small local trends, but he did not think if they look over a 20-year period, which this purports to
cover, that they can find a 20 year decrease in any construction or land cost. He would hope
when the document gets to the H250 has a footnote or column or whatever they chose to
recognize that there are three estimates for that particular interchange. That is important
information to capture.
He reiterated that the lack of a project year he fears is disingenuous to the public because those
are the tax dollars that are going to be needed. Whether the money comes from the f ederal,
state or local federal government the government receives money from the citizens. Finally he
wanted to make sure he says that this is a step in the right direction.
He encourages having sub totals on the projects as well as sub totals for each stand point – short
term, mid term and long term and use project dollars. He stands by everything that he mentioned
on the radio. He accurately reflected, in his opinion the discussion that that was held at the
Planning Commission. He felt that the Commission has discussed this issue quite well and he
encourages any one with any questions about that to review the pod cast.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
13
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the matter back
before the Planning Commission. He agreed with Mr. Williamson, but it was going to be tricky. If he was
doing the capital planning for the terms of these projects, he would like to get a sense as to when the
timing of the project would hit. This was discussed earlier and Ms. Joseph brought up the point that some
of the needs are for today.
Mr. Franco noted that all of these needs are for today.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff put the projects in 10 and 20 year timeframes, but a lot of them really are
pretty current.
Mr. Franco asked to address Mr. Williamson’s concern. He felt that there needs to be a timeline on when
this expenditure is going to occur. He thought that keeping it in today’s dollars will be useful, but they
need to know how to expand it into the future and how these things will change. He understood that
potentially the costs will be going down in the near years, but overall the return will be up. He felt that the
timeline on when the expenditures are going to occur can be capped.
Ms. Joseph disagreed about the timeline they need. This is a document that is used by UNJAM and for
the Six Year Plan, which is where some of that timing comes in. She was resisting that because they
want them to find where this money is coming from and she did not know that they coul d do that with this
document. This document is used for other reasons such as for the CIP. Therefore, she was reluctant to
put in a time line here forcing the community who are working on these other issues. This is to show us
where we are and where we want to go, but not necessarily when they want to be there. There are so
many circumstances that happen such as when NGIC comes in and where the development is going to
keep occurring or not in that area.
Mr. Strucko agreed with Mr. Williamson that this is a progressive step; it is moving in the right direction
and is providing valuable information.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff will take their best shot at what they have heard tonight. Staff will make a
couple judgment calls in incorporating the recommendations and suggestions made by staff and the
public. Then staff will schedule a future work session for further review.
In summary, Places 29 Draft Master Plan: Chapter 8 – Implementation Follow-up Comments
In a work session on Places29 Chapter 8, Implementation Table Format Review the Planning
Commission reviewed the form and discussed how they wanted the cost reported. There was a general
discussion about the presentation of funding options and what level of evaluation and recommendation
the Planning Commission should have. The Commission felt that the format of the simplified table and
description were going in the right direction and made the following comments and suggestions.
The Planning Commission generally accepted the list and appendix format.
Provide cost estimates in year of plan adoption dollars.
Deemphasize/relocate UNJAM cost estimates in format of year of adoption dollars.
Wanted total construction/right-of -way/utilities cost breakdown.
Provided other general comments on form improvements
The Commission wanted the list to have those cases when the right-of -way is not separated to
have a brief explanation and the reason why.
Work on columns to make consistent dollar figure amount possibly by using the adopted year
figures in today’s dollars and moving the UNJAM column figures and provide that information in a
footnote.
Provide for cost estimates for projects recommended in plan through private means. A
suggestion was made that it be listed separately.
Funding options were discussed with recognition that the Board of Supervisors has the power of
the purse. The Commission should explore different mechanisms that would provide funding.
Discussion held about the need for a timeline when expenditures will occur in today’s dollars.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – MAY 12, 2009
FINAL MINUTES
14
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 16, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on
Tuesday, June 16, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Thomas Loach, Vice
Chair and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Ms. Joseph arrived at 6:17 p.m. Linda Porterfield was absent. Julia
Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner, David
Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Neil Williamson, Executive Director of The Free Enterprise Forum, distributed copies of a public statement
dated June 16, 2009 that had been approved by his board. He read the statement into the record.
(Attachment A – Public Statement dated June 16, 2009 submitted by Neil Williamson)
Mr. Strucko thanked Mr. Williamson for his comments. He noted that the Planning Commission
appreciated for his comments and was looking forward to the Free Enterprise Forum’s continued
participation in Places29.
There being no further matters not listed on the agenda for this evening, the meeting moved to the next
item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – June 10, 2009
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on June 10, 2009.
Work Sessions:
Places29 - Chapter 4 Tables and Maps, Chapter 7 Design Guidelines
Staff will present Chapter 7, Design Guidelines for the Places29 Area to the Planning Commission. Later
during the work session, staff will review changes that have been made to the Land Use Tables from
Chapter 4, Future Land Use Plan & Transportation Network. These changes reflect the Commission’s
direction during a previous work session. (Judy W iegand and Elaine Echols)
Ms. Echols pointed out that she was going to talk about Chapter 7 Design Guidelines and Ms. Wiegand
was going to talk about Chapter 4 Tables and Maps. They are looking to get some input from the
Commission in terms of what these things mean. She presented a PowerPoint Presentation and
explained Chapter 7 Design Guidelines. (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation)
The Design Guidelines received from the consultant were very involved in a thick document. They
contained guidelines relevant to both Places 29 and the rest of the Development Areas. Staff felt that it
would be best to concentrate on the Design Guidelines that were specific to the Places29 area separate
from those Design Guidelines. Recommendations that could be used throughout the development areas
would be brought to the Commission at a later date. Staff took from what the consultants provided and
pared it down for the Places29 Master Plan to two areas:
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
2
Frontage conditions for Entrance Corridor & Proffit Road
Creating Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
The general design guidelines for the development areas take what was in the Neighborhood Model
relative to design and provide more detailed information that staff hopes is helpful for staff, the applicants
and the Commission.
The General Design Guidelines for the Development Areas will provide design guidance on:
Streets, blocks, & interconnectivity
Buildings: orientation, setbacks, facades, massing
Grading and topography, environmental features, green systems
Relationships among land uses
Parking: surface and structured
Parks, plazas, and open space
Stormwater management
Land development sequencing
A description of the five frontage conditions are in the material as well as a map that shows what those
different conditions are. The five frontage conditions were.
1. Urban Frontage
2. Landscaped Development
3. Landscaped Residential Yard
4. Open Landscape
5. Forested Buffer
Urban Frontage
Designed for high levels of pedestrian activity
Buildings oriented toward the street
Minimal building setbacks
Pedestrian Zones within Urban Frontage
Planting & Furnishings Zone
Pedestrian Through-Zone
Transition Zone
Use of Landscape Condition where area is shown as Urban Frontage – by exception
Significant grade difference between the EC street and the site
The area between a parallel street to US 29 is not wide enough to create a block
A grade separated interchange is proposed and an urban frontage can’t be achieved
*Landscaped Development
*Use of Landscape Frontage in new development
*Landscaped Residential Yard
*Open Landscape
*Forested Buffer
*Creating Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas
(*See PowerPoint Presentation for bulleted points)
These conditions have not gone to the ARB, but have been reviewed by the ARB staff. This is a very
important part of the plan because when the ARB reviews projects on the Entrance Corridors they need
some guidance on expectation for the roads, building orientation, where should sidewalks be and where
should street trees be.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
3
In addition to the frontage conditions, the plan also shows six boundary conditions. Staff explained the
six types of boundary conditions, as follows:
1. Urban – Developed
2. Urban – Landscaped
3. Rural – Residential
4. Rural – Fields
5. Rural – Forested
6. Riparian/Floodplain
Staff noted that there are exceptions to each boundary type. The map provides the guidance as to
location and the plan provides the guidance as to how to make it happen. Staff will be bringing the
general design guidelines for development areas to the Planning Commission in the future.
Ms. Joseph arrived at 6:18 p.m.
Mr. Strucko asked if there were any questions concerning Chapter 7.
Mr. Loach noted the forested buffer really looks nice, but he questioned since the landscaping looked
very planned who was going to maintain the area. This would be nice if there is a county maintenance
department that can go and maintain these areas. The layout on the different types of boundaries was
good. When they did the Crozet Master Plan they planned the boundary to decrease out but they
planned them all around centers. So depending where the center was approximate to the edge would
depend on how far down that density went. But the center itself may be on the edge. So it might be
appropriate to have very high density because that is where it is. He thought that the graphics were very
good and easy to understand particularly on the urban frontage. The landscaping softens that stark look
that they have going up and down 29 right now. On the grade separated interchanges it shows a multi-
use path on each side. He asked if the multi-use path goes with the interchange or is it something that
would continue up and down 29 as part of the design of the road.
Ms. Echols replied that it depends on what the final design is for that interchange. The idea is that they
have the pedestrian access there.
Mr. Loach said that it was great, but to just have pedestrian access on the underpass so people can get
through and not continue it is not good. It is an answer for the bicycle mode of transportation.
Ms. Echols noted that it might turn out to go into a sidewalk or it might need to be more of a multi-use
path on one side if they don’t have bike lanes. Certainly on 29 those are going to be things they are
going to have to deal with. Regarding the question on 712 about the deep forested buffer, she noted that
what is in the right-of -way she believed the county would be expected to maintain. Anything out of the
right-of -way would be expected to be maintained by the property owner.
Ms. Monteith noted that it was all very readable and the graphics are good. On the frontage map she
noticed that there are some large portions directly on 29 that are urban frontage. She wondered how
realistic that is. She asked if there would be traffic calming in that area so that cars would not necessarily
be going by at 55 miles per hour while other people are trying to sit in cafes and relax. That was just one
question she had about that and how that is going to really work out in reality. On the landscape
development frontage staff was trying to improve areas that are in transition, but it was not clear what
would happen to those areas in the long run. Staff talks about a condition while they are in transition, but
is there a determination or direction that staff wants them to achieve in the long run. On the boundary
map she found herself looking at the text and trying to relate where the Entrance Corridors were located
on the boundary map. She suggested adding one more legend item on the map where they highlight
where the Entrance Corridors are so that it is easier for the reader to make a relationship between the
text and the graphic.
Ms. Echols replied that on specific development proposals that had an urban frontage condition, like
Albemarle Place, staff tried to capture that in the plan. For the stretch of road from the interchange with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
4
Rio Road down to 250 they are to get a more pedestrian friendly stretch of road through there.
Ms. Wiegand noted that had been one of the issues staff really worked on with the consultants, especially
the transportation consultants. They are planning to put sidewalks on 29. They do plan that buildings will
come up to 29. But they are expecting that there also will be a lot of pedestrian traffic on the parallel and
perpendicular roads where they expect more of the centers to actually be located. So they may find
people walking up and down a sidewalk on 29 for a short distance. She would expect that, especially
when areas redevelop, that pedestrians are going to be spending more of their time on the parallel and
perpendicular roads going into and out of the centers there. The traffic on some of the side roads will
serve those centers so that US 29 will be more for through traffic. She was not sure that it was going to
be a 55 mile an hour road when it is finished. But it will be fast enough that it is something that they will
have to balance very carefully. For example, Ms. Echols mentioned the Albemarle Place development.
They would expect some pedestrian traffic around the outer edge of that dev elopment, but they would
certainly expect that there would be a lot more going on in the center. A place like that is designed so
that there are buildings set right up against the street, which has a streetscape, but it pulls people into the
middle to do all the things that are in the center of it. So staff would expect pedestrian activity to be more
internal to these sites than along 29. There will be sidewalks so if they want to be on 29 they can.
Ms. Echols said that the stretch along 29 between 250 and Rio where there are some fairly hefty
stretches of urban density is where road improvements are planned that would help create a more
pedestrian friendly environment. Speeds would be lower because traffic is starting to enter into the city.
Ms. Wiegand noted that the other question was the land development frontage and what happens in the
long run.
Ms. Echols felt that they were looking at right now was the first ten years of the plan. They would be
updating this over time as they see the redevelopm ent taking place. Right now they would not expect a
whole lot of change to take place. If change is occurring they would certainly want it to come into a more
urban appearance. But they would be reevaluating that in the next ten years.
Ms. Joseph did not support the forested buffer of 80’ or 100’ and thought that amount was too much. She
felt that the land in this area is extremely expensive and they were taking away a lot of useable space.
She could support the landscape development. But she also thinks that they are not being honest in
showing people that there is development behind there. There is light industrial behind there, etc. So
she can’t support that. The other thing as she was looking at the sections from the road where staff was
showing where the sidewalk was in relation to it. If they were going to take a big swath in some areas
she thought that the sidewalk should be closer into the property than to the right-of-way. What she was
reacting to was some of these areas where they slow down a little bit where the lights are and then speed
up further on.
Ms. Echols asked if they had an alternative width that she thinks would be appropriate.
Ms. Joseph said that she did not necessarily think that they should hide the buildings. She felt that they
should stick to our hard edge concept in that here is the end of the growth area and they were in the rural
areas now.
Ms. Echols asked if she meant on the boundary and not the frontage.
Ms. Joseph replied that she was talking about the frontage on 29, which was what staff was referring on
this map and calling it a forested buffer from the river all the way to the growth area. There are a couple
of areas where they have some orange shaded landscape development. She could not support that
because it was way too much land that they have in the growth area where they would have 100’ worth of
trees. She was not with staff on that concept.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out that the reason they have a forested buffer from roughly Polo Grounds Road
north almost up to Hollymead Town Center was that was requested by the community during their public
meetings. The public wanted to see that area preserved as looking rural. They also have it at the
northern end once you get out of the growth area. They can certainly look at the part that goes through
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
5
Piney Mountain and the northern part of Hollymead. But that green at the southern end of Hollymead is
there because the community requested it. That is why the 80’ to 100’ was requested.
Ms. Joseph noted that was a lot of area.
Ms. Echols said that staff and the applicant got into some difficult conversations with the North Pointe
project because the ARB asked for a buffer between the development and the Entrance Corridor.
Because the grade of 29 was so different at the r.o.w. than where development would take place on the
property, there was no easy way to create a face to the street. So rather than have the suburban look,
the ARB was recommending that that they have more of forested buffer look on parts of it. Staff, the
applicant and the ARB really struggled on what that width should be. They came up with 50’ that was the
minimum that the ARB was recommending. She understands what Ms. Joseph was saying, but noted
that there are some topographical challenges along 29 especially in this stretch. When they look north of
Airport Road, the commercial part has an urban frontage condition; however, a buffer probably is needed
adjacent to the residential development. A buffer may not be appropriate between there and Lewis and
Clark. But when one gets up towards Camelot, there are some pretty hilly areas. There are some places
where it may make some sense to have a forested buffer, but she understands what Ms. Joseph was
saying in terms of the width of it. Staff will try to recommend a different width to the Planning Commission
to look at in the future.
Mr. Joseph said that the current regulation is for a 30’ setback for a building and 10’ before being able to
start parking on sites. She wondered where the sidewalk is going to be the maintenance responsibility of
the property owner instead of the public.
Ms. Echols replied that in residential developments, the expectation is that maintenance begins past the
sidewalk on the individual property. In the nonresidential developments it may depend on what the
function of the sidewalk is. She deferred it to David Benish.
Mr. Benish replied that it will depend on where there are public road improvements. A sidewalk or trail for
the section from the river at Polo Grounds Road up to Ashwood would probably be built as part of the
widening of the road project. It would be within the right-of -way. It is our intention to get sidewalks within
the right-of -way. Up until very recently and the budget constraints of VDOT that has been the acceptable
approach. Mr. Benish thought that the County is going to have to gauge what improvements can be
done within a development project and what can be put within a public right-of -way. The County desires
to have it within the state right-of -way. In reality there will be sections that may be subject to a private
homeowner’s association or commercial association to maintain.
Ms. Joseph said that the County would have to think about what they want within that width. If within that
width these are private sidewalks, then that has to be taken into account. Then what type of landscaping
if they are looking at this landscaped buffer and then is it significant and do they want groupings of trees.
Then how much room do the trees need. She was not prepared to sit down right now and sketch
something out. She could do that, but not right now. So she did not know what number to provide at this
point in time. She thought that there was something less than 80’.
Mr. Loach felt that it was a good idea as the speed of the car was increased to increase the distance to
the bicyclist. By using the picture he felt that it was a good idea to separate the bicyclist from the high
speed cars. Then when the speed limit decreases the bicyclist could be merged back in like in the city
where they have the bicycle paths and they can get through. He agreed with Ms. Joseph that 80’ to 100’
was too much. Whatever was shown in the photo appeared to be a good idea, which was probably 20’ to
30’.
Mr. Strucko noted that the point was well taken that it may be too large.
Mr. Morris agreed that it was a lot of valuable property if it was between 80’ and 100’.
Mr. Franco agreed with Ms. Joseph and said that he was not sure that development needed to be
screened. He felt that softening it was important, but he was not sure that completely hiding it is a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
6
requirement in his mind. This still deals with the forested buffer condition. He was less concerned with
the value of real estate. He recognized that it was expensive, but that it was really back to whether they
were trying to screen and completely hide it or they were just trying to soften it. The other thing he would
comment on is from the frontage condition about how it might be appropriate for residential uses to have
a bigger buffer. He agreed with that statement, but thinks they ought to write this so it is a condition that
can be accommodated but isn’t prescribed for all conditions. The way this is written even if it is not a
residential use it is going to have that prescribed 80’ to 100’ buffer. He thought that it is more important to
outline the goal, which is to soften it but not necessarily screen it.
Mr. Strucko felt it was pretty sound advice. If it is the community that is really concerned about the
buffering he was looking at the stretch that was currently a cemetery and the residential areas of
Hollymead and Forest Lakes. He thought that was Mr. Franco suggested was pretty prudent. The intent
is to soften as a response to the community’s desires to have a buffer between a major roadway and a
residential area. As they look into the future of possibly decades of redevelopment that condition may
change along that section of the roadway.
Ms. Echols said that it is really important for staff to get guidance from the Commission on whether or not
there are any places that they really want to have a screen or a forested buffer. In the past there has
been a desire to have a fairly thick forested buffer in certain places to break up the appearance of the
corridor. The desire has been to have a change in the scenery and there is not so much suburban area.
She asked for guidance if they want more of a landscaped area and softening throughout that entire
stretch or if there really are places where i t is important to break up the appearance of continuous
development and see something that is not landscaped. It is really a manner of what the Commission
want s this stretch the road to look and feel like. Staff can accommodate it either way. If it is buffering staff
can bring something back to the Commission in terms of some different recommendations. For screening
they will need to have enough distance in there if they are going to use trees to have a stand that can be
established. It may not be 80’, but it is probably not 20.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was confused. Some residents put a lot of pressure early on in the process
that existing residential communities not be part of this plan. They did not want anything to change. He
felt that it was safe to say that this plan has responded to that. There is no suggestion to a parallel route
on the east side of 29, which was originally part of the earlier discussions. He was t rying to figure out
what it is staff is asking the Commission to propose if they are not allowed to interfere with what has been
developed already. He asked what sort of buffer staff was proposing.
Mr. Edgerton further said that staff is asking how wide this buffer should be, but the areas under
consideration are people’s backyards now. Most of the area from Polo Grounds Road up to the
Hollymead Town Center on the east side of 29 is already developed or not in the development area. He
was struggling to understand the proposal and the reasoning behind it.
Ms. Echols said that south of Forest Lakes South there is a stretch of road from Polo Grounds towards
Ashwood along 29 where there really is not any development right now. The question would be, should a
forested buffer be there or should there be more landscaping. Certainly, across at the more commercial
or multi-family residential area they already have more of a landscaped condition. Based on what the
Commission was saying, the staff should reevaluate what happens from Hollymead up to Timberwood on
the frontage of 29 and see whether or not that is something that should be perhaps more of a landscaped
development and less of a forested buffer. Similarly on the west side of the road there was some
discussion about the stretch of road from the river going north towards Hollymead Town Center. That is
something if the Commission thinks should have a landscaped buffer on that side the map can be
changed. She would like to bring more specifics back to the Commission with some recommendations
based on the Commission’s conversations tonight about how staff might be able to address their
concerns.
Mr. Strucko said that sounds like a good idea. He invited public comment on Chapter 7.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, asked staff to pull up the urban frontage slide.
The map includes Airport Road as urban frontage on both sides. He notes that it is adjacent to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
7
the new church and post office. There has been significant infrastructure spending. He knows
that they are looking for a long term plan. He was still trying to understand what plan. He heard
ten years tonight, but it was a 20 year plan. When he looks at the Six Year CIP there are really
not sidewalks that are approved to be budgeted to be built. He was trying to put all of that
together and was struggling to understand the idea.
Airport Road right now contains some pretty good light industrial uses. This Commission has
been concerned with light industrial uses and where they fit and don’t’ fit. The reality of airport
travel has ruined a number of businesses that had placed restaurants inside airports beyond the
gateways so that they could serve passengers and the folks traveling with them. They now have
difficulty making that work. He would suggest that the airport is a destination, but is not really a
destination that they leave from to go to the shops that are on Airport Road and then go back to.
So how that center really works is a question.
There is a question of Proffit Road and bringing that condition across 29 to Proffit Road. He
asked if this is what the residents and businesses want to see. When he looks at this he was
having some difficulty seeing this development occurring this way with this frontage. He could
see some of the other frontages working there. He was opposed to this frontage in some places,
but just picked out that one particular instance as a good example of would it work there and
where are the residential uses that feed into it along with the light industrial uses and how does it
all come together with the current uses. He asked what the residents and business owners in this
area think of this. He raised that as a question for discussion.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment section. He noted that
Mr. Williamson made a good point. He asked what the story was in designating urban frontage from the
airport across 29 to Proffitt. Neighborhood centers were designated in there.
Ms. Echols replied that the Airport was a district and major employment area. The uptown is a fairly large
area particularly on the north side of Ai rport Road that should have a distinctive frontage. The plan has
an expectation that this would be neighborhood friendly and oriented such that people from the airport
could walk to places to shop or eat along Airport Road. They would not want to have just a strict
industrial look along that entrance corridor.
Ms. Echols said the point is well taken that the County is trying to help the light industry and our industrial
properties along Airport Road. But Airport Road is still an Entrance Corridor. They need to have an
appearance and a walk able area along the entrance corridor. It is such a short stretch at least on the
north side between Airport Road and over to that industrial area. South of there they have an expectation
that they would have a Neighborhood Service Center in the center.
Ms. Echols said that there are businesses along Airport Road that are undergoing redevelopment. The
County has had several development proposals over the last ten years for properties that are closest to
the airport. There is a proposal coming soon for the office building on the south side of Airport Road
closest to the airport near the Deerwood Subdivision. Staff thought that a more urban look and feel was
more appropriate, but wants the Commission’s input.
Mr. Strucko noted that there was a significant investment of infrastructure to facilitate pedestrian activity.
It is more appealing now that staff has described it as an employment center where the people working
there during the day may want to move around on foot to do various things. That he could understand.
Ms. Echols noted that a small area plan is recommended for this particular area. Airport Road already
has sidewalks on it. There are some pieces in place already that they can build on, especially when they
work on the small area plan.
Mr. Loach noted that there was a mixture of residential and commercial in that area.
Mr. Strucko asked staff to present Chapter 4.
Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint Presentation on Chapter 4 primarily on the Land Use Tables and
Future Land Use Map. Staff described some of the changes made from the Commission’s direction
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
8
received at the March 31, 2009 work session on the maps and tables. At that work session the
Commission identified a series of directions and issues for staff. Staff has worked through the comments
and reduced them into five different issues. Staff reviewed the following five concerns in detail and made
changes in the maps and tables as outlined in the attached PowerPoint Presentation.
1. Concern about the mix of uses in multi-story buildings and adequate parking;
2. Open Space should not be just a fountain; need a minimum of 10% of each Center;
3. Interest in maximizing the amount of mixed use so that services are close to where people live;
4. Are two-story grocery stores (retail) feasible? Staff expanded that idea to include retail in
general.
5. Desire to avoid existing problems – such as large parking lots fronting the road – and how to
guide developers away f rom more suburban style centers.
Staff asked for guidance and direction from the Planning Commission on Chapter 4 maps and tables
changes.
Ms. Joseph raised some concern over adding the definition of “Flex” since it sounds like a regular old
manufacturing facility and everyone knows that is what it does.
Ms. Wiegand replied that they were asked to put light industrial into that mix by UREF. Staff felt it was an
appropriate thing to do because it fit within what UREF was looking for and they could see it in other
office research and development areas that are not in the research park but also in other areas.
Ms. Echols noted that flex is a current term used to describe both the use and space.
Ms. Joseph noted that if they get flex space then they can break down the walls as the company grows.
After discussion it was determined that redundancy was okay and the definition of flex would be left in
referencing flex space and flex use.
Ms. Joseph asked on page 4-7 – for more clarity under the Heavy Industrial list specificity on the impacts
regarding why staff thinks heavy industrial is more intense than light industrial by staff listing a couple of
examples.
Ms. Joseph noted that on page 4-8 under primary and secondary uses there was some confusion where
it said exemptions may be granted . . . and then it says examples include examples of neighborhood
retail. In reading the examples she said that it appeared to be part of the exemptions. Only primary uses
appear to be included.
Ms. Wiegand offered to clarify this section.
Ms. Joseph said that in the table it appeared that some of these are secondary uses in some of the
different categories.
Ms. Joseph said that on page 4-12 in the reference to moving and warehouse distribution, that it is sort of
an example, too, because some times moving businesses are not semis. Sometimes it is local persons
that have big trucks. She hoped that they would not expect for them to have to fit into this category.
Ms. Wiegand noted that this plan is for guidance. When they get into the specifics of what kind of truck
traffic they can have in which district that is a question for the zoning staff. Again, a person with one or
two trucks is going to be different from one of the big movers that might have 20 or more. That is a
decision that they have to make when they get into the particular proposal.
Ms. Joseph noted that on page 4-10 where they are talking about contractor’s office and storage yard in a
general commercial service does that reflect our current zoning ordinance, too. She could not remember.
Ms. Wiegand replied that she would check.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
9
Mr. Morris said that maybe they were stuck with one-story grocery stores and so forth. However being in
the Chester area at the junction of Route 1 and 10 there is an Ukrop of at least one and half stories with a
beautiful restaurants where one gets food downstairs and then goes upstairs and eats. Therefore, he
was not convinced that two stories should be eliminated for grocery stores and retail.
Ms. Joseph questioned what happened on page 4-24 in the last sentence. It appeared to have
something missing.
Ms. Wiegand agreed that on page 4-24 regarding semi-open space the very last sentence is not finished.
Staff will fix the sentence and expand it to be clearer. It should read, “These slopes should be considered
when the property is redeveloped.” Staff is concerned about open space when development proposals
come in and wants to make sure that as often as possible it is preserved, which is what the sentence is
trying to say.
Mr. Franco expressed a concern in understanding how the neighborhood retail service is going to work,
especially at Westfield. He offered to review staff’s sketch and offer some suggestions. The concern was
about how they were going to ex ecute this or how they are giving direction to people, especially in
redevelopment on how to create or prioritize things. The question was raised how the street is supposed
to feel as it redevelops since the properties are owned by different owners. The ten percent open space is
reasonable, but he was not sure when they have redevelopment across a number of different properties
with different property owners how they are going to create meaningful open space without some kind of
coordination. It is going to be difficult. So it starts to say they are going to force the developer to buy the
whole street in order to execute a plan that is meaningful there. He still had concerns about how the
street is supposed to feel as it redevelops. One of the things in their calculations and he would not mind
sitting down outside of this venue and going through it. It did not include setback yards, which is a pretty
big number. It is probably 8,000 square feet if it is just 10’ on the side, front and back. Typically they are
a little larger in places. He knew they were talking about going to a different model, but those numbers
start to add up. As a rule of thumb in the past they have used 12,000 for office per acre. He thought that
staff was at 20,000 and is getting a lot more on the land than they are.
Ms. Wiegand suggested that staff would be pleased to work with Mr. Franco on sketches and diagrams.
Ms. Echols said staff would welcome the opportunity to sit down and work through the Westfield example.
Staff has spent a lot of time on it, but it is not fleshed out.
Mr. Franco offered to assist, but did not want to get into the graphics too much.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it was hard to wrap your mind around the abstract in the presentation on the
geometry of dev eloping changes going from one to two stories and the parking. The ideal thing would be
if all of the owners get together to come in and redeveloped it. He agreed with Mr. Franco’s concern
about how the master plan deals with the specific area in Westfield which is under separate ownerships
and how the multiple owners can fill in the pieces of a long range plan and make it realistically happen.
Mr. Franco noted that if it was only 200’ deep can it do all this or should the boundary be extended out or
brought back in. That is important to understand. It is important to understand how the massing will work
as it goes vertical.
Ms. Echols noted that on page 4-24 that the issues were introduced, but it may not be clear enough. It
says provisions of parks and open space will be more challenging in the redevelopment of centers.
Parcel by parcel development may not afford opportunities for large civic areas. In this event at least 10
percent of the area to be redeveloped should be devoted to civic uses. But, where a large public amenity
such as a county park is already within walking distance of the center and pedestrian access will be
provided to the amenity, the required open space may be reduced or even eliminated. But where an
amenity is provided, it needs to correspond to the needs generated by the development. For example, if
the property is to be developed as a retail use without any residential uses perhaps a plaza is more
suitable than a public park one-half mile away. Staff is trying to accommodate those concerns,
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
10
recognizing that the redevelopment could take place parcel by parcel. Or, it could come in as several
parcels being redeveloped together. Or it could even be larger than that. The benefit of the Shopper’s
World example was that it was all under a single ownership and they could see how that could more
easily be redeveloped. In the Westfield example it is a little more confusing because of the size of the
parcels. Staff will work with the Commission on that to make it clearer.
Ms. Monteith noted the following concerns for staff to think about.
In review of Albemarle Square’s phasing example it appears that this is a community center and it
is not fulfilling the green park piece. Therefore, if they use that an example they probabl y want to
use an example that shows that. If they don’t know if this is a 10-, 15-, or 20-year development
time line there should be some way to try to get that green space in the development on the early
side so they would have a much better opportunity for it to be a central focus in the space.
On page of 4-24 a lot of the text makes sense, but the only concern was the option that it could
be reduced or eliminated. Another way to look at that would be to require it but to land bank it
some where.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment on Chapter 4 of Places29.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, handed out tax revenue data that has been released by the
Chamber of Commerce. The Virginia Department of Taxation sales tax data was compiled with W ither
Cooper showed retail sales during the first quarter of 2009 compared to the first quarter of 2008 that they
were down in Albemarle County by 12.78 percent. They were down in Charlottesville by 13.59 percent
and Augusta County by 21.9 percent. But retail sales rose in Green County by 10.62 percent. It rose in
Louisa County by 38.13 percent and in Waynesboro by 10.35 percent. He felt that it is important to
recognize that the change in sales revenue has an impact on the county’s financial condition. The
Planning Commission does not sway over 100 percent of the issues involved with sales tax and why
things are moving to other places and opportunities that are arising in other localities. However, it is
important information when they consider the current conditions, which is one of the things that they
consider in comprehensive plans. On page 4 – 3 there is a segment that says changes from the existing
use to the new use designated in the master plan are expected to be driven by the real estate market and
decisions made by property owners and developers. He was not certain that it was correct or incorrect,
but would suggest that reality says that the implementation of regulations that support this comprehensive
plan change will also have an impact on the implementation of this plan. He thinks that it is important to
recognize that the chart that is included with the packet talks about footprints that one segment talks
about a building footprint over 20,000 square feet. That is a decision that this Commi ssion has clearly
made. He was not convinced yet that is the decision that the general public is fully supportive of. He
thought that staff’s explanation on the slide with regard to the need to move it to two stories in order to get
20,000 square feet was an excellent example of the challenges that development faces. He thought that
it would be helpful to know the cost associated with going to two stories. There has been significant
discussion of structured parking. It is important to note the cost of pedestal parking or structured parking
which enters into the cost of any development program. He wanted that part of the equation to be part of
the discussion because this Commission has said that if they want to come to Albemarle they are going to
do it our way. These numbers suggest that some folks are moving out of Albemarle and sales tax is going
with it.
There being no further public comment on Chapter 4 of Places29, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment
section and bring it back to the Commission f or additional comments and questions. He asked staff if the
Commission had addresses all of the issues tonight and did they get a clear sense of direction.
Ms. Echols and Ms. Wiegand replied yes that staff had received clear direction.
Mr. Strucko said that in looking at Mr. Williamson's figures he would have to agree in part that certainly
there has been some sale’s tax increases if he was reading these charts correctly in adjacent
communities. That could suggest that there has been an increase in comm ercial activities there. But
another thing he would note on these numbers is that Albemarle County is over the one million dollar
mark monthly in sales tax revenue whereas Green is not even at $100,000 monthly. They may be at a
different capacity in terms of our commercial activity than Green is, but Green has the ability to grow
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
11
much more quickly than Albemarle does. But that is just one element of interpretation here and he would
like to just add that.
Ms. Wiegand asked that they go over the tables at the suggestion of Ms. Joseph.
Ms. Joseph said that in LU2 looking under office, HI includes retail uses. She was seeing that they are
saying okay to go and use retail in those designations and wondering if staff thought about putting any
limitations on that.
Ms. Wiegand replied that they had talked about a maximum. They had not put one here because this is
intended to be guidance. Staff was concerned if they put in too specific a number for some of these
things that it may make it difficult if a developer’s proposal was slightly larger than 15 percent. If the
commission would like to put a specific number in, staff would be happy to do it.
Ms. Joseph asked how it works if one comes in with a piece of property designated in the comp plan as
light industrial and looks in this and it says retail uses. Since it is in a center they could do the retail use.
Mr. Strucko noted that it would be cheaper to purchase a light industrial zoned property to do retail versus
retail zoned property.
Ms. Wiegand noted that the key word in the box on the table is “incidental.” In other words, they could
only have retail as a part of the primary use in that area. In other words it would be a showroom or, if
someone developed an office park, they could put in a restaurant or a small office supply store. But the
retail or commercial has to be incidental to the primary use.
Ms. Joseph asked that staff put that as the first bullet.
Ms. Wiegand said that retail is incidental to primary use in this designation.
Mr. Edgerton asked that it be the first bullet in light industrial and heavy industrial. It says retail uses are
encouraged to locate and centers may be located around centers by exception. He thought that Ms.
Joseph’s suggestion would apply to both of those columns and was a good suggestion.
Ms. Joseph acknowledged that staff had convinced her that stories were better than height.
In summary, the Planning Commission made comments and suggestions, but took no formal action.
Old Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business.
Don Franco read the following statement into the record:
“Earlier this year after accepting appointment to the Planning Commission I wanted it to be known that I
resigned as a Director of both the Blue Ridge Home Builder Association and the Free Enterprise Forum. I
stepped back from my leadership role in these organizations because of the required time commitments
and to help ensure that as a Planning Commissioner I was equally accessible to all citizens and to help
ensure that I could be reached by the Rio District residents as well. I continue to be a supporter of
organizations which provide critical analysis and promote honest dialogue in educated decisions.
Late last week the Planning Commission issued a public decision regarding comments which
accompanied the release of the Free Enterprise Forum’s Places 29 Reality Report. I regret that I was out
of town and did not participate in the Commission’s discussions. For the record I support the use of
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
12
current dollars when analyzing financial requirements of Places29 and I fully support the Planning
Commission’s public statement.
That said I wanted to encourage the community to move forward and review and adopt a transportation
and land use plan which not only addresses our future vision for this area, but has an implementable
framework as well. I wanted to make that known because there was some discussion about my role in
some of these other organizations.”
Mr. Strucko thanked Neil Williamson for the comments he made earlier in the meeting. He felt that at this
point they should just simply move forward and continue as been with a very constructive relationship.
There are multiple opinions even among the Planning Commission. They do benefit from active
community participation from the business community, environmentalists, homeowner associations and
regular citizens. He was glad that they have settled their disagreements and can continue with a
constructive dialogue moving forward. He thanked Mr. Franco and Mr. Williamson. As an individual
Commissioner he was ready to push forward.
New Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business. There being none, the meeting moved to the next
item.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:49 p.m. to the Tuesday, June 23, 2009 meeting at 6:00
p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JUNE 16, 2009
13
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 14, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on
Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield,
Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community
Development; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development, David Benish, Chief of Planning; Elaine Echols,
Principal Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner, and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Committee Reports:
Mr. Strucko invited committee reports from the Commissioners.
Ms. Joseph reported that the MPO Tech Committee met. They were given a presentation on a
reader response to a survey on transit. Mr. Benish offered to email the PowerPoint presentation.
Mr. Morris reported that the Pantops Master Plan Steering Committee has had two meetings
since the open house. They will meet again on Thursday.
Ms. Porterfield reported that the Historic Preservation Committee met and now has 12 members.
They are working with demolition permits to at least have time to survey some of the historic
structures that might be getting ready to be torn down.
Mr. Strucko reported he was a member of the Albemarle County school system’s Long Range
Planning Advisory Committee. One of the more prominent issues the committee has been
working on is the proposal to consolidate three of the elementary schools in the county--Redhill,
Yancey and Scottsville--into a single larger elementary school. There has been some significant
debate and discussion within both the committee and the public about whether or not this is a
good idea.
There being no other committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted that he appreciated Ms. Joseph raising the transit
survey. He encouraged the Commission to review the survey with what he would call a careful eye.
There are actually three different surveys internal to the transit survey. One was conducted on the bus as
part of the annual survey done with the transit riders. There was a second portion that was a handout
pamphlet of self -selected folks, and the third involved telephone calls. After reviewing the questions, he
spoke to the MPO and they did change one of the questions because he found it to be leading and they
concurred. He thought that the surveys were well done, but as always with surveys he just encourages
the Commission to take a good hard look at the data sources. Ridership for transit is up over the last
year, which has to do a lot with increased services provided by CTS especially to the UVA students
showing their ID and being able to get on for free as well as the GPS bus locator system. Also and not to
a small degree, last year at the beginning of the fiscal year ridership was affected by the $4.00 a gallon
cost of gasoline. He thought that all of this combined make the transit system work well in areas that
have the density to support it.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
2
There being no further speakers, the meeting moved to the next item.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes – November 11, 2008 & December 9, 2008 and April 21, 2009
Mr. Strucko asked if any Commissioner would like to pull this item from the consent agenda.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Work Sessions:
Places 29, Chapter 8 The Planning Commission reviewed the revised Chapter 8, Implementation of the
draft Places29 Master Plan, as a follow-up to their discussions of the chapter on March 31, 2009 and April
14, 2009. Staff presented the three parts of the Chapter: the text, the List of Implementation Projects, and
Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions. (Judy Wiegand)
Lee Catlin summarized the public review plan for Places29 Master Plan. (Attachment A)
The Commission and staff have already gone through a very substantial and engaged public participation
process for Places29. It resulted in a lot of comments, suggestions and items that have shaped and
influenced the plan very significantly. Staff and the Commission realize that it has been quite some time
since the material has been in front of the public for review. So staff wants to talk to the Commission
about the public participation tonight since they feel that is a very critical and important step.
In thinking about the public review plan and what they are hoping to accomplish with it, staff feels this
really is an opportunity to reintroduce the Places29 Master Plan both to those people who were engaged
with the plan during the process of a year or two ago. Also the current public review provides an
opportunity for people who are new to the area or who may not have been involved the first time around
to become familiar with the Places29 Master Plan. Staff wants to review the significant changes with the
public that have been made since the first public participation process. Staff also wants to show how
public input has been influencing and shaping the plan. One of the very fundamental parts of a public
process involving asking people what they think is to report back on how that input shaped, influenced or
is reflected in the plan or, conversely, why the input was not used.
It is also very important to share future opportunities for public involvement. Staff used the word ―review‖
instead of ―participation‖ very carefully in this plan because staff does not see this as an opportunity right
now to go out and really roll up their sleeves and put things back out on the table and have a lot of back
and forth. The Commission has heard the public’s earlier participation and now has done significant work
on it. Staff looks at this as an opportunity to educate the public regarding this work in preparation for the
next public hearing by the Commission.
Based on the Chapter 8 implementation plan being wrapped up this evening, staff envisions the future
timetable to be as follows:
August 11 - Places29 Master Plan draft presented to the Planning Commission and released to the
public for review.
August 11 – September 15 – Public review activities including providing opportunities in a variety of
venues for people to become familiar with the material. There is an extensive list in the staff report about
the materials that staff would provide in a variety of venues including public open houses, website,
materials placed in the community through the libraries and being available to any groups or
neighborhoods that might want a more personal discussion of the plan.
September 15 – Check in with the Planning Commission to confirm public hearing.
September 15 – October 13 – Continued public review activities.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
3
October 13 – Tentative date for Planning Commission public hearing to get public reaction to the draft
plan.
Ms. Catlin pointed out they wouldn’t really be soliciting a lot of feedback on September 15--they would be
directing the input it toward the public hearing. If staff heard a lot of interest, comment or concern about a
particular issue, they would certainly present that issue to the Commission on September 15. Having
been made aware of specific public issues with the Places29 Master Plan draft on September 15,
hopefully the Commission would feel ready to go ahead with the public hearing.
Ms. Joseph asked what staff’s expectation was for the August 11 meeting. She asked if the draft
Places29 Master Plan would be released so that the Commission can read it and prepare comments or is
the meeting to be a work session.
Ms. Catlin suggested that Ms. Wiegand and Mr. Benish could give more detail, but she believed that
August 11 will be a walk through for the Commission to be introduced to the document. Then the
Commission will have the month as will the public to really look through what is there.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out that staff wanted to present the document to the Commission on August 11 and
walk them through it, talking about some of the issues that have arisen over the past few months and
answering any questions. Then basically as Ms. Catlin noted, the Commission would have the next
month to look at the document.
Ms. Catlin noted that in the September 15 through October 13 period, staff would continue public review
activities to make people as familiar as possible with the plan. Then October 13, if all goes according to
the schedule, would be the Planning Commission’s opportunity to hear back from the public for the first
time in a long time about what their reaction is to the draft plan. Basically, the outcome of this review
process is that stakeholders, citizens, businesses, special interest groups or whomever that consider
themselves to be interested in Places29 would have ample opportunity to review and understand the
basic concepts of the Places29 master plan prior to the public hearing so that they could come to the
Commission with informed and up-to-date comments on the plan itself. This is an overview of what was
in the staff report. Staff is present to answer any questions and for any suggestions or comments that the
Commissioner might have.
Ms. Joseph asked what the process would be to receive comments from the public once this document is
released on August 11. She asked if staff would put the information on the website or broadcast an
email.
Ms. Catlin replied that staff would encourage the public to take that time to get familiar with the
information and then bring their comments to the Commission at the public hearing. That would be the
goal. If somebody is not able to be at the public hearing or is not comfortable with that venue, staff can
set up an email and comments can be forwarded to the Commission. Optimally, all comments should be
funneled into a public hearing venue.
Mr. Benish pointed out that on August 11 staff will be coming to the Commission with what the PC
requested regarding an expansion area to the southern end of the Hollymead Development Area. The
proposal for that expansion area will be drafted for August 11. If the Commission sees issues as to how
that is presented to the public, staff may need a few extra days to get that straightened out so that the
public sees what the Commission wants. That issue might make the official release date of the Places 29
Master Plan a few days later. An alternative is to keep this expansion area completely separate, send out
the current draft and then send this out as a possible alternative.
Ms. Catlin noted they don’t want to short change the public’s opportunity to look at material that they have
not seen. That issue is pretty massive and complex. Essentially they would have two months by this
schedule to do as thorough a job as possible to give people that opportunity. The Commission would
check the progress about a month into the schedule to see if they feel that staff is on track with it and to
confirm the public hearing date for October.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
4
Ms. Porterfield asked if the public process involves the business community.
Ms. Catlin replied absolutely.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff was going to have specific meetings with the business community. She
asked if staff would enlist the Chamber of Commerce for help in determining those businesses in the
Places29 corridor that employ the 40 percent supposedly of all Albemarle County’s work force. She
asked if staff was going to work with those businesses.
Ms. Catlin replied definitely. Staff will be doing some selective outreach to some of those groups. They
have the next couple of weeks before August 11 to speak with Mr. Williamson and other folks about the
best way to make that happen. They would be doing some proactive things and also be responsive to
any group who says they would really like somebody to come and talk to them or who would like a
meeting at the County building. That opportunity is always available.
Ms. Porterfield noted that Ms. Joseph forwarded the email from the Chamber of Commerce. The
Chamber of Commerce is obviously not in sync on a number of issues. She asked if staff was going to
go out and truly work with them because the Chamber is not supportive of pieces of this plan.
Ms. Catlin replied that at this point the intent would be to reflect back to the public, including the business
community, the direction that the Planning Commission has given as to where the plan stands. It is really
a communication directed to understanding the plan and encouraging any member of the public, business
community or anybody, if they are still not satisfied by what they see that the public hearing is the
opportunity to express concerns to the Commission.
Ms. Joseph noted that Ms. Porterfield came into this process in the middle. When the Commission first
started working with this, staff met with stakeholders. She suggested that an explanation be given as to
who the different stakeholders were because there were different elements of the community that staff
met specifically with and talked about this. She thought that the business community was part of that.
Ms. Catlin replied that was correct and offered to share some of that background with Ms. Porterfield
since she was not here during those several years of meetings. But the business community and some
folks in the audience were part of stakeholder groups that met to review the material as it came from the
consultant and to have a chance to comment on it and become familiar with it. Staff certainly would
continue that conversation. She did not want to set up the expectation that this is going to be a lot of
back and forth right now because staff’s feeling is that the Commission has made changes and
suggestions and given staff direction. Now the public needs to react back to the Commission.
Mr. Morris asked if they need to kick start this again because there seems to be a lot of apathy on the part
of the community along the Places29 corridor. That is troubling because the Commission put so much
work into this. They have seen the attendance dribble. He thought that there should have been quite a
few people here tonight. Last week the Commission had 40 people at a public hearing. He would just
love to see staff get the public more involved.
Ms. Catlin said that staff certainly needs to do another campaign to get the visibility back up. One of the
reasons staff continued the public process into October is that an August time period is deadly for people.
But staff did not want to wait and not get started. Hopefully, the proposed dates will give the opportunity
to get people interested and aware again of the plan.
Mr. Franco agreed that people are just tired and have not been reengaged as part of the process. The
unveiling of the plan may start to stir the interest especially once they understand how their previous input
has been taken and dealt with. He thought that they were going through the right steps.
Mr. Edgerton asked if other Commissioners share his concern that the Places29 Master Plan is going to
be an awful lot of information to digest in one public hearing. He questioned if there was an alternative
way to do this. October 13 is going to be a long night if the Commission tries to go through all eight
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
5
chapters of this plan and take public comment. He was trying to be realistic about how effective that can
be and whether it might make more sense to think of doing it in pieces.
Ms. Catlin replied that was a good point. From hearing his concern, staff can give some thought to
whether they break the plan up or exactly how they make it so that the public hearing is a manageable
opportunity.
Mr. Edgerton said that it would be nice if there was a period of time during which hopefully the
reengagement would take place. There might be an opportunity to have additional work sessions during
this period that would then lead up to the public hearing if there were particular issues. He would hate to
be sitting here at 1 a.m. on October 13 trying to make a decision after having heard a lot of input they had
not heard previously due to apathetic response in recent work sessions. The m ajority of the folks who
live in that corridor are not here, and they are the ones that need to be participating in this process.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff has thought about releasing the draft and then and holding a Planning
Commission meeting in one of the neighborhood schools such as Hollymead Elementary. She also
suggested that the Planning Commission could hold meetings in several different places.
Mr. Benish said that once the Commission agrees to this concept, staff can figure out how to best go into
the Places29 neighborhood to hold one or more public hearings.
Mr. Edgerton said it might make sense to have multiple public hearings and then have the grand finale in
the County building to assemble all of the information.
Mr. Benish noted that staff did not anticipate the Commission to entertain an action after the public
hearing, but that a public hearing on the documents is required to meet the legal requirement. He
assumed they could adopt sections of the plan, but that multiple meetings set up geographically could be
considered.
Ms. Catlin noted that staff’s thought was that the Commission has had the document and deliberated on it
for so long without hearing from the public that staff wanted to provide an opportunity to let the public into
the process at this point. Staff can certainly look at some ways to do that so it does not feel
overwhelming.
Mr. Benish said that staff assumed that there would be a follow up work session based on information
provided at the public hearing.
Mr. Edgerton clarified that staff was anticipating a public hearing where the Commission would not be
expected to make a final decision about a recommendation to the Board and then follow that up with a
series of work sessions that would hopefully address the concerns brought up.
Mr. Benish said that based on what the Commission decides to do, they may potentially need to do
another public hearing or the Commission can provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors
with changes to the draft that went out to the public. The Board of Supervisors will then start this process
all over again with the public hearings. He noted that there are a number of steps for public input in the
process.
Mr. Strucko recommended making it as convenient as possible for the people that live in the Places29
neighborhoods by holding the public meeting or a remote event in Southernland or Hollymead Elementary
Schools. In the past, the Commission did it for Biscuit Run and the Crozet Master Plan.
Ms. Catlin agreed that was a great idea.
Mr. Franco asked to be informed regarding who was meeting with special interest groups since he would
like to attend. If it is a group of residents or business owners in his district, he would probably attend to
hear directly from them .
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
6
Ms. Catlin said she would be happy to notify the Commission of any schedule of any meetings.
Ms. Catlin noted that at the September check-in, an adjustment can be made if needed.
Ms. Joseph offered that her email address be given out to the public in order to answer questions
between the August and September meetings.
Ms. Catlin agreed, noting that staff does not want to offer the expectation that people’s comments at this
point in time are going to create a change to the plan because staff feels that has to come at the public
hearing where the Commission will direct staff based on what is heard.
Ms. Catlin left the meeting at 6:34 p.m.
Mr. Benish gave a brief presentation about the revisions to the three parts of Chapter 8, Implementation.
The changes made resulted from the last work session in May. The Places29 plan is a vision plan
that really is a build-out scenario or long-term vision plan, which is different than this implementation
plan which is a 20-year program for improvements that are needed within the corridor. Staff
welcomes comments if there are concerns about the Chapter 8 modifications based on the Planning
Commission’s input.
Text changes
o Emphasized that the Places29 Plan establishes an ultimate vision for and future condition
while the Implementation Chapter notes improvements/initiatives needed to be undertaken
in the next 20 years (page 8-1).
o Modified ―Western Bypass‖ comments (page 8-3).
o Clarified relationship between Priority Areas and Small Area Plans (page 8-4).
o Expanded description of the 29H250 and Hillsdale Drive improvements (page 8-5).
o Added paragraph (page 8-7) to emphasize relationship and timing of transportation projects.
o Clarifications of priority and non-priority areas (pages 8-7 and 8-10).
o Clarification/explanation of cost estimates (page 8-10).
o Clarification of future Master Plan review (page 8-17).
o Revised List of Implementation Projects (tables at back of Chapter 8) and new appendix
providing detailed information on projects.
o List of implementation Projects – Simplified to make more readable, user friendly (details of
projects moved to Implementation Project Descriptions (Appendix 2). Also added notes to
explain purpose and use of List.
o Appendix 2, Implementation Project Descriptions.
o New; provides more detail about projects, including illustrations.
o Further fine tuning/adjustments/clarifications for final draft.
To clarify the cost estimate methodology, staff did update the numbers to fiscal year 2011, which is
the first full year that they anticipate after the adoption of the plan. (Staff hopes the plan is adopted in
FY 09-10.)
As staff works through this leading up to August 11, staff still sees some fine-tuning points that they
would like to continue to add. Most of these are not substantive changes. As staff continues to read
the draft, they can continue to think of more clarity which they can put to the project. Staff wants to
ensure that they are clear in what their priorities are and what the essential projects are. Therefore,
staff has some additional comments to add to the list that make it clearer what the priorities are. Staff
will continue to make those changes.
There are two project areas or project descriptions that staff will be giving the Commission on August
11. One item that was not identified in the Places29 Plan is some of the secondary road
improvements already prioritized in the Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. Profit Road has been
prioritized as a road improvement for a number of years. It is prioritized after Jarman’s Gap, but was
not identified in this document. Proffit Road has long been a priority project, and staff wants to make
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
7
sure that it is noted in the plan. Staff has also caught several other projects like that and wants to
make sure f or clarity purposes are identified in the Appendix.
Today staff received better descriptions of the utility improvements from the Service Authority and
will add that clarity to the document as well. There will be a few pieces of new information, but no
new major issues. It is just clearer language than what is in the document right now.
In regards to the Master Plan structure, staff noted that Appendix 2, Implementation Project
Descriptions is new and provides more detail about projects, including illustrations. There will also be
an Appendix X, General Design Guidelines for Development Areas that will cover some of the
general design guidelines for all of the County’s Development Areas. That appendix will not be part
of Places29. It will be an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan, and staff will be working on it over
the next year or two.
Tonight staff requests feedback and comments from the Commission on Chapter 8 for changes to
the text for August 11.
Mr. Strucko asked for comments from the Commission regarding Chapter 8 starting at page 1.
Mr. Loach thought the report was frank but not telling on certain aspects. In other words, it says many of
the projects are also dependent on funding that may not be available for several years. He thought that
was the way to go so as not to set up false expectations for the public since it depends on funding that
might not be available for years. He would hope that this would also be included in the presentation so
that there are no false expectations like Jarman’s Gap Road that they have been waiting on for over a
decade. At some point he would like to see percentages if at all possible. Including the percentage of the
funding they don’t know where it would be coming from in the presentation would be helpful. In addition
in Appendix 2 it would be helpful to identify what staff thinks the percentages are for how much will be
publicly funded and privately funded for each project that lists both sources. So essentially they would see
the estimated costs and the responsible party/developer with a ballpark figure of what would be the public
and private expectations for cost within the plan. He questioned if staff was still satisfied with the data
that says the W estern Bypass would not serve more than 20 percent at best of the traffic.
Mr. Benish replied that staff thought that data was still accurate. That is the data staff has available.
Mr. Loach noted that it seems the Commission is being pushed from different places to reexamine that. If
this is the data that is still good, he felt that was important.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff has any concept how much truck traffic is included in the Rte. 29 North
figures.
Mr. Benish replied that there was an estimate of truck traffic.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that would be useful information if the road is going to get a lot of the
commercial traffic.
Mr. Morris pointed out when the Commission started this whole planning process for Places29, this
Commission requested that the Western Bypass not be considered. Staff was initially looking at
considering it. The MPO and Board of Supervisors pulled it off the table. The Commission requested
staff and the consultants not to consider it.
Mr. Edgerton noted that it is a little more complicated. In the email from the Chamber of Commerce
shared by Ms. Joseph, there is no question that the Chamber wants the Bypass instead of the grade-
separated intersections. Right now VDOT is working on a US 29 Corridor Study and is still considering as
of yesterday using the southern portion of the former Western Bypass, which has been abandoned by the
County, for a parallel route. VDOT is getting a lot of encouragement from the Chamber for using this. As
Mr. Edgerton understands, the Bypass would come off Route 29 at Hydraulic and go to the west and use
a lot of the land that has already been purchased and would come back in and reconnect with the Route
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
8
29/250 Bypass. Frankly this continues to be a political football. In reading this draft, he did not think
there was a strong enough statement regarding the Western Bypass. He felt that it was an ill-conceived
idea and would not do any good at all. It would run right behind Albemarle High School and would not
work.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the email pointed out that the right-of -way had been acquired and X amount of
money has been stockpiled for the Western Bypass whereas this draft plan has none. When adding up
this money needed for the Places29 plan, it is a huge number. She asked if they truly needed to deep six
the Western Bypass.
Mr. Strucko noted that one interest group is bringing the issue back. From the debate 15 years ago, he
reiterated that it is a roadway that destroys neighborhoods. It is a Bypass that by-passes nothing. It
crosses the reservoir and comes close to a middle school and high school. The By pass is designed for
through traffic not carried on 29 now. He did not think that this road serves the purpose of
accommodating through truck traffic that is trying to get to Danville. This project has been debated for
decades and because the MPO pulled the money, it is a dead project. He felt that as a community, they
need to move on. He agreed with Mr. Edgerton that there needs to be a stronger statement.
Mr. Edgerton noted that the Place 29 Master Plan might be in conflict with the VDOT’s ongoing Route 29
Corridor Study unless we were very clear about how the Planning Commission feels about VDOT’s
further consideration of a western bypass through Albemarle County. VDOT’s study is attempting to turn
the 29 Corridor into a third North/South corridor in Virginia (in addition to Route 95 and Route 81). One of
the strong statements in the plan, which VDOT advocates, is limiting access onto the 29 Corridor.
Regarding the truck traffic question, truck traffic was a small piece of the through traffic. Historically, there
had been an agreement (about 20 years ago) that a Bypass would only be considered after the Meadow
Creek Parkway had been built, after the grade separator interchanges have been built. If it was still
needed at that point then it would be considered. That was agreed to by the City, County and University.
The only party that has held firmly to the agreement was the County.
Mr. Benish noted that staff has a copy of that resolution.
Mr. Loach noted that in this plan the grade-separated interchanges are based on the policy that came
down from the Board of Supervisors. That is why they are in this plan. The Commission is responding to
the policy in the plan. The plan has been vetted through the public process and needs to go through the
final process.
Mr. Edgerton questioned if it would be appropriate to include the resolution. He felt that a stronger
statement should be made regarding the history of what the Board has said and what the county’s
position is.
Mr. Benish noted that staff could look at what they feel clarifies the history of decision-making on this
issue by giving a chronology or history of decision making. That might be a way to give some strength to
this section. Also the truck numbers can be added. He was a little worried about jumping the gun on the
29 North Corridor Study analysis of what they are doing. Staff has not gotten a full picture of it yet. But
the consultants have given staff some understanding of what they are looking at. They are not looking at
a full Bypass, but actually looking at two tandem improvements. There is a variation on the theme for the
interchanges at Hydraulic Road and Emmett Street as one of the ways to balance the traffic on 29 North.
Again grade separations are involved just like the Places29 plan calls for, but also it involves extending
the parallel road concept all the way into the North Grounds. He was not sure that they have a Bypass in
mind. He understands the concern that the alignment being used and what it may involve into means that
they need to continue to be clear about what staff and the Commission’s expectations are about the
Bypass. Until they actually see the new concept, they just need to be clear on what the history is of the
Bypass.
Mr. Edgerton said that this is not a strong enough statement based on the history of the County’s position
of the so-called Western Bypass. He liked staff’s idea of referencing some of the history. He suggested
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
9
rather than restating it, they provide a chronology and the final determination made by the Board against
using this Bypass including all of the reasons.
Mr. Strucko agreed that writing the history in the document would show that there has been long-standing
policy and agreement on this issue since the document was signed in 1992 by the university, county and
city. The inclusion of this history would show that while there may be lingering opinions about this issue,
the argument did not prevail back when it was duly considered. There seems to be a strong enough
opinion on this Commission still that that particular view should not prevail.
Mr. Benish noted that the agreement is 19 years old, but identifies the history of the Bypass up to the
most recent information and where the community is in regard to the Bypass.
Mr. Strucko noted that the Board would review this document, and it would be appropriate to ask them to
review the policy. The Commission has the ability to make recommendations on changes to policy to the
Board.
Mr. Franco suggested leaving it as is to get out to the public to solicit comments. He was not here when
the process started on Places29, but it is his understanding that the Places29 study was directed not to
study it. He would hate to have to bring in all of those components to qualify it. Therefore, he suggested
that the draft be moved forward and those discussions could come out in the public hearing in October.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that it was her understanding that this was looked at one more time by the
consultants.
Mr. Benish replied that the consultants evaluated previous information and looked at what the implication
of certain linkages would be. But they did not remodel the Bypass.
Ms. Joseph noted that it was considered. She said that Mr. Morris was right that when it came before the
Commission initially, they all asked that it be removed completely. At that point, VDOT said no because
they had an investment in the Bypass and they wanted it still in there and would take this under
consideration and use the information they have to compare with other routes and other improvements.
So it has been something that the Commission has looked at.
Mr. Benish noted that staff used the information they had. Additional funding was not spent on detailed
assessment. They used the prior information that was available and compared it to the impacts they saw
through modeling and an arrangement that was consistent with the MPO’s direction not to have a Bypass.
Ms. Joseph agreed. She noted that it was important for everyone to realize that not all of the properties
have been acquired.
Mr. Benish pointed out that he believed there has not been any money stockpiled for construction.
Ms. Joseph favored putting the chronology in so that people will understand how the Commission got to
this point and how they came to this conclusion. It is important that this Commission not seek public input
so much but to listen to the public and say they are not in favor of the Western Bypass.
Mr. Benish reiterated that the emphasis he heard was to place the chronology in and summarize the
position on the Bypass as a definite sort of conclusion.
Mr. Loach asked that the conclusion be included based on the data on the part of the county.
Ms. Monteith suggested that the resolution needs to be pointed out with a statement at the conclusion of
the chronology.
Mr. Edgerton asked where this resolution resides.
Mr. Benish replied that technically the resolution resides in the Clerk’s Office.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
10
Mr. Edgerton suggested that the resolution be an addendum and referenced as being the position of the
county in 1992 which has not changed. That way the public can read it for themselves. This plan is for
the whole community and not just the businesses along Route 29 North.
Ms. Porterfield noted that by including this documentation, it at least gives the Places 29 Master Plan a
reason for advocating grade separations and not something else. The reader could understand the
history.
Mr. Loach suggested adding the LOSs for the worst intersections – the ones that are failing now or will fail
in the near future. The Plan should indicate where the failures will occur without the improvements listed
in the Plan. It is important to include that data so the reader can understand the priorities because those
would be the worst intersections.
Ms. Porterfield noted the land use and development process in 8-3 is based on the Neighborhood Model.
The question is can everything be redone into the Neighborhood Model. She wondered if they need to be
a little more flexible because so much of this will be redevelopment of pieces of property and not
everything in a certain area.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that in the review of rezonings and special use permits, the Commission looks at
the redevelopment and realizes that there are some aspects of the Neighborhood Model that can’t be
met. She felt that the Commission does take what Ms. Porterfield said into consideration with rezonings
and special use permits. The Commission gets the list of the ten priorities and staff will note which ones
can or cannot be met and recommends what is reasonable to be met. In her opinion, she felt it was okay
that this stays in because the way staff and the Commission have been using it is reasonable.
Mr. Loach agreed that it should stay in.
Mr. Strucko noted that the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Model is a standard and reflects the values
of the community. He encouraged any development to abide by those principles.
Ms. Joseph asked if it is possible to put wording in that explains that if something comes in as a reuse or
a re-adaptation that the Commission will look at these things in a less stringent manner.
Mr. Benish replied that they could do whatever the Commission feels comfortable with. But he felt that
the way the Neighborhood Model is structured, it says that. It makes the point that it is not ―the model‖
but is a larger model that is based on the principles. He noted that what they intended to do is call it the
Neighborhood Model principles. In the development review process, they measure how well it is met,
how well they can meet it and what is appropriate. Staff will add principles to the end of Neighborhood
Model. Also a statement could be added that implies the flexibility staff uses.
Mr. Edgerton said that he would rather not redefine the Neighborhood Model because this will end up
being part of the Comprehensive Plan. He would rather have it found in one place. The second word
provides the flexibility Ms. Porterfield is looking for in the recommended land use that refers to the
Neighborhood Model. If they go back to the Neighborhood Model, it certainly defines itself. If they start
modif ying it here, they may be tripping up on it later on. He preferred to leave it as it is.
Mr. Benish noted that the consensus of the Commission is to leave it as it is and to add principles to
Neighborhood Model.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the third bullet on page 8-4 be clarified. The bullet says most population and
employment growth over the next 10 years can be accommodated in developments that have already
been approved. Therefore, will any other development receive approval?
Mr. Benish noted that the intent of the statement was that the capacity that they need is within those
already approved developments. If the market is going to address the need, the capacity is built into
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
11
those existing developments. The language was to reflect that they need to address projects already
approved and the impacts of those projects.
Ms. Porterfield noted that when reading this passage, she was thinking about the people who cannot
move on with approved projects because they themselves have gone out of business. She suggested
that it could be reworded.
Mr. Strucko noted that the market affects supply and demand. There might not be demand for an
approved project.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff would provide more information next time about the piece of land that is not
in the development area north of Berkmar Drive.
Mr. Benish replied that the Commission will get a draft amendment showing an expansion area with
recommendations for land use and triggers for when that area should be developed either to be included
in the Plan or be rezoned in the area between Rio Mills Road and the existing development area
boundary. The Commission can review and decide whether to make changes or include it in the Plan
distributed on the 11th.
Mr. Cilimberg arrived at 7:20 p.m.
Ms. Porterfield noted from reading the past minutes she wondered if they are trying too hard to create a
shopping/eating area near the airport. She suggested that they should look at that area with the idea of
businesses of light industry and heavy industry due to the proximity of transportation.
Mr. Benish replied that they were now emphasizing to focus what they were going to do with the Uptown
as part of the small area plan. Staff hears what people are saying, but this area probably is pretty distant.
Staff hopes the small area plan will give better guidance on how to stage that area, and maybe the
Uptown will need to be in a completely different place. Staff did reduce the area somewhat to reflect
some of the concerns from UREF. Staff left the idea of the Uptown in the plan so that it will not be lost.
Ms. Wiegand noted that was put in there as a reminder that this is a vision plan. While the current
economic situation may mean that things do not happen there now or they might not happen as fast as
expected two or three years ago, it is still something that could happen in the future. As part of the small
area plan, they would like to figure out how that could be staged or phased so that people can come in
and use that site and eventually it could be an Uptown that serves as a hub to the area.
Mr. Benish noted that the small area plan covers the whole area to the intersection of US 29. There is
also a possibility that the whole area could be massaged based on what comes out of that small area
plan.
Ms. Porterfield noted concern because the Places 29 Master Plan is based on redevelopment, and they
were probably going to be working with properties that don’t have the same owners so how were they
going to create good open space and make these things happen. It could be very piecemeal. She asked
if there was anything that could be done to encourage interaction between neighboring properties so that
people start thinking in terms of the end result and not what they need next year. Her main concern is
what this redevelopment of not only the properties but the roads is going to do particularly to all the
businesses in the area.
Mr. Benish replied that the improvements that are proposed in the US 29 Corridor under this concept for
the majority of the length of the roadway don’t significantly widen the roadway. It is based on a 6-to-8
lane section. The interchanges are intended to be designed to minimize those sorts of impacts and
maximize the opportunity for redevelopment. There is always an issue over time as to whether the
existing use can sustain itself based on that final plan. But certainly from a land standpoint , the intent is
that those lands will continue to be viable to the economy in providing options for commercial
development. The ring-road concepts and the access concepts are ones that are intended to try to foster
that opportunity.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
12
Mr. Porterfield suggested that staff write some reassuring words to indicate to businesses that their
accesses will not get roped off when the bulldozers show up.
Mr. Benish noted with areas like the Rio Road interchange, what they hope is that a small area plan,
which is one of the fine tuning things mentioned, can and should be funded. That is where they can get
down to more detailed plans and work with the community in that area and let them see what the impact
is and understand what the opportunities and constraints are with that ultimate design. That is an
essential first step because it is difficult. He want s to be honest with people in this plan because they
cannot assure 100 percent that there will be absolutely no impacts to properties when doing a grade
separation. Obviously there are things that get impacted. But he felt that the plan really intends to
minimize those impacts. There must be recognition that with conventional type of improvements even with
an alternative road system there is a question as to whether interchanges would have been needed, as
an example, whether a bypass is there or not. Businesses have to be aware that with any kind of road
scenario, there could be impacts to those areas. Staff will reread this to make sure to be as straight-
forward about what the intent of this concept is in terms of minimizing impact to properties.
Ms. Porterfield noted that in one sentence it says it would take 10 to 12 years to build one of those grade-
separated intersections. She asked staff to flush that out a little bit with some reassurances.
Ms. Wiegand pointed out that there was an explanation about the 8-to-12 years in chapter 4 where they
talk about the transportation network. Staff will consider referencing it or moving that into this chapter. It
is not construction through that whole 8-to-12 years, and staff can clarify that.
Mr. Franco said that his focus is that there has been a lot of public review of it to date and he would like to
get it back to the public for review. He felt that the big changes he was looking for have been made,
especially with the implementation aspects and the tables, and it is easier to read and process. It is now
clearer to understand and he would like to get this thing to the public for a full review.
Mr. Morris pointed out that staff has come a long way with this and he felt that it was well done. He was
surprised that the W estern Bypass came into play, but they have already vetted that.
The Planning Commission took a break at 7:29 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 7:39 p.m.
Ms. Joseph noted the following concern: On page 8-2 she was also concerned about the grade-
separated interchanges taking 8-to-12 years to complete. She asked for a clarification of what staff was
really saying there.
Mr. Benish noted that design to construction will clarify that. It will be about eight years for construction.
Ms. Joseph asked that staff add the date of Tech Memo #7 to text. She was confused in paragraph 2 that
the site plan itself will be considered as part of the master plan.
Ms. Echols replied that staff needs to revise that wording a little. Staff consults the master plans and the
Comprehensive Plan when they get site plans in. They have a new process where the long-range
planners look at the current development projects that are coming in to see if anything being proposed
has a relationship to any of the plans. That is where they were headed with that, but staff needs to refine
it a little bit.
Ms. Joseph noted that on page 8-4 under implementation priorities it says regional transportation needs
are more acute in this part of the county than any other area. When considering Pantops she wonders if
that is true. On page 8-5 in 1a they talk about Best Buy which might not be there in the future. She
asked if there is any other landmark that could be given so people will know where that is located. On
page 8-12 funding strategy in the second paragraph it says that the full report is available on the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District website. She asked if that is going to be on the website five years.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
13
Ms. Wiegand noted that staff is going to be putting a bunch of these in a separate document that will be
available to people who would like to read them. It will not be in the appendix, but will be put in a place
for future reference.
Ms. Joseph said that the maps are effective tools. She made the following suggestions:
Maps - label a, b, c and d that is given in the description on the map illustrating the improvement; and
Add road names for reference in a larger font.
Ms. Porterfield asked that staff add a legend that describes the colors used in the illustrations and to fix
the two shades of green for open space since they are indistinguishable.
Ms. Joseph questioned the recycling center and if they could consider paying some of their haulers to
pick up some of this stuff. At one point in time they had the haulers come and pick up like is done in the
city where the haulers separate them.
Mr. Benish noted that there is a regional study underway long term on how to deal with recycling. This is
a place holder on what they have based on current policy, which is to provide for recycling locations.
What could evolve out of the regional plan for solid waste management could be curbside collection. They
still might need strategic drop-off centers. Since it was questionable, staff felt it was worth noting that
they still have a plan to provide for a recycling center in each of their development areas. But that one is
certainly subject by the next update of the plan to change. There is a proffer in the Places29 area for one
acre for a recycling center that is part of the Hollymead Town Center. So they do have a potential site
available. How they do solid-waste management in the county may be subject to a pretty significant
change over time.
Ms. Joseph noted that they might have more people involved with it if they did have curbside pick up.
With the CIP, they have a certain amount that they have determined would be the project cost.
Mr. Benish replied that there is an estimate of what that project cost would be which is where they get
refined numbers depending on the level of study that is underway for any particular project.
Ms. Joseph noted that they also go out for bids for that. That always was confusing because the County
sort of gives these competitive bidders a number, and then they come in with as close to that number as
they can.
Mr. Benish said that is a very strategic issue about the CIP. It is sort of all about that when he tried to
qualify his statement before. Many times in the CIP they still have a very general cost estimate subject to
a study process that refines what that project cost is. They go through this with schools all the time
because they are such difficult site to find and the location policies. If they have an assumed number
pretty much prescribed times two what the cost of the property is going to be.
Ms. Joseph questioned if they hurt or help themselves by putting down a project and what it does to the
bidding process.
Mr. Benish noted that the CIP is a five-year process. They have to balance the issue of acquiring land
and the implications of putting dollars out there in laying out their needs so the Board of Supervisors can
understand the costs.
Ms. Joseph questioned project #57 for the new elementary school where it says the site should be
purchased in 2013 and then says no land cost.
Ms. Wiegand replied that this was a project where there were three possible locations. At this point they
don’t know until they see what development takes place and where the children actually are in whether it
will need to be in Crozet, the Biscuit Run area or in North Point. If the school goes into the northern
development areas, they do have the site at North Point and there will be no land cost.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
14
Mr. Benish noted that it might be better to take this out of this description because there is no land cost
for this particular document. The way it is structured in the CIP is different, but in this plan there will be no
land cost because they have a site in hand.
Ms. Porterfield questioned the numbering and order of the projects. She suggested that it would be better
to have the high priority projects first and maybe cross reference them. There are projects that hook to
the high priority ones. She felt that the high priority ones should not get mixed in and should be right at
the beginning to indicate the major needs and then list the pieces that go with each.
Ms. Wiegand noted in the list at the end of the chapter the high priority projects are flagged. Particularly
for the transportation projects, the projects are listed in the order the consultants wanted the projects to
be done in order to keep the flow of traffic as smooth as possible. The non-transportation projects are put
in the order they are in the CIP chronically as they would be addressed.
Ms. Porterfield noted that she had a little trouble in working with this listing.
Ms. Monteith made the following comments.
She looked at the document from the perspective of a planner and specifically where people will get
confused. On the first page of chapter 8, it describes that this is first and foremost a vision plan,
which is excellent. Then staff goes on to describe that this does not really have a time frame, but
really was more related to the implementation. Then in the fourth section in the first sentence it refers
to a 20-year implementation time frame. For some people, that might be confusing to say it does not
have a time frame and then on the same page refer to a time frame. She asked if that could be
unscrambled a little bit or maybe the language is such that it does not have an exact time fr ame but
just for the purpose of planning they need to apply some type of time frame so that becomes more
generalized.
On the implementation project description along with others she felt that this was much improved and
really readable and very understandable. She had two concerns. Regarding Ms. Porterfield’s
concern, she found the mix of projects very unusable. There were some planning projects and some
implementation projects. She had trouble understanding the order. She suggested that staff in the
text on the first page discuss the rationale on the order they are in and perhaps discuss a little about
the mix of projects. A sentence with an explanation of why the order used was chosen would be
helpful. For example, to keep the flow of traffic flowing smoothly, but keep the planning ahead to
support the planning projects as a general comment.
Regarding the estimated costs that have been discussed in other venues, she did not understand that
costs would be spoken about in three different ways. What they talked about was how they would be
escalated or how they would or not be escalated in VDOT’s format versus another format. She did not
think it is easy to unscramble in that they are talking about cost in three different ways. She
suggested talking about the costs differently. It is unusual to have costs that are pertaining to a comp
plan. She suggested that the costs represent an order of magnitude but not specific design costs.
She suggested putting less emphasis on this to make the language leading up to the discussion of
these costs talk about them more in terms of the magnitude of cost and acknowledge that these are
generalized costs or a cost guideline and not a cost estimate.
Delete the reference to UVA on project 24 and 56 since UVA is not a part of RTA.
Ms. Porterfield suggested using one cost with current dollars based on a specific date. She questioned
whether they need to repeat the UNJAM document.
Mr. Benish said that information could be taken out if it was the consensus of the Commission. From the
last conversation, staff was going to include it as additional information. Staff will be happy to take it out
and say there are other documents that have other cost estimates. He agreed that the costs represent
the order of magnitude and the final cost estimate will be a result of final engineering design. If the
Commission agrees with Ms. Monteith’s suggestion, staff will make sure to provide additional clarity about
that.
Ms. Joseph agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
15
Mr. Edgerton noted that there had been a lot of anxiety expressed about the costs. No one knows how
quickly this can happen or who will come in first. It is a vision plan and the real essence of the plan is the
vision on how to solve the problems. It is important to stress the implementation and this is the ideal
situation in the way they prioritize the projects. He did not know if the costs could possibly be accurate
especially if the consultant left out the right-of -way values. They can only come up with the number now,
but cannot be sure what kind of escalating costs will occur. There may have been a lot of accurate
information out there last year or the year before, but it may not be accurate now.
Mr. Loach said that they need an overall number because they are going to make a decision on how to
fund that based on the funding sources available. They need to have some estimates on what it will cost
so policies can be made on how to get that money in lieu of the situation in Richmond. The implication of
these dollar values may become important because of the local taxation that may occur because of them.
Ms. Monteith pointed out what she was saying was just a suggestion, but she recognized that the costs
give one an understanding of relative value. It seemed that they needed to have some language that
really describes that. The other thing that might be helpful to do is to explain that it is unusual to tie costs
to a comprehensive plan because of the uncertainty, but explain the rationale for why they did in this
Plan. It just seem s that if so much of this explanation is there, that it would alleviate some of the anxiety
and focus that they have had on this to date given that it is kind of an unusual approach.
Mr. Benish said staff can make the reader understand these are not specific design costs. These are
estimates based on various approaches in a preliminary process and they ought to be considered more
as order-of -magnitude costs so people can understand that a few of them have some analysis on them
for capital projects, but are subject to change. He suggested that they might want to define estimated
cost as the order of magnitude based on multipliers or something like that.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was struggling with the back and forth.
Mr. Franco agreed with some of the discussion. He has always understood that what is unique about
Places 29 is that it is not just a comp plan, but it is also a transportation plan. It is a blended thing. As
such he did not have a problem with numbers being in it. He agreed with Mr. Loach that the numbers
were in there to address existing problems. He felt that most educated readers would understand that the
numbers are cost estimates and not exact numbers. He was not here for the CIP discussions. But is it
any different than CIPs that are forecasted ten years out. The numbers are the best guess that they
have. That is just the nature of the beast. So he was comfortable the way it is set up at this point. He
would love to have additional information on right-of-way and things like that. But it will get refined over
time. He suggested having some extra words at the beginning talking about the Places29 Master Plan
being a transportation plan as well. This would help to explain some of that on why the numbers of there
and talk about the validity or accuracy of those numbers.
Mr. Strucko agreed with Mr. Franco.
Mr. Benish reiterated that they would continue to use estimated costs in the description at the top of the
list and go back and look at the estimated cost description in 8, making sure that it is clear in how
preliminary these numbers are in order of magnitude costs as opposed to detailed cost estimates.
Mr. Strucko noted that the Comprehensive Plan gets amended every five years and they should look at
those dollar amounts every five years.
Mr. Franco suggested using planned budget rather than estimated cost.
Mr. Edgerton suggested rounding off the numbers.
Mr. Benish noted that staff has everything they need. He noted that there are several fine-tuning
changes. For ex ample, on page 2 of the list within the high priority areas one of the things they were
going to do is define what the essential first steps would be.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
16
Mr. Strucko opened the proceeding and invited public comment.
Bob Brugh said that he lives off Georgetown Road on Terra Road. He came tonight to make the
Commission aware of what their plan does for some of these side streets. To go left he had to go right
and go to the next street and turn around and come back in the direction he wants to go. He thought that
the more improvements done to Route 29, the more traffic it pushes over to these side streets. Right now
from the Airport Road down the back way to the Stone/Hydraulic Road to Georgetown Road is actually
the 29 Bypass. He was asking the Commission to keep Georgetown Road as a residential street. He
asked that the Commission and staff keep in mind what effect all of this has on some of these side
streets. He felt that people should use Route 29 instead of using Georgetown Road as part of the
Bypass.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, commended staff for the organization of the chart since it
was much easier to read. He noted that having the costs included was important. He requested again
the tabulation of short, mid-term and long-term goals and how much those will cost in total. They have
agreed to disagree with regard to the inflation factor. He felt that more information was better than less
information regarding the Western Bypass. The main point is with regard to priorities. He was reviewing
a memo the Commission received from Greg Kamptner the other day with regard to a specific project and
considering that with looking at the bottom of page 8-7 regarding priority areas. The Free Enterprise
Forum was opposed to the establishment of priority areas in the Pantops Master Plan and has been
opposed to it in others. The language in here says if the infrastructure needed to support a proposed
development outside the priority area is not in place, the proposed dev elopment should not be approved.
He thought that is in direct conflict with the memo that was sent by Mr. Kamptner. If they have a zoned
area for commercial development or any other development and the infrastructure is not there because of
a failure by the County to provide the infrastructure, the County has no right to refuse that plan under
existing zoning. Under a rezoning, he could understand that infrastructure could be a mitigating factor.
But there is a certain responsibility or burden that Albemarle County must retain for providing
infrastructure. It is not just Albemarle County, but also the Virginia Department of Transportation as well.
He thought that this specific line on page 8-7 should be removed. He had no problem with the idea of
f ocused public spending on priority areas within the development area. He thought that makes good
sense and is good policy. But to suggest that developments that are following the zoning that exists
would not be approved is incorrect and perhaps illegal.
Jeff Werner, of Piedmont Environmental Council, suggested that they be careful with the specificity. They
are talking about projects without any drawings. He noted that there is no hidden money anyplace for the
Western Bypass nor have all of the right-of -ways been acquired. He suggested that they balance the
argument here a little bit. If they included the specific cost estimates, he feared that the public was going
to come in and say that they can’t afford the Places29 Master Plan. Then what type of recommendation
could the Commission forward to the Board? He suggested that the Commission be very specific and
clear that these are cost estimates and they have no idea what it will cost between now and 20 years
since they don’t know the final design. He noted that the most important thing the Commission needs to
do in this is to establish a new transportation policy that allows an effective and efficient use of
transportation dollars or funds. Status quo is not working.
Morgan Butler, on behalf of the Southern Environmental Law Center, added his voice to some of the
praises given to staff for the changes made since the last version of the chapter. He made the following
suggestions:
They remain unclear why the Uptown is included in priority area 2 north. There is a helpful sentence
on page 8-12 that explains the reason for designating priority areas, ―By focusing the limited public
funds that are available for the northern development areas on these priorities the county can
address the existing infrastructure backlog, provide infrastructure for approved but not yet built
developments and encourage redevelopment.‖ It is not clear how focusing on the Uptown area
advances any of these three goals. Conversely, it seems to undercut them by ciphering limited
resources away from the existing needs and using them to facilitate the creeping of development
further north.
They are weary of labeling anything as high as the Hollymead Town Center Uptown as a priority. At
the very least, they encourage the removal of Uptown from the boundary of priority area 2 north. It is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
17
important to point out that Uptown can be included in the small area plan without necessarily having
to be included as a priority area.
On page 8-5 under #1 the draft talks about how the Hillsdale Extension would reduce the volume of
traffic turning at the 29/Hydraulic intersection. The next sentence says that this reduction would be
critically important when the grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic and 29 is constructed. This is
a technical point, but they are concerned that this sentence downplays the huge benefits that the
Hillsdale Extension would offer now regardless of when the grade-separated interchange gets built.
They would not want that sentence to justify delaying the project until plans for a grade separated
interchange crystallized. In 8-7 in #1 clarify the relationship between the construction of Hillsdale
Drive Extended and the grade separation at Hydraulic and US 29.
Also in their comments on the first draft, they caution that a transportation tool that is critical for
access management had received fairly short shrift in the proposed text in the chapter. The text for
access management now appears on page 8-3 and it does not appear that it has been changed from
the prior version. They recommend that a new sentence be inserted into that paragraph to make it
stronger the text of which could read, ―The county and VDOT should review each new development
and redevelopment of a project for compliance for the access management plan.‖ This would parallel
their statement that is in Appendix 2 and hopefully help clarify that the access management plan is
simply not to be put on a shelf when all of this is approved. In 8-6 in the first full paragraph add a new
sentence under access management to strengthen (see #2 in Appendix)
Regarding the Western Bypass, he noted simply put it has been determined that any arguable
benefits in the Western Bypass are far outweighed by its cost. It is a huge amount of money that
would only serve a small portion of the trips on the 29 Corridor. Even if the Western Bypass is built,
they would still have a failing level of service on Route 29 without building the grade-separated
interchanges. In short, it just does not make sense especially considering the further build-out that
has occurred within the northern terminus of the Bypass.
Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing portion of the work session. He noted that a few questions were
posed.
Mr. Edgerton asked the Commission to weigh in on the question Jeff Werner presented. He worried that
the specificity of these numbers might haunt the Commission. If 500 people come in and say they can’t
afford this Plan, does that invalidate the plan? He felt that the Commission needs to think about it since
there might be a movement to do just that.
Mr. Loach pointed out that there were two parameters that they are talking about. One has not been
addressed except by Mr. Butler. The parameters are functionality as well as cost. If in fact Mr. Butler’s
comments are correct in Route 29 would still fail despite the Western Bypass, it seems that it is a no-
contest on the functionality aspects of the projects. The functionality is what they should be addressing
and should be as important if not more important obviously than the cost. They have not heard anything
from the Western Bypass proponents about increasing the functionality. It is functionally equivalent to
what the interchanges would be. He heard what Mr. Strucko was saying, but he thought they were
missing that there are two parameters--functionality as well as costs.
Mr. Strucko said that he was comfortable with the numbers in there because it gives context and
communicates all of the necessary information that needs to be out there. It is encumbered upon the
Commission to ex plain to the public that this is indeed a plan, a long-term vision, these are current year
dollars but everything is not going to be built next year. These are costs that are spread over decades.
They have to determine the priorities and the challenge of the community is to come up with the
resources to make the plan viable. He had a professional bent towards numbers, which is the way he
looks at and interprets plans.
Mr. Morris hoped that they don’t get any more specific in the numbers at all. At best the numbers are a
guess and let’s not paint ourselves into a corner.
Ms. Joseph noted that what might get people upset is about the reality of what the plan might cost.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
18
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the history of the master plan is that it was the next level down from comp
plan planning. They tried to give some reference or frame of reference to what these projects will mean.
The project does not come to life until it gets into the CIP. It won’t happen until the projects are a vision to
be fundable. Even in the CIP the first step is design, and they don’t know the costs. It is a frame of
reference and not an absolute. The pending years to when the project will get done is probably the most
dangerous part of the master planning. The reality is that it is beyond saying they would like to see it
happen in 10 years versus 20 years. They don’t know when it can happen.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that they don’t know what development will occur in particular with NGIS. If they
put a timeline of their expectations of when development will happen, they don’t know exactly what the
settlement patterns are going to be in the future.
Mr. Cilimberg said what they will find with Places29 since the projects are already needed is that it is
more about what needs to be accomplished over the next five years. At last night’s meeting, he heard
someone comment that the bottom line is that the projects being listed each have an incremental value
added for each one that is done to the Places29 plan. So if they only have X amount of dollars and can
only do certain things on that list, there is an incremental benefit from doing that. So in a way the list
broken down like it is will give the best shot of what the priorities are and what should happen first. But it
may be a case where they find that there are certain monies available to do certain projects that are on
that list that can give an incremental benefit just by being built at that point of time. That is a much
different scenario than they will find for the Western Bypass because they can’t built that road in pieces
even if it was something that the community decided that they wanted. But they can build a lot of the
transportation pieces or provide transportation services for this Places29 plan in increments. There is a
value added to that.
Ms. Monteith suggested that it would make a lot of sense to include that information in the preparatory
text. So much of what he was saying would make a difference.
Mr. Benish noted that it was not taking a different direction but explaining it better.
Mr. Cilimberg felt that gets into what Mr. Loach was saying about the functionality. There are costs all
over the place here with no order of magnitude or whatever they want to call them. But also explaining
that the functionality of Places29 land use with its transportation can benefit through what he described in
whatever way they are able to do it. One ring road at Rio and 29 that might be part of a new dev elopment
or a redev elopment is not a net loss. It is a net gain. Even if they don’t ever get that interchange, it is a
net gain. So staff wants to explain that and maybe it will help as well and give some balance to what they
are struggling with.
Mr. Strucko said that the speakers raised some specific issues. He asked to quickly go through them.
Mr. Williamson talked about a statement on page 8-7. He felt that there may be a point there and asked
for Mr. Kamptner’s direction.
Mr. Kamptner suggested clarifying the sentence that Mr. Williamson referenced. The opening sentence
of that paragraph refers to rezonings and special use permits in which off -site traffic impacts can be
considered. Staff can clarify the sentence.
Mr. Strucko said that Morgan Butler mentioned a concern that the Uptown area was in a priority area
north. He asked if there was any reaction to that.
Ms. Porterfield said that goes along with what she said at the beginning of the meeting. She was really
concerned about the area up near the airport. She did not think that kind of area is located near an
airport in other communities. Those who use airline transportation do not usually leave the airport
between flights. They don’t want to have to do the security again. She was concerned about the Uptown
because Hollymead is a nearby big development area that is going to offer tourism, restaurants and those
kinds of things.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
19
Ms. Joseph said if the UVA Research Park really takes off, it will be necessary. It would be something
that would be used. The hotels or whatever went in there would mutuall y benefit. So it would not be just
the folks coming in and out. She worried about that Uptown area as it competes with the Charlottesville
Downtown Mall. She thought that it was sort of the same kind of thing. She often wondered if it was too
early to put Uptown in there.
Ms. Porterfield said that she could see the hotels, but just wondered if they could give the area some
flexibility so that they were not scaring commercial entities away from wanting to be able to locate up
there because of the proximity to transportation.
Mr. Benish said that staff was fine with taking it out of the priority area as long as it stays in the small area
plan so that they can begin the planning and assessment process for it. It makes sense. Staff has seen
it ultimately as a long-term process. The main thing staff wanted to make sure that they were doing now
is that in order for something to evolve like the Downtown Mall it sort of has to have the bones for it to
develop. It has to have a form that allows it to convert over time. That is the sensitivity to it. But there
are many ways that the Neighborhood Model principles address those. He felt that they could take it out
of the Uptown area since it addresses some of the concerns of the Commission. He asked if there was
replacement area or somewhere they could change the boundary to create some replacement for it.
Ms. Joseph asked if he was saying that they need that growth in that area for the next 20 years.
Mr. Benish replied that what he was very specifically seeing was that they have an industrial area south of
the Forest Springs area which they may want to encourage for some of our industrial needs. If as they
reevaluate the Uptown area if they see some other opportunities to replace where that growth is
theoretically anticipated. He was not guaranteeing that they would make changes. But if the Commission
would rather not and just take it out and not change any boundaries, then the Commission needs to say
that.
Mr. Edgerton felt that when the UVA Research Park develops they might need it. He asked how many
residences have been approved in the Hollymead Town Center. They will have a huge community of
people living there that has nothing to do with the airport.
Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission was going to be looking at a rezoning for the UVA properties in
the red-striped area adjacent to Airport Acres.
Mr. Edgerton asked what the significance is of it being in a priority area as opposed to a small plan area.
He saw value in the not-too-distant future to start looking at a more specific idea of how this could
develop. That is what he thought the small area plans were. He asked if there is a small area and a
priority small plan area.
Mr. Benish replied no. He pointed out that there were some areas impacted other than those areas
designated for Uptown. It also provided an opportunity for other properties in that area for consideration
for rezoning for growth. He suggested that they might want to take a look to replace those areas or to
leave those areas in and change the boundary a little. If the Commission does not think that is important ,
the staff can cut the boundary off for the priority area at the uptown area.
Ms. Joseph felt that the industrial and light industrial area is important because many such properties
have been rezoned residential. She felt it is important to have that area there near the airport.
Mr. Benish noted that in between the area is the Uptown area and the Commission wants to take it out.
Ms. Porterfield said that she was okay keeping it in, but not to stress the fact that it should become a
destination place for people who want to eat or shop. Somebody might come in with a better use of it
because of proximity to the airport. The County desperately needs business. The Hollymead area
should be able to suffice for that area as far as eateries and shopping options for a long time.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
20
Ms. Wiegand pointed out that under that designation that is here on the Uptown area they could get
businesses in there.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could get light industry.
Ms. Joseph replied no, that was shown in purple.
Ms. Wiegand replied that commercial could go in the striped area and possibly industrial in the one
corner. It would not just be restaurants and shops.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the emphasis should go more toward the commercial than the restaurants
and shops.
Ms. Wiegand noted that right now the urban mixed use is an attempt to balance it among all of those
things such as commercial, restaurant, entertainment and residential.
Mr. Benish noted that what they were discussing modifying was whether it was in the priority area where
they want to encourage our capital or public investments and to encourage development activity to take
place. What Mr. Butler was suggesting was that it is an area not ripe yet to become part of a priority area.
Staff needs consensus from the Commission. If the area was not in the priority area, that buys time to
analyze it to determine the best mix of uses, appropriate timing and location. What staff was initially
suggesting actually fits well with taking it out of the priority area. But when they take that area out, there
are some opportunities lost in that priority area that he thought ought to evaluated as to whether they
need to be replaced. Ms. Porterfield is indicating she is okay with it in the priority area, but it is just how
the area develops.
Mr. Franco noted that he was okay with it staying in there as a priority area. But he would like to build on
what he said regarding the level of the small area study to think less about the uses but about getting the
bones in place so that it will develop in the right form they are looking for. Those may be transportation
bones and things like that. It is devoting the planning effort to it so the planning does not come too late.
Ms. Joseph said that she did not want to lose the industrial land. If they move that boundary, it will not
make as much sense as it does now. She hoped that the university is very successful there and wi ll bring
in some industry. Then they will have that wonderful connection road from 29 through the industrial park.
It just makes sense to keep it in.
Mr. Franco said that he was not talking about changing the proposed zoning or the proposed Comp Plan
designation. It is whether it is a priority area or not.
Ms. Benish said that it would give staff guidance as to whether they invest public dollars in that area and
how they evaluate land-use decisions in that area. What he was hearing was that the priority area needs
to stay in. They need to identify what are the planning steps for that area as a priority first and what are
the short-term and long-term expectations and see if that addresses it.
Mr. Strucko agreed that staff had captured the sentiments of the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield felt that the numbers in the draft will cause a lot of confrontation. There needs to be a plan
or a way to steer the public comments away from the numbers. Under the current economic situation,
she felt that everybody is going to say they can’t afford it. The Commission has to be ready to get the
public to look at the other pieces of the Plan thinking if they can afford it, does anything in here leap out
as being bad or really good because it is a long term plan. Somehow they have to get people to get past
the numbers and consider if the plan is affordable, is it what they want as a vision.
Mr. Benish agreed that if they can afford it, they need to know what to do if they have the money.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
21
Mr. Franco noted that if they want to change the existing problems, this is what it is going to take to fix
existing problems for the next 15 years or so. It is now time to pay that tab. If the public doesn’t want to
correct it, then don’t pay it.
Mr. Loach noted that in Crozet, the residents wanted to have numbers because they kept asking for the
concurrency of infrastructure. At this end of this process, they need to know what it will take to fix the
current situation. They also need to know if they can afford to rezone other development area properties
in the future.
Mr. Benish indicated that some additional ―fine tuning‖ of the text would be made when changes
recommended by the Commission are made.
The Planning Commission took no formal action. In summary, the Planning Commission noted some
possible clarification or changes to be made, as follows:
Page Change/Clarification
List & App Add two secondary road projects to List and Appendix: Proffit Road and
Dickerson Road. It will involve renumbering projects.
ACSA Review descriptions, as listed in letter from Gary Fern, and incorporate information as
needed.
Text & App Consider giving percentages for how much will be publicly funded and how much
privately funded for each project that lists both sources.
When giving presentations (and/or writing text?) note that we don’t know where the money is coming from
yet, but when the money is available this is what we want to do.
Reemphasize the fact that the costs exist regardless of the proposed Master Plan.
8-1 Clarify the ―20-year‖ implementation comment in the 3rd paragraph by relating to the third
sentence in the first paragraph.
8-3 Note on the Western Bypass. To help the public understand, consider adding:
A history of decision making/chronology
BOS’s final determination, with reasons why
Places29 intended to develop an alternative that will work
Include the amount/percentage of truck traffic
8-4 Add LOSs for the worst intersections—the ones that are failing now or will fail in the near
future. Indicate where failure will occur without the improvements listed in the Plan.
8-4 Review the 3rd bullet to make sure it is clear.
8-4 Consider whether the second bullet is accurate.
-- Redevelopment of land and roads. Chamber members’ fear of the impacts on
businesses along roads. Strengthen statements indicating that impacts on
businesses will not be known until designs are completed. Ring Roads and
access management create opportunities. Small area plans will be opportunity
to work with businesses and property owners in the area. County and VDOT
work to minimize impacts on businesses.
8-2 Clarify what will take place during the 8 – 12 years some projects will take and
that the intent is to minimize impacts on adjacent property owners.
8-2 Add date of Tech Memo #7 to text.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
22
8-3 Second paragraph under Land Use & Development Projects: clarify distinction
between ZMA/SP and site plans; indicate that the review of site plans in relation to the
Master Plan is ―advisory.‖
8-3 Add the words ―principles of the‖ between ―in the‖ and ―County’s Neighborhood Model‖
8-5 1.a. Find another landmark for ―Best Buy‖ in case that business changes before the
improvement is complete.
Appendix Maps: label the a, b, c, d that is given in the description on the map
illustrating the improvement
Add road names for reference, in a larger font.
Add a legend that describes the colors used in the illustrations
Fix the two shades of green for open space; they are indistinguishable.
Appendix #57. Fix the ―land cost‖ entry.
List & App Review numbering system and clarify the rationale behind the order.
Is #1 more important than # 27? High Priority items are ―buried‖ in the List.
The List shows the most appropriate order, but note (in the text) that some
projects may be funded out of the order in which they are listed.
List & App Mix of projects is unusual—some are planning, some implementation, some
projects staff will clarify.
List & App Delete the reference to UVa from Responsible Parties in #24 and #56.
List & App Costs: use only one type, rather than the three listed. Indicate where other
estimates may be found. Round to nearest hundred, rather than the level of
specificity that’s there now. Clarify that these are only estimates and the
level of uncertainty involved in them. Explain what multipliers have been used
and their source. Add some extra words to indicate that this is a ―blended
comp plan and transportation study.‖ The costs represent an order of magnitude but not
specific design costs. The final cost estimate will be a result of final engineering design.
Try to find ways during presentations about the Master Plan to direct public
attention to aspects of the Plan other than the cost estimates.
--- Uptown. Leave in both Priority Area 2 and the Small Area Plan.
8-7 Clarify first sentence under ―Private Development & …Areas‖
Mr. Strucko said that the meeting would move to the next agenda item, which was moved from the
beginning of the agenda.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting – July 1, 2009 and July 8, 2009
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on July 1, 2009 and July 8, 2009.
Old Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any old business.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
23
The Roundtable on Farm Winery will be held on Wednesday, July 15 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 241.
Since more than two Commissioners will attend the Commission will need to adjourn to the July
15 meeting.
The Planning Commission rescheduled the Village of Rivanna Master Plan public hearing to
September 8.
There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item.
New Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business.
Mr. Strucko, Mr. Loach and Mr. Morris will be absent on July 21.
Mr. Edgerton will be absent on August 11.
There being no further new business, the meeting moved to the next item.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. to the Wednesday, July 15, 2009 Roundtable
discussion on Farm Wineries at 4:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
24
Attachment A - Public Review Plan – Places29 Master Plan
Tentative general schedule –
August 11 - Places29 draft plan presented to Planning Commission and released to the public
August 11 – September 15 – public review activities
September 15 – check in with the Planning Commission to confirm public hearing
September 15 – October 13 – continued public review activities
October 13 – tentative date for Planning Commission public hearing
Public Review Approach:
The focus of this public review process is to provide a variety of opportunities via different venues for
stakeholders involved in the Places29 master plan process to familiarize or refamiliarize themselves with
the content of the plan in advance of the Planning Commission’s public hearing this fall. There has
already been a very substantial and engaged public participation process for the development of the plan
to date that has influenced and shaped important concepts and sections of Places29. However, it has
been some time since the material has been reviewed and discussed with the public for their
understanding, and staff feels that this is a critical step prior to conducting the public hearing this fall.
While the review process is not being designed to solicit additional public input – that should be
directed towards the public hearing – if there is significant feedback on any specific issues, that
information will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission prior to the public
hearing.
Work Product for the public review – Interested stakeholders will have ample opportunity to
review and understand the basic concepts of the Places29 Master Plan prior to public hearing.
Public Review Outcomes:
Reintroduce the Places29 Master Plan in its current state to involved stakeholders, including the
general public
Indicate areas where significant changes have occurred from the draft plan as a result of the
Planning Commission’s deliberations
Indicate specifically how public input was used in developing plan concepts
Share future opportunities for public involvement in the consideration of the master plan,
specifically the Planning Commission public hearing and the Board of Supervisors deliberation
process
Stakeholders:
Residents of the plan area
Business community
Development community
Internal departments
Affected agencies
County residents
Regional partners
Schedule of Public Review Activities:
Information Open Houses (Dates Tentative)
o September 8 (Prior to PC meeting) – COB McIntire 2nd Floor Lobby
o September 10 (Late afternoon/early evening) – Hollymead Fire Station
o Others to be scheduled as needed
Presentations to HOA’s and stakeholder groups including business groups upon request
Information displays at COB McIntire staffed during selected periods
Review copies of Master Plan available at Northside Library and Community Development front
desk
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JULY 14, 2009
25
Materials Required:
Master Plan Documents will be available…
o For download from the County website
o In printed form for viewing or purchase at the Community Development front desk
o In printed form for viewing at the Northside Library
o In CD form by request
Website
o Develop a friendly web presence that provides summary information about the overall
plan and chapters, displays maps and graphics when possible, and contains links to the
document chapters and supporting materials for those who want more detail. Meeting,
background and contact information will also be available.
Educational Materials to support Master Plan document (available print/web)
o ―Top 10 things you need to know about Places29‖ – 1-page document for those who want
to know general information about how the plan will impact the development area.
Document will contain links/references to more detailed information.
o ―Get to Know your Places29 Master Plan‖ – 1-page document with the guiding principles,
a brief summary of each chapter, and next steps f or plan implementation. Document will
contain links/references to more detailed information.
o ―Community Input Overview‖ – 1-page summary of community input opportunities during
the development of the plan and how community input shaped the plan. Could be
combined with ―Get to know your Places29 Master Plan.‖
o Land Use Map with description of colors.
o FAQ.
Suggested Outreach:
A-mail
o Notify residents, businesses and other stakeholders in advance of all PC/BOS activities
and community information sessions related to the plan.
Flyers
o Email flyers announcing information sessions to neighborhood associations and
apartment/condo complexes to post/distribute, post in libraries and schools, distribute to
stakeholders.
Media exposure
o Notify all local media in advance of public hearings and community information sessions
related to the plan.
Other Venues as appropriate
The Feedback Loop:
The public review process is geared towards helping people understand the basic concepts and impacts
of Places29 so that they can provide informed comments at the Planning Commission’s public hearing.
The public review process will also demonstrate how feedback provided at earlier meetings has
contributed towards the plan’s recommendations. While the review process is not being designed to
solicit public input – that should be directed towards the public hearing – if there is significant feedback on
any specific issues then that information will be brought to the attention of the Planning Commission prior
to the public hearing.
Go to next set of PC minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
September 15, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public hearing on
Tuesday, September 15, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman; Calvin Morris, Don Franco, Bill Edgerton, Eric
Strucko, Chair and Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia were
present. Marcia Joseph was absent.
Other officials present were Lori Allshouse, Manager of Strategic Planning and Performance; Judy
Wiegand, Senior Planner; Lee Catlin, Community Relations Manager; Ron Lilley, Project Manager of
Department of Office of Facilities Development; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of
Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Places 29 – check in (Judy Wiegand)
Ms. Wiegand provided a check in on Places29 to provide a brief summary of the results of the two public
open houses held last week; to ask if the Commission has any questions at this time on the Master Plan
and if the Commission is ready to schedule a public hearing on the draft Master Plan. (See PowerPoint
Presentation)
There two open houses held last week that several Commissioners attended. At those public open
houses the staff did answer numerous questions and explained the plan to different people that came
through. Staff found that most of the questions were on the transportation aspects of the plan. They
also found that the attendees were uncertain somewhat about the Places29 transportation network
improvements and what was happening with the Western Bypass. Staff explained that to them.
Staff received a number of individual comments with two in written form as shown in the first two
bullets in the presentation) Someone opposed the Ashwood/Polo Grounds connector on the future
land use map. There was a request that right-of-way for potential light rail transit line is identified.
Staff received an email from Mr. Scott Ellef from Forest Lakes indicating that those neighborhoods
supported the draft plan but did not support the expansion area adjacent to Hollymead. The
Commission received a copy of that email also. Staff received one email from an individual in support
and was very glad to see the plan’s alternatives for those who don’t drive. Those were basically the
public comments.
Staff did not see anything come up that would cause them to recommend that the Planning
Commission have another work session to discuss any of these matters. Staff felt that the comments
would come up at the public hearing and could be addressed as a result of that. Staff received some
comments from some of the internal stakeholders, which were agencies and departments that would
be working with the implementation of the plan. Comments were received from CTS and the
University of Virginia Foundation. The Airport will be sending in comments. Staff expects comments
from Facilities Development and the County’s Traffic Engineer. All of the comments were minor
clarifications or a request that they insert another sentence to make something a little clearer. There
were a couple of changes to estimates. But there was nothing again major or something they have
not already worked on.
Staff presented the expansion areas at the workshops on maps. Copies of the Hollymead Expansion
area were available for review. General questions were received along with an email from the Forest
Lakes Community Associations that did not like the idea of expansion area. There was one individual
that spoke to them saying that it was a great idea. That is basically all staff heard on those two maps.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES
2
She asked if the Commission had questions, any matters to bring forward at this time or were ready
to schedule a public hearing.
Mr. Strucko invited questions for staff.
Mr. Morris asked if staff has a recommended date for the public hearing.
Ms. Wiegand replied that staff has been looking at holding the public hearing on October 13 at Albemarle
High School. Staff has been waiting for the Commission’s input. She noted that there is also a later date
in October.
Mr. Morris asked how many attended the open house.
Ms. Wiegand replied that there were 21 persons in attendance on the first night and 14 persons on the
second night. Therefore, it was a total of 35 persons.
Mr. Strucko suggested that they plan to encourage greater attendance at the public hearing. He
suggested that staff try to get some media attention for the public hearing.
Ms. Porterfield suggested if the hearing was held at Albemarle High School that the meeting be started
later than 6 p.m. so people can have dinner before the meeting.
Mr. Strucko agreed that they should try to accommodate the people in order to get as much input as
possible. He questioned what the sports schedule was at Albemarle High School.
Lee Catlin suggested if the Commission wanted they could do an information drop in session where
people could give comment for the first hour or two and do the public hearing afterwards to accommodate
both type of people. Staff could have a way to record any comment and make sure the Planning
Commission got the information.
Mr. Franco asked that the public hearing be held on October 27 due to a conflict.
Ms. Porterfield asked that the Village of Rivanna be rescheduled to another date than October 27.
The Planning Commission discussed the options. It was the consensus of the Commission to schedule
the public hearing on October 27th, preferably at a location in the Places 29 area such as Albemarle High
School. If held off-site of the County Office Building, the public hearing should begin at 7:00 p.m. with a
period of time provided at that location before the public hearing for public review and input. If an off -site
location is not available, the public hearing should begin at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building
Auditorium with a period of time provided before the public hearing for public review and input.
Mr. Benish noted that the public hearing would be set on October 27th. He passed around a resolution of
intent for consideration. He noted that Mr. Franco asked for stronger language regarding the
transportation component. This is a resolution for the Commission to adopt that resolves that they are
going to study and undertake an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan through the Master Plan.
Mr. Strucko noted that there was a specific emphasis on the multi modal form of transportation network
within the resolution of intent. He invited public comment.
Joan Graves, resident of Berkley Subdivision, said she lived there since 1962. She was a veteran of
many wars concerning the Berkley community. She asked the Planning Commission to go out there and
look at Dominion Drive and how it accesses 29. She asked that at the bank they look up the hill and see
the backs of the Berkley houses on Commonwealth Circle. That is where that connector road is
supposed to come. There are 179 houses in Berkley. Some of them don’t have reason to use Dominion
Drive. But the rest of the residents does. She asked what is going to happen to Dominion Drive if there is
a road coming down to the bottom before getting to 29 going over into Shopper’s World. She asked if
Dominion Drive is going to be a cul-de-sac or have a four-way stop sign. She asked what good it is to do
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES
3
it there. She suggested because Commonwealth Drive was another parallel road to 29 and there are
other Berkley residents who live on Commonwealth that Hydraulic Road, which was developed as a four-
lane road, could not be used as a parallel road to 29 and just leave Berkley alone.
Mr. Strucko asked staff to add Ms. Graves comment to the list from the recent public sessions so that
issue is not lost.
There being no further comments, the public comment was closed to bring the matter before the Planning
Commission for discussion and action. He asked if the Commission was ready to hold the public hearing.
Ms. Porterfield replied that if the hearing was held here that she would take back the 7:00 p.m. starting
time. If the meeting was not held in the community she felt the meeting should begin at the normal 6:00
p.m. time.
Mr. Strucko noted that the public hearing would be scheduled for October 27 with the normal starting time
of 6:00 p.m. if it was held at the County Office Building. He asked for a motion on the resolution of intent.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Loach seconded to adopt the resolution of intent to amend the
Comprehensive Plan for the Places29 Master Plan, as amended.
PLACES 29 RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, Albemarle County has a longstanding commitment to growth management and,
since the adoption of Albemarle County’s first Comprehensive Plan in 1971, County policy has been to
direct growth into the 11 communities within the County’s Development Areas identified in the Land Use
Plan, which is a component of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, directing development into the Development Areas facilitates the economical
delivery of services to those Areas and conserves the balance of the County’s designated Rural Areas to
protect its many resources including, but not limited to, its agricultural, forestal, natural and scenic
resources; and
WHEREAS, the Neighborhood Model, which is also a component of the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan, recommends that master plans be prepared for each of the 11 communities within
the County’s Development Areas; and
WHEREAS, it is desired to develop a master plan for the four communities within the County’s
Development Areas north of the City of Charlottesville identified in the Land Use Plan as Neighborhood 1,
Neighborhood 2, the Community of Hollymead and the Community of Piney Mountain, and this proposed
master plan is hereinafter referred to as the Places 29 master plan; and
WHEREAS, a multimodal transportation network must be planned and coordinated in conjunction
with planning for the land uses within the Places 29 master plan area in order to achieve the County’s
vision of a livable and desirable community; and
WHEREAS, the Places 29 master plan, which will include, among other things, plans for land
uses and a multimodal transportation network, will establish a vision of the desired ultimate future
condition of the Places 29 master plan area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience,
general welfare and good planning and land use practices, the Albemarle County Planning Commission
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to adopt a
master plan for Places 29 as determined to be appropriate after study; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the
Places 29 master plan proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to
the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION –
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009 DRAFT MINUTES
4
* * * * *
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Strucko noted that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent, by a vote of 6:0, to amend
the Comprehensive Plan for the Places29 Master Plan. Also, the public hearing was to be scheduled on
October 27.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to exec summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
October 27, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, October 27,
2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Don Franco, Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris, Linda Porterfield, Bill Edgerton, and
Thomas Loach, Vice Chair. Absent was Eric Strucko, Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting
representative for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Judy Wiegand, Senior Planner, David
Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County
Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. and established a quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Strucko invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, noted that last week during the issue of setbacks he raised
the issue with regard to fewer structural fires meaning fewer structures. Mr. Loach remarked of the desire
for increased building specifications for houses that are closer together and Mr. Edgerton replied that
there was no enabling legislation for that. In thinking about this he wanted to make sure that the position
that he had about this is clear. If this Commission is concerned about the safety of setbacks he suggested
that they deal with them in a manner that makes them safe. They do not have control over the
International Building Code, but perhaps they should look at the entire growth management plan. They
have been pushing density. If these are real fire hazards and they have no fire fighting ability or no fire
fighting background to question anything that Mr. Loach raised and if this is a serious issue he thought
that it needs to be seriously addressed and he looked forward to hearing from the Fire Department on
that issue.
There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next item.
Public Hearing:
CPA-2005-00010 Public Hearing on the Final Draft Places29 Master Plan
Amend the Land Use Plan section of the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by replacing the existing
profiles of Neighborhood 1, Neighborhood 2, the Community of Hollymead and the Community of Piney
Mountain with the Places29 Master Plan, which establishes new land use policies, guidelines,
recommendations, goals and strategies for future development within the master plan area. The master
plan would establish the following for the master plan area: a vision for the area and guiding principles;
land use designations and place types such as neighborhood service centers, community centers,
destination centers, uptown, mixed use areas, employment areas and residential areas; a plan for the
transportation network and its integration with the land uses; a plan for providing and supporting
community facilities and services; design guidelines for the entrance corridors and boundaries; and a plan
for implementing the master plan. A copy of the full text of the Places 29 Master Plan is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Communi ty Development, County
Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Judy Wiegand)
Mr. Loach noted that this was the final public hearing on the Places29 Final Draft Master Plan.
Mr. Benish presented a PowerPoint presentation and outlined the background of the Places29 Final Draft
Master Plan, as follows.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
2
Covers four (4) Development Area neighborhoods
Coordinated land use plan and transportation plan
A “vision” Plan: will take a long time for the vision identified in this Plan to be realized. The
ultimate concept shown in the plan will take a very long time to develop in this area longer than
one would realize in a 20-year time frame.
The Vision – Land Use
Albemarle County‟s four Northern Development Areas will feature compact development consisting of
residential and employment neighborhoods that are organized around centers. These neighborhoods and
their centers will be pedestrian-oriented and mixed-use; they will offer a variety of housing choices,
retail environments, office types, and employment opportunities. They will be connected by an attractive,
efficient, and accessible multimodal transportation system. Integrated into this urban-style
development, parks and open spaces will provide a sense of respite and contribute to an overall
excellent quality of life.
Major Concepts of Plan
1. Coordinates land use and transportation to serve the Places29 area and regional traffic.
2. Recommends walkable neighborhoods with centers/amenities
3. The Plan recommends a regional, multimodal transportation network to serve drivers,
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.
4. Preserves open space and provides connections between these open spaces.
5. Future needs for schools, libraries, and other facilities have been included.
6. Establishes two Priorities areas to guide future public investments and land use decisions.
7. Minimize disruption of existing businesses, provides opportunities for redevelopment, and
increases business vitality.
8. The multimodal transportation improvements are needed whether or not there is a Master Plan.
Even if funding is not available for all of the transportation projects, the area will still benefit from
the pattern of mixed land uses, walkable neighborhoods, and transportation options.
The master planning process for Places29 also considered various expansion requests and opportunities.
At this point in time the Planning Commission has not recommended any of those, but did provide for an
option for expansion for public comment on during this public review process. This is particularly for Area
2 or this expansion area at the southern end of Hollymead. The Commission has received most of the
comments staff has received to date, which have generally been negative towards this expansion.
Staff has received from the Planning Commission and various stakeholder reviewers some public
comments. Staff has also found some typos and suggestions for clarifying sections of the plan that are
mostly non substantive and are working towards making those corrections.
Mr. Edgerton arriv ed at 6:06 p.m.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Henry Wineschenk, owner of Express Car Wash on Route 29, made the following comments.
He was a founding member of the North Charlottesville Business Council and a 30-year resident
of Albemarle County. He had an important hand behind the scenes in making sure that the
current US 29 has sidewalks, green strips along the curbs and most importantly a grassed
median strip with trees. He has followed Places29 with keen interest and applauds the concept
of combining land use planning with transportation planning. It just makes sense. Specifically he
thought that it was a good idea to develop roads that run parallel to US 29 and further improving
connectivity between neighborhoods and commercial properties. He could also envision the
gradual transformation of US 29 from a suburban commercial strip to a more urbanized area with
medium raised buildings immediately adjacent to the sidewalks combining residential and
commercial use.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
3
The intent obviously is to create a high quality pedestrian friendly residential area with shopping
on the street level. However, he found a major inconsistency in the Places29 proposal when it
comes to US 29. Creating grade-separated interchanges has the exact opposite effect to a
desired result. This part of the plan is steeply flawed. Rather than wanting to speed up the traffic
with grade-separated interchanges one would want to calm the traffic down. Lower speed limits
than the currently posted 45 miles per hour would make sense. Pedestrian crossing with strips
about every 300‟ would be necessary to make the plan work. Traffic needs to be calmed down
and not speeded up if they are serious about people living in attractive condos and apartments
there.
The last thing they want to do is to start to build an express way creating a chasm between both
sides of US 29 and thereby dooming any chance of developing an attractive urban area with a
high quality of life. Places29 needs to be revised so as to enhance the urban boulevard concept
which means frequent at-grade pedestrian crossings, dedicated bus and bicycle lanes and
eliminating all underpasses. This is no place for an urban express way, which have been
discredited as far back as the early „60‟s for cutting neighborhoods in half and converting the
adjacent areas into slums. He urged the Commission to eliminate the grade-separated
interchanges from the plan.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said that they have been engaged in discussions about
Places29 since the beginning.
They are appreciative of that opportunity and somewhat disappointed that they cannot fully
endorse this plan. They hear tonight through the presentation that the transportation plan needs
to go forward regardless of the land use plan. He was of the opinion that localities should have
strong land use policies and those should be discussed. Every time he has a discussion about
Places29 it is not about the land use policy but about the transportation issues. He really thought
that the land use should be first and foremost a local decision and transportation planning should
be a more regional decision.
He believed that the community master planning steering committee should include a cross
section of the community. He was v ery concerned about a lack of excitement about the plan
internal to the neighborhoods. One business group, the NCBC, brought forward crosswalks that
this Commission asked to be included in the plan rendering. He searched the plan and has not
found them. It is a chance that it is in there since it is a very big plan. But he was disappointed
that an idea that came forward from the community did not get at least consideration by the
Commission, included or specifically denied perhaps for good reasons. There is a lot of limited
discussion about the expansion of the growth areas. All the discussions that he has heard are
about growth area 2. He had heard very little about growth area 1 and 3 and nothing about 4.
They believe that realistic timelines should be included as part of the plan. This is one of their big
issues. Places29 is pretty much a kitchen sink approach. The way it is being phrased now is that
this is a vision document and not a 20-year planning document. He had promised folks that he
would ask the Commission if anyone thought that the projects listed in Places29 a majority of
them would be started in 20 years. He was hopeful in their discussion they can get an answer for
that. He obviously was very pessimistic about that reality. There has been a lot of hard work put
into this plan. He was appreciative of this work and did not want to throw out the work. He felt
they need to have a realistic plan and starting with the big five as Mr. Benish suggested was a
good start.
Carter Myers, Albemarle resident and owner of Colonial Auto Center, pointed out that CMA Properties
owns the land on 29 all the way back to Berkmar Drive. He made the following comments.
The transportation plan really needs some work. He looked at Places29 and thought that there
were some good things. He liked the idea of parallel roads, but felt that some people have not
thought through the interchange aspect. The interchanges cannot be designed or built the way
they are proposed. The way the interchanges are proposed is causing some crazy movements.
One is a road that comes behind their showroom where people are and up through some storage
sheds owned by L.F. Wood and on up the hill. That is one of the way they would make the
interchanges work without left and right turns. Those interchanges have had public hearings
since 1986 when there was a big public hearing on Rio Road. There was another public hearing
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
4
in 1990 and 1994. Tonight he had a copy of the 1994 book. Every person‟s comment on all
three hearings indicated if they tried to build those interchanges from a political point of view the
public hearing would consume all of those books again. He felt that the proposal put the roads in
the wrong places. Therefore, he felt that the transportation plan needs a lot of work. The
interchanges would be a disaster.
They need to keep as much commercial business as they can in Albemarle County. Looking at
land use they need keep the commercial area from Barracks Road to the Airport/Hollymead area
a viable shopping area. They are losing many people to Short Pump and other areas. He asked
that the county encourage their commercial businesses to keep places where people can do
business here in Albemarle County.
They need to keep a good commercial base. If they don‟t have a good commercial base here the
tax dollars will have to be raised for the residents. The ratio of tax dollars on residency to
commercial is not imbalanced. He asked that they encourage some good commercial
businesses to pay more taxes so that they can fund the schools and other things needed.
Lloyd Wood, resident of Albemarle County for all his life and current President of the North Charlottesville
Business Council, said that since the 1940‟s he had been traveling from Earlysville to town on Route 29.
Since that time he had seen those two lanes go to where it is now with the median strip and pretty Oak
trees grow to 8 lanes plus. He had seen the entire area along Route 29 grow from nothing to now the
economic engine that runs the County of Albemarle and the shopping area of the whole region. He asked
to share some important facts:
The 29 North Corridor now generates 45 percent of Albemarle‟s total annual local tax revenue.
This is about $25,000 per acre and only takes up about 2 percent in land area. It supports about
20,000 jobs. It provides over 800 million dollars in annual payroll to the community. It produces
over 33 million dollars in total tax revenue to the surrounding area.
Places29 clearly proposes US 29 to be an expressway. It proposes grade-separated
interchanges. An example is Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, Airport Road and others.
Places29 proposes several good things such as the expansion of Hillsdale, the expansion of the
exit at 250 Bypass in front of Best Buy and others. This will provide a system of parallel roads to
aid our local citizens.
Places29 main purpose should be to provide a transportation system that is safe and user friendly
for our local and regional citizens. He did not believe that an express way with grade-separated
interchanges can serve our community well.
Jim Cannon, resident of the Whitehall District, commended the Planning Commission for their service.
He noted that he traveled 29 North on a daily basis. He backed up what Mr. Carter and Mr. Wood had
already said. He asked the Commission to pay attention in their decision to the commercial disruption
that this plan‟s implementation is going to cause because this area is one of Albemarle‟s most productive
revenue producers both in terms of business revenue and tax revenue. It is a big footprint and the plan
covers a huge area. There are several unintended consequences. First businesses would have to be
demolished or undergo major renovation to accommodate the change in the topography. Another
implication that they need to pay attention to is that businesses need to stay in place. If a business loses
their visibility to their customers then they lose their accessibility as well. Having been in the military he
had worked in northern Virginia and hoped that northern Virginia does not happen to this area. He saw
this as a replay of Route 50 through Arlington County. That major highway is the driver. All anyone
would have to do is live next to it to see what will happen. He asked that the Commission consider the
proposal‟s impact on businesses and what would be the impact on tax revenue if they did not have the
businesses there.
Tom Fiume, small business owner in Albemarle County, said he was present to address the impacts of
the interchanges and the expressway included in this plan on the small business community.
The focus of his business was working with business owners to assist them in determining the
market value of their business to help develop exit planning strategies and help sell their
businesses when the time comes. Consequently over the last 13 years he has worked with
dozens of businesses up and down the 29 Corridor from Lynchburg to Culpeper. The majority of
those have been in Albemarle County including many in every one of the major shopping centers.
Most of those have been family owned businesses employing 5 up to 20 people. They are locally
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
5
owned sound businesses that contribute greatly to the economic vitality of our entire community
through the jobs they provide, the business and payroll taxes they pay, the shopping diversity and
personal service and local character they offer our residents and visitors. Most of these
businesses operate on very small margins. Their rents are high. The taxes they pay are high. It
is a very competitive business environment. This plan would destroy many of these businesses.
The disruption and customer accessibility during the construction phase of this plan even if it
were to affect only 10 percent of their revenues would put many of them under. In their office
they see 2 to 3 PML‟s every week from businesses in this community. They know their business
models, revenue streams, expenses and see their earnings. They are low margin. They have to
maintain their revenues and grow them to continue to be successful. Besides the disruption
during the construction phase this expressway would bifurcate Albemarle County‟s main street.
Once implemented the shoppers would not have the easy access to the diversity of shops and
businesses in the course of a trip that they do now. They will find other places to do their
shopping.
The theory that these interchanges and expressway would create new commercial areas may
actually be true, but only after the destruction of many existing locally owned business and the
loss of many jobs. He would guess that the replacement businesses would not be locally owned,
but will be larger national companies and franchises that are not concerned with the fabric,
beauty and character of Albemarle County. The business owners along this Corridor that he
talked to do not understand this plan, have not been involved in the process and have seen
headlines in the paper and snips on the news. When it is explained to them they cannot believe
that this is what is being considered. Many think that it is preposterous that the Commission and
the county would consider destroying the vitality of the main business district by putting an
expressway down Route 29.
Having attended many meetings over the years he felt that the consultants do not understand the
impact on the small business community and have failed to consider the economic consequences
of this plan. He urged the Commission not to pass the portions of the plan that include the
interchanges and the expressway.
Chris Tyler, owner of hotel on 29 Corridor, asked what doctors are told. First do no harm. He believed
this plan does major harm to the 29 Corridor and primarily the businesses. It is his understanding that
between 75 and 80 percent of all of the traffic on the 29 Corridor is local. Those people go there primarily
to shop there and use the services and assets that the 29 Corridor gives. This plan will directly affect the
businesses on the 29 Corridor adversely. It will lower the revenue produced and therefore lower the tax
base that the county has to work with. He could assure them that the residents of Albemarle County will
not be pleased with the results that come up. He strongly urged the Commission not to pass this plan.
Timothy Hulbert said that he worked for the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce who was the
largest and longest tenure business organization in the community with 1,000 member enterprises. That
includes many members along the US 29 North route. He echoed some of the comments they provided
to the Board of Supervisors earlier in the year. There are certain parts of the 29 Plan which they great
respect for and support. Most noticeably is the Berkmar Extended Road including a bridge over the
South Fork Rivanna River and continuing up to Hollymead. That is an excellent design as is a Hillsdale
Extended. But they cannot support a design for the main corridor that is fundamentally flawed and
premised upon moving 7,000 vehicles of the daily 55,000 vehicles at Hydraulic through the center part of
the community while taking the 48,000 vehicles, which are mostly residents, and pushing them away from
the main commercial‟s boulevard of our community. As folks earlier said there are 40,000 jobs along that
corridor and 800 million dollars each year that accounts for a large chunk of the county‟s revenue.
Grade-separated interchanges will be very disruptive of that commercial boulevard design. They think
that the plan is f undamentally flawed in trying to have a commercial boulevard and an expressway at the
same time. The two uses are not compatible no matter how many pretty pictures they draw. Finally, they
continue to raise concerns that the design is in conflict with their own study. In 2003 the 29 H 250
Studies said that a grade-separated interchange at Hydraulic and US 29 would cost 89 million dollars.
The same design is listed in this plan as 33 million dollars. That is really wrong. The 2003 piece had the
engineering and design alone at 37 million.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
6
Wendell Wood said that he went into business in 1960 on US 29 and has been actively developing there
for many years. He expressed his confusion in why they hired consultants who suggested what needed
to be done primarily for land use expansion areas that they chose to not approve along Route 29 for
growth. The consultants and county staff recommended inclusion of these expansion areas, but yet they
were taken out. He heard no one oppose Berkmar Extended. They seem to want that. But they did not
want to do anything to the land use. To the best of his knowledge there is no money. The State of
Virginia Highway Department says that they have no money. The county has no money. They are not
going to get that road built, which he believed they want. He believed the Planning Commission is on
record that they like the transportation plan. He felt that it was a little disingenuous to say that when they
know it can‟t happen without money. He reminded them that the 8 and 12 lanes of highway in front of
Hollymead Town Center he built f or 11 million dollars. Berkmar Drive is not going to be built unless the
adjoining property owners build it. Being one of those he knew that it was not going to be built if the land
plan does not go along with it. They are not treating this in the real world if they don‟t start some process
that is going to make it happen. NGIC are coming and are in that area. The Commission has professed
for years to put the growth where they work, sleep, go to school and keep them off the roads. And yet
they chose to take land and not put in this area that is fully furnished with public utilities, the best highway
system in the county, generally existing neighborhoods and schools and chose not to put it in your growth
area. It is the area with the largest population in the county with the largest amount of jobs. They refuse
to add this land to the growth area that is already served by public water, sewer and roads. He was
baffled how they can take a position like that.
Morgan Butler, on behalf of the Southern Env ironmental Law Center, said that for all of the accolades our
area received a common caveat pointed to by residents and visitors alike is the sprawling 29 Corridor.
Transforming this part of the county into a more appealing and functional growth area that can also
generate sustainable economic growth is a big challenge. But it is also a critical one for the county to
undertake. He made the following comments.
The first step is getting a plan in place that sets forth that vision and then charts the course for
getting there. Places29 embodies an integrated approach to land use and transportation planning
that is long overdue. The solution it proposes in the form of the stronger road networks, grade-
separated interchanges and transportation efficient land use patterns all compliment and build on
one another. They also address both local and regional traffic instead of focusing on one with the
exclusion of the other. As a result these solutions are able to maximize limited transportation
funding in sharp contrast to all or nothing proposals like the Western Bypass that ignore the vast
majority of trips on 29 and would leave 29 in failing state of congestion.
There appears to be some misunderstanding that the master plan generates the need for a
number of new transportation projects. This is to the contrary because many of the projects
address the backlog of unmet needs that already exist today and all but one project are needed
just to accommodate the development that will occur in this area regardless of whether Places29
is adopted or not. The plan simply organizes the different needs and integrates them with a land
use form that contributes to and compliments the overall transportation network. Rather than
increasing transportation costs this approach helps to reduce them. As a final point he asked
reiterated a point that they have made repeatedly throughout the course of the Master Plan‟s
development.
Achieving the plan‟s long term vision requires holding the line on growth area boundaries making
sure that no more large scale retail uses are added to the Corridor at this time. They believe that
the Hollymead South Expansion proposal will do far more harm than good for the reasons they
have outlined before. They applaud the county for tackling such an important endeavor. They
thank the staff members of the county, TJPDC and VDOT as well as all of the local residents
many of whom that are present tonight that have worked so hard on this plan. He thanked the
Commission for their time in reviewing the plan and strongly urged them to forward the plan to the
Board of Supervisors with their recommendation for approval.
Jeff W erner, with Piedmont Environmental Council, encouraged the Planning Commission to endorse
Places 29 and send it on to the Board of Supervisors for continued refinement and hopefully adoption and
implementation. Like many other organizations and local residents since the inception of Places29 the
PEC has been involved in the development of this plan. They endorse the concepts developed in the
proposed prioritization of infrastructure improvements. They support the concept of an integrated
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
7
transportation network with parallel and interconnected streets. They support a long range plan that
provides more transit options. They support a land use plan that is coordinated with the transportation
plan. They also support maintaining the current rural area south of the Hollymead Town Center and ask
that they not include in Places29 a plan to reduce the size of the rural area. To have a viable local
economy they need a local transportation network that works. People need to get to businesses and to
destinations in the Corridor not by pass them. Places 29 is a plan to accomplish this. To maintain the 29
Corridor as a desirable destination doing nothing is simply not an option. Even VDOT has told us that a
300 million dollar Western Bypass will not improve traffic within the commercial corridor. However,
Places 29 offers a series of incremental and arguably more affordable solutions that will. People and new
businesses relocate to this community because of the quality of life and the available amenities. Every
year some publication or another announces this area as the number one place to live. It is the number
one place to retire. Even last week it was the number one place to start a business, which is amazing.
Good planning brings good results. If Places 29 is nothing else it is a plan to keep the growth area a
viable place to live, shop, work and even run a business.
Bob Hodous, resident of Charlottesville for 42 years, noted that he worked with Free Enterprise Forum
and the Chamber of commerce but was speaking on his own. It was just mentioned that VDOT was
against the W estern Bypass. But if they look at what VDOT has proposed their statement is that the
Western Bypass as previously considered will not work. But that is because of where it ends. They have
suggested that they would like to see Leonard Sandridge Drive extended to hook in at some point so it
could go with Berkmar Drive assuming it is extended including across the reservoir. So the indication that
VDOT would be in favor in what is proposed and against a bypass is absolutely wrong. They also
indicated that since people appeared to be against the Western Bypass they would prefer an Eastern
Bypass. That is now being questioned because of the people in the eastern part of the county. If they
look at the information with respect to congestion, accidents and difficulty in getting in through there are
two places all up and down 29 where there are problems. It is in Gainesville before getting on 66 and
Charlottesville and Albemarle County between the 250 Bypass and Ruckersville. The idea that a bypass
has been booted by VDOT is absolutely wrong. He questioned how they think the owners of a
prosperous shopping center or owners of a business located at an intersection are going to be willing to
give away the land that is going to ruin their business for an interchange. He felt that this plan on a
transportation basis is greatly flawed and needs to be reconsidered.
Mark Green, developer of Rivanna Plaza, noted that Charlottesville was not the number 1 place to start a
business but 19 out of 20 on that particular list. He was the recent person that was subjected to the land
use thoughts on developing the Rivanna Plaza site. They were forced to look at inter-parcel connections
where it really did not make sense for the property and created a ton of problems in terms of how they
developed the site. They were lucky and ultimately able to come up with a solution that satisfied VDOT,
the county, their neighbors and the economic constraints on the property. It is just wishful thinking that all
the property owners will be willing to go along with the entire transportation plan. I t may be possible in 50
years to get all of that done. But in the meantime they will have a patchwork of partially completed
connections that will never serve anybody‟s purpose. Like it or not US 29 is the main street in Albemarle.
Anything they do to increase the through traffic is going to decrease the ability of the residents in the area
to get to the businesses they want to or to make turns to get on and off 29. Closing access from certain
properties and creating overpasses just reduces people‟s abi lity to get around. He suggested that the
politically bold thing would be to create a bypass but understand the political ramifications of that. In
meantime they would subject everybody in the county that needs to make local trips to the construction
and reduced access to the properties they want to get to.
Roy Van Duran, owner of property at Hollymead Town Center, said that he would speak to the zoning
side. In reading the documents and seeing the pictures of high density it seems that the goal is to
intensity the density of the existing commercial land. When developers come before this board and say
that they would like to increase the density there is nothing in this document that makes that path possible
other than endless hearings and zoning changes. To make the zoning more palatable it might be good to
look at a global statement or path to make greater density possible. But with density there comes traffic.
If they have a parcel right now only approved for 50,000 square feet, but in the ideal world they would like
to put in 200,000 square feet there is a traffic impact. This board has to address the fact that they either
have density or they accept the traffic. They can‟t have it both ways with density and no people.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
8
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Morris noted that it came over loud and clear especially from the business community that there is a
concern about disrupting the ability for people to get off of and on to 29 and into the businesses that
currently are there. This is a problem they have addressed a number of times and is one they have to
look at.
Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Morris that it was clear that what they had heard from the business
community one of the phrases he had heard a number of times to first do no harm. He heard a lot of the
business community say that it is going to do harm to the businesses along Route 29. They need to
figure out how they are going to reduce or eliminate that impact. Also from some of the previous
discussions he has had with residents he still wonders how some of the interconnections and the parallel
roads through the neighborhoods is going to work. Recently they have worked with Arden Place in
Woodbrook where he felt they made the right decision there not to connect the roads and create these
parallel road networks. At the last hearing there was a resident of Berkley and some of the other
locations where they are going to be talking about in the future about making these new roads and new
interconnections and he wondered how they were going to deal with mitigating the impacts of these
parallel road networks through existing neighborhoods.
Ms. Monteith noted that she had attended every single meeting over the years on Places29 and would
like to hear from staff why there is this disconnect. She felt that they were hearing several things tonight
that they had never heard before. She asked if staff has heard that in another place before or why is it for
the first time they were hearing several of these comments.
Mr. Benish asked if it was comments regarding impacts to businesses.
Ms. Monteith replied that it was about the interchange system in terms of the way that the road structure
works and how that will impact businesses.
Mr. Benish replied that they had heard that before from various workshops and charrettes. They certainly
recognize that any dev elopment within a corridor is going to have some impacts. The concepts that they
have in place by the consultant were ones that they were going to try to minimize designs for
interchanges that would reduce and lessen the impacts of land required and not do conventional grade
separations with /ramps that precluded access from adjacent properties and utilize an interchange
concept that would potentially bring the adjacent areas to have a relationship to a road system that could
be served by the grade separation. He felt that it had been part of the consultant‟s planning for the type
of improvements that they had envisioned, which is part of why it was more of a jug handle type of
concept and ring road/parallel road concept and a conventional grade separation concept. But they do
recognize that there is a balance between the necessary improvements. It has been their intent under
the plan concepts that they have to use an approach that minimizes those impacts. He could not speak
to the newness of the comments because he had been hearing them throughout the process.
Mr. Cilim berg said that some speakers have brought it up in prior work sessions. He thought that it is an
issue that is under stood. He thought that the Commission had been wrestling with it in some of the prior
work sessions. There is no clean way to deal with the situation that exists and there has not been for at
least as long as he has been here. It was recognized in 1991 when there was the agreement with the
city, county and university that there was a sequencing of projects that was necessary in the corridor and
interchanges were included in that.. It was a little different type from what they are talking about now as
part of this study. The plan had tried to do the best with a situation of transportation problems that have
built over many years. They are behind the curb in dealing with those in terms of the improvements.
Ms. Monteith noted that she understood that, but had not heard the consistency of one particular type of
comment, which is the concern about the grade separated intersections that she had heard tonight at any
other meeting.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
9
Mr. Cilimberg noted that tonight there was a number of business interests here.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that it had always been an issue for years and years. She felt that they had
gotten themselves into this situation. The county has had a lot of good planners over the years. Years
ago they recognized the fact that they needed some of these parallel roads. One was supposed to go
through Forest Lakes. Once Forest Lakes started filling up with residents they came i n to the Board and
said that they did not want the through road. So that road went away. The residents of Woodbrook
came before the Commission asking not to have any interconnectivity. If they look at Woodbrook
Subdivision there are stub outs that were platted to Carrsbrook and Arden Place, but they did not want to
upset an existing neighborhood. Therefore, they did not pursue that aspect. They had Hillsdale Drive
where the Pepsi Plant was located in that area. A lot of good planning has been done ov er the years for
some of these roads, which is why they are in the current position because they don‟t have any parallel
roads to 29. It is not because they have been negligent in that, but just something that they have done to
themselves. This particular issue of the grade separated interchanges was something that was worked
out between the city, county, and university years and years ago. But unfortunately it was removed by a
committee.
Ms. Monteith agreed with Ms. Joseph on everything she was saying. Her point is that they have never
had a public hearing where they have heard so many comments of a specific nature at one public
hearing. She was just surprised after all of these years of work that they are hearing so many comments
on one particular thing at one meeting, which might be the last.
Mr. Morris agreed with Ms. Monteith. They have heard comments that were made tonight in previous
workshops, but not to the extent. That is what he was hearing her say.
Ms. Joseph noted that she still supported grade separated intersections at those areas. She thought that
it would do more to help connect both sides of 29. She did not know what else they could do. She did
not think they can remove lanes from 29 to make it so it looks like Downtown Charlottesville. It is what it
is now. They are trying to get people back and forth. What she understood this document was doing
was by making the parallel roads and loop roads that they were trying to make it easier to get to these
businesses. It has never been her intent to destroy businesses on 29. She was trying to help people get
to these businesses by creating more of these connections. It is really important because a lot of people
avoid 29 because of the congestion and so many lanes. If they can get this down to some parallel roads
and some smaller roads connecting to these businesses she hoped that they could make them more
successful. She understands when they put in these interchanges that there will be some businesses that
will be disrupted. But she felt that it was going to be better for the entire community. Right now it is very
difficult for anyone to walk across 29. If they get these interchanges there will be bike lanes and walking
paths so people can get across 29. This is not an attempt to destroy business community this is an
attempt to help them. In her opinion this was not an attempt to destroy the business community, but an
attempt to try to help them be more successful. She was a little frustrated that some of these comments
were not brought out in some of the work sessions.
Mr. Edgerton said that none of what said he heard surprised him because he had been hearing these
concerns for a number of years. One of the issues that the Commission has a responsibility to the
community that they have been struggling with for a number of years in trying to come up with a plan is
that fact that the growth coming to the community in the next 20 years is going to be substantial. The
capacity of 29 is marginal at this time. Unless something is done to deal with the regional traffic and the
local traffic at the same time the community is going to be gridlocked. The business community will be
impacted at that time as well. The businesses will be out of business since the people will not be able to
get to them or avoid them. Right now most of the people that live in this community if at all possible at
certain times of the day will avoid 29 or try to find other routes to avoid the congestion on 29. He was
certain that was going to only get worse in the coming years. He acknowledged that the business
interests are deeply concerned about this proposal of the grade-separated interchanges that Ms. Joseph
mentioned. The grade-separated interchanges were a proposal many years ago before he was even on
the Commission. It was taken out by the transportation committee, which went totally against an
agreement by the city, county and the university. He still believed as a responsibility to the community
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
10
that they have to deal with the growth that is coming to this community. To do nothing which is what is
being proposed by a number of the negative comments this evening out of fear of impacting the existing
businesses is a very self serving approach by a small group of people and does not serve the community.
He was disappointed that a lot of folks in the community did not come to previous work sessions. He was
supportive of what was before the Commission. He hoped that the Commission would have the courage
to go ahead and send it on to the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Porterfield said that it was not fair to say to the people speaking tonight that they did not come
forward before. She personally discussed with this board the letter from the Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce dated June 12, 2009. She read one portion of it, as follows. “Beyond
construction do ability is the central question about the clear and present danger to the economic vitality
of the region‟s main commercial corridor such an extensive center corridor alignment construction
schedule would most likely create. Our Chamber has grave concerns about the severe economic
disruption and dislocation the Places29 projects will create. There can be no debate on this point that the
disruption and dislocation will occur. Yes our Chamber understands the relative merits of creative
destruction and how renewed vitality can and often emerges after economic destruction But what is the
Places 29 estimate of these destructive costs going along the corridor that today supports 20,000 jobs,
800 million in salaries each year and 40 percent of Albemarle‟s local tax revenue.” She felt that the
people who came to speak tonight spoke not only for themselves but they spoke for the average
Albemarle County resident who is paying taxes to support this county through their real estate values,
income taxes, sales taxes and other sundry taxes. She was really concerned back then and today about
what will happen when they try to construct not all of them but just starting with one. She felt that the
construction of one would scare people who have businesses for years who would go away or to find
another place to do business. She felt that the 45 percent, as pointed out tonight, of the annual tax
revenue to this county deserves really big consideration as to whether they are really doing harm. Under
the current economic situation she felt that they have to sit back and think about not doing any hard. She
suggested that they may have to accept the fact that if they are going to run the traffic through and use 29
to get f rom north to south and south to north that it may be more congested and at the same time might
be able to save some businesses and tax basis and the average Albemarle County tax payer if they lose
businesses and taxes.
Mr. Loach said that he did not think that one can make the extension that the people they heard tonight
speak as a representation of the community any more than they can say is that the lack of the average
citizen here is a support of this plan. The person he heard the most tonight was Mr. Van Duran who
talked about land use, density, traffic and planning. In the end that is what this plan boils down to a land
use and transportation plan. The plan has gone before multiple work sessions and has been vetted a
number of times. He did hear the concerns of the business community and would not negate the
alternatives that have been mentioned tonight. He was not sure this is the venue to do it. He felt that the
plan as it stands has been well thought out and vetted and the Commission should move it to the Board
of Supervisors. The Board has the ability to send the plan back to the Commission to make changes to it.
Again, he agreed with the other Commissioners that said that they have a plan that they have done the
work on. The plan answers the questions albeit for a long period of time in an atmosphere where the
funding for those changes is very doubtful.
Mr. Morris asked to move to a different topic the expansion areas. He was the one that asked that it be
placed in the plan to get public comment on it. He heard one gentleman talk in favor of increasing the
development area. He had not received that many emails and phone calls. He had received at least five
emails and many conversations that say do not add to the dev elopment. Staff very kindly kept it in so
they could discuss it. It has not drawn many comments except for the ones against except for the one
gentleman tonight.
Ms. Joseph noted that the Commission received a letter from the Forest Lakes Board of Directors that
was against any expansion of the growth area at this time too.
Mr. Franco said that he was the newest one on the Commission and had not been here for the discussion
about the land use plan but only on the implementation. He was not proposing that they do n othing. He
was struggling between the land use plan, which he liked, and the transportation plan. He felt the plan
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
11
was good in the transportation aspects of things. On implementation of the growth areas he still
wondered and was concerned that they were making potentially false promises to people if they don‟t
look at how to create these avenues. They heard from one speaker tonight that talked about the funding
of the improvements on 29 in front of the Hollymead Town Center. He still sees that as a tool that is out
there for the Berkmar Extension that personally made sense. He heard other speakers talk about how it
is unrealistic to assume that some of the right-of -ways could be donated in the future. He thought that
expansion of at least the Hollymead and Berkmar area makes a lot of sense to help facilitate that project
taking place. On the NGIC he thought those comments were interesting. They are constantly looking at
ways of trying to integrate the residential components with the work place centers. He thought that was a
valid argument that was presented tonight for areas 1 and 4 around NGIC for expansion of that area.
They are seeing expansion taking place with the location of NGIC and DIA. Having the residential in that
area to support it makes a certain amount of sense.
Ms. Porterfield noted her biggest problem with the plan is that it is based on the parallel road concept and
they have an opportunity to put a parallel road on the west side, but just don‟t have any money. If there is
any way to encourage the possibility that a developer might be so inclined as to help pay for that, it would
achieve part of what the transportation plan is based on. Mr. Benish‟s wording really puts any
dev elopment in that area in a box regarding things they have to do. It is not a foregone conclusion. It is
very tightly monitored. They will have to come forward with all of the answers to the questions Mr. Benish
has put into this particular section. She felt that was not opening Pandora‟s Box but just giving the county
an opportunity to maximize what the transportation plan is suggesting.
Ms. Joseph asked staff how many units had been approved in North Pointe. There is a lot of residential
already approved in Hollymead Town Center and North Pointe. The county has a lot of residential that
will be available that has already been approved in a rezoning in that area. She asked if that is true.
Mr. Benish replied that was correct.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that there were around 800 units with Hollymead Town Center having around 1,200
units.
Ms. Joseph noted that it was in the pipeline a number of residential units already rezoned that need to be
platted. When they talk about expansion of the growth area they are talking about the problems on the
existing roads and she could not see the logic behind expanding it at this point in time. There is nothing
to stop anyone from coming in with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment simultaneously with a rezoning
that offers up all kinds of things. But at this point to just hear some words in the air talking about how it is
possible to put a road in different places if the growth area is expanded does not make her feel
comfortable or that she was representing the community properly. Right now it is not something she can
support. With the existing traffic problems she felt that it would be totally irresponsible at this point to add
more land to the growth area.
Ms. Monteith noted in response that on page 3 - 16 there is a summary. It says that there are already
4,500 new housing units approved through rezonings for development in the northern development areas.
Mr. Franco asked does it say how many of those are within walking distance of NGIC and some of the
other centers that are being developed in that area. The Neighborhood Model encourages this kind of
growth immediately adjacent to these work places. He sees this as two different arguments. One is
putting some of the residential units closer to some of the work places. Second is the f unding aspect for
the Berkmar Bridge and Berkmar Extended. He heard what Ms. Joseph was saying, but he would say in
lieu of coming up with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Why not list what conditions and what the
concerns they have today are so that a group of developers could come forward and know what is
expected of them. He thought that is what is outlined in the proposal before them. It was not part of the
plan, but was in the appendixes.
Ms. Joseph replied that she heard what he was saying, but could not go there. They have hear time after
time about the cost of this and they have already have problems that exist. So adding more land in is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
12
encouraging more dev elopment in this area would not be a responsible thing to do and she could not
support it.
Mr. Franco said that he respects and accepts that, but asked how she justifies that they have a plan that
can‟t be implemented. They have these expenses for the extension of the road. If they agree that is not
going to happen unless there is funding from the state or county because the development is not going to
do it because they are not being offered to make it happen, then how are they going to have this
important aspect of parallel road connection built.
Ms. Joseph replied that if they put this into the Comp Plan there were no guarantees that it was going to
happen.
Mr. Franco questioned if this is the basis of the whole transportation component. They were saying that
this is the plan they want and this is what they are going to try to make happen. He thought that the
transportation component was more than just a vision of this is what they would like to see. He had been
considering the transportation component as this is our solution for dealing with the current and future
traffic problems. So it is a plan and not just a vision.
Ms. Joseph said that it is a plan and it is adding more intensity out there to add this collection of parcels to
the growth area. She did not think they need any more retail in that area. At this point in time they have a
lot that has already been approved in that area. She disagreed and was just not comfortable at this time
adding more land to the growth area.
Mr. Loach noted that the point made was that they were still playing catch up. Expanding the growth area
would add traffic on 29 and make the matter worse. Until they have a plan for 29 he felt that there should
not be an expansion of the growth area.
Mr. Franco asked isn‟t this a plan for 29.
Mr. Loach replied that the plan should be approved first and then they could consider it once they know
where they are going. An example is Jarman‟s Gap Road in Crozet. Until they see some evidence that
they have a realistic transportation plan, be it interchanges or an alternative, he could not support
expansion of the growth.
Ms. Porterfield noted unlike Jarman Gap Road if they put in what Mr. Benish wrote this section says
exactly what has to happen before they add to the growth area. It will be nice land, but unless these
things happen nothing is going to get built on it as far as growth area goes. It is very particular in what
one would have to do. At least as Mr. Franco says it give the developer or a group of developers a real
guide to what is expected of them if they want to start going through the hoops at the county to make
something happen.
Mr. Loach said that he would be happy to entertain that idea when funding is available. He was not totally
against it, but it was the timing.
Ms. Porterfield noted that the only thing that might be funded in the near future would be Berkmar
Extended. She did not see the county coming up with the kinds of money f or the grade separated
interchanges. If they get Berkmar Extended she felt it would pull some traffic off 29 and people will use it
for businesses.
Mr. Edgerton noted that what initiated some of this conversation was the suggestion by a particular
developer who said that if they allow him to rezone his property to put yet again another large scale retail
facility on it he could figure out a way to pay for that bridge. That was the offer that was made. That is all
very well and good. The problem is that what he is proposing is going to have a regional impact on our
road system. It will increase the traffic on 29. There will be more people coming from outside of the
county to support a large scale retail outfit. They have a process in place. One of the problems he had
with Mrs. Porterfield‟s and Mr. Franco‟s suggestion was why reverse the process and why does the
county have the responsibility of initiating a Comprehensive Plan Amendment rather than going through
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
13
the process already in place. If a developer is willing to come in with more than just a suggestion with a
commitment then they can respond to that.
Mr. Porterfield noted that she knew nothing about the offer of the developer when she suggested
previously that this plan is based on the parallel road concept and the only place she could see that they
did not have the opportunity to put a parallel road was through the section on the west side that is zoned
rural areas. This is from her reading of the plan. To be real honest it might be good if they had more
businesses where people would come in from outside the county and their spend money. She lived on
the east side of the county and went to Lowe‟s in Zion Crossroads because it is easy to access. If the
Wal-Mart had been opened she would have gone there too. That is not good because the county wants
her to spend her money here. She suggested that they bring in people who could spend their money
here even if they don‟t live here. If this would be a draw she felt that would be wonderful.
Mr. Cilimberg noted to be fair to the process and some of the history he wanted to remind the
Commission that this particular southern area expansion, which is in somewhat of a different form, came
forward f rom the landowner early on as the Commission was getting into the Places29 process. The
Commission had suggested that it be considered as an amendment possibility as part of Places29. The
Commission actually received some information from the applicant on what they proposed to do and if
they would consider it early on during Places29. The Commission decided that they would not pursue it
at that time. There has been a process that has taken place where the amendment has been before
them. He did not want the owner to think that it is being ignored because it was before them. The
Commission looked at it and decided that was not something they wanted to pursue. They came back to
it more recently and asked staff to provide something that could be used if it was a decision to add to that
area. That is before the Commission. There has been a rezoning proposal on what the applicant
proposed to do. That is somewhat different than what actually staff has given them more recently. That
is a history of how they got to where they are.
Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to approve the document as written with the
technical changes and forward it to the Board of Supervisors.
Wendell Wood asked to address some comments made by Mr. Edgerton that were not true. He felt that
they were not serving the community with that thought process.
Mr. Loach declined Mr. Wood‟s request to speak since the public hearing was over and he could make
his comments at the next hearing. He asked if there was any other discussion.
Mr. Cilimberg asked for some clarification as to what that motion is including. The Board had asked
specifically for the Commission‟s recommendation regarding the expansion areas. So it would be good to
include in the motion that you are or are not proposing any of the expansion areas before them.
Amended Motion: Ms. Joseph moved to amend the motion that the Planning Commission recommends
no expansion of the growth area at this time.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the document would otherwise be as has been presented with the modifications
nonsubstantive which needs to be made before it goes to the Board.
Ms. Joseph agreed to add Mr. Cilimberg‟s wording to add to the motion.
Mr. Cilimberg passed out a document of what those non substantive amendments are so the Commission
knows which changes need to be made to the document before the Board gets it. (See Memo addressed
to Members of Planning Commission from Judy Wiegand dated 10-27-09 regarding List of Changes
Proposed by Staff to the Places29 Master Plan, dated August 18, 2009)
Amended Motion: Ms. Joseph moved and Mr. Edgerton seconded to accept the amendment to the
motion to document otherwise as has been presented with the modifications nonsubstantive that need to
be made before it goes to the Board.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
14
Ms. Monteith asked individually what they should do if they pick up little editing things, and Mr. Cilimberg
replied that small edits should be sent to staff as long as it is non substantive and was not questi onable.
Mr. Franco said that he remains concerned about the expansions for the reasons already stated. He
remains concerned about the business concerns that were expressed earlier. He was having a hard time
moving this plan forward without understanding and having some type of response from staff or this group
with respect to the fiscal impact and the best guess of what the impact will to our community for
implementing the intersections and the changes for Places29 and the questions that were raised earlier
by the public. He would like to understand the fiscal impacts. They have talked about the number of jobs
and things like that. If there is a way to quantify or understand it he would like to know what those are
before moving this thing forward.
Ms. Joseph questioned whether that can happen. She did not think they could decide what the fiscal
impacts are going to be as far as jobs are concerned on some of these improvements. They don‟t know
when these improvements are going to occur. The document says it will take several years to occur. She
did not know how that can be done. They have put information in about the costs of the right-of -way. If
they don‟t agree with those she did not know where else those numbers could come from. Anything they
do is going to have some kind of impact on somebody. She did not agree with that concept.
Mr. Cilimberg said that they recognize that there are those impacts that need to be better quantified and
really thought out in the planning process beyond getting the plan adopted. When dealing with a plan at
this level it is hard to get down to say specifically where a road should go. They can show examples of
interchanges. The plan provides guidance only as to what further planning they need to do. He recalled
that there are two small area plans that are very much about addressing location more specifically of
facilities, impacts and costs including fiscal impact with the properties that are involved. Those two small
area plans were at Rio and 29 generally and the Airport and 29 generally. Those are two interchange
locations. He thought that it was at that point in time where they are going to need to be much more
engaged with the very specifics of a plan and how to provide for the interchange concepts. They may
decide there that there is something else they need to do. This is the start. But to get to that level of
being able to say what the fiscal impact is would be very difficult with a plan at this high view.
Mr. Franco asked if he was saying if they move this plan forward and they get to next stage and they start
to gather that impact information that they could always go backwards and look at another alternative.
Mr. Cilimberg replied certainly that at any point in time any Comprehensive Plan can be amended. All of
these master plans just like the Comprehensive Plan go through a five year review. That is being done
in Crozet at this time. By recognizing some of the things that have happened over the past five years with
the original plan there will be changes to the Crozet plan. When they know more and in a position to
more closely scrutinize how facilities may be provided for and what their impacts may be they are better
able to decide how to deal with those specifics and understand the impacts.
Ms. Monteith said that since this is a fairly large scaled plan as far as the five year review process would
they be focusing more on small area plans that had been developed once this is approved and they
would be moving forward with that. She asked how they plan to focus that effort due to the large scale of
the plan.
Mr. Benish said his hope would be that they would focus on the implementation components. They start
with looking at the vision, the guiding principles and overall recommendations to check in to see if they
are still consistent with what they have experienced and the trends at that point of time. Assuming that
they are on track and still consistent in those areas then they question where they are in the
implementation of those. That is how they are approaching Crozet. They question whether they are still
on track with the vision and overriding goals and objectives and how they are approaching those in terms
of implementation and then how those need to be adjusted. In terms of the small area plans that was one
of the first priorities in terms of the implementation components. In the CIP that was submitted under
review staff requested $100,000 for the next fiscal year to begin that study on Rio Road. They all know
the funding situation and don‟t know the status of that, but the idea was to start on that one in the first two
years of the plan. As it relates to an update he would hope that they would have some completion of that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
15
or result of that and in the update process they would have to make an adjustment. If they find that
something is not going to work they take that under consideration with the five year update. If it is going
to work they move from there. That is how the small area plan might relate to the update.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that they are also looking at the possibility of implementing the small area plan
through a process with the state that has now dictated that all communities of this size had urban
development areas. Actually the small area plans fit very well within the UDA concept. There are some
monies that are going to be available for assistance in doing work of that type that they are going to be
pursuing. He could not say when exactly they would have the small area plans started, but they have
some resources to go to for that. He was not trying to make that the magic bullet. With the property
owner and general community concerns it is going to be an endeavor to go through the small area plans,
but he thought that was where they would get much more definiti on. They are blessed and cursed when
they start throwing examples out of how system interchanges and roads might work. O n the one hand
they are trying to show what could happen. But on the other hand beyond just the conceptual stage they
really have not looked at it closely to see how it will fit in the end. It is the nature of the master planning
level of work. They would rather at least be giving some view of what it could be than not addressing it at
all.
Mr. Loach said that his view of the plan does is does it meet the basic criteria for the land use
transportation in the Route 29 Corridor. He could answer yes after multiple work sessions and multiple
revisions. Are there questions that still have to be answered? The answer is yes and that is one of the
reasons why he would like to see the plan move up so that the issues that they heard tonight can be
addressed at the Board level. That is one of the reasons he would support the motion. The question of
the expansion areas will go with the plan as well. Our recommendation tonight would be not to expand
the expansion areas, but it is still within the plan as it goes up. He asked if there were any other
comments.
Ms. Porterfield said she philosophically cannot support a plan that is a transportation plan with a premise
for parallel roads and they are essentially not even trying to facilitate the possibility of creating a parallel
road on at least one side of 29. Regardless of the grade separated interchanges and the havoc they may
cause to the business community as well as those that come and buy things it just seems without the
parallel road system isn‟t a good plan. The other thing is that the expansion of another area was
specifically asked for by the Board of Supervisors in May of 2006 and they are basically saying no that
they are not going to do that if this motion passes.
Mr. Loach noted that the Board will have a chance to address that issue.
Mr. Morris asked that the question be moved.
Mr. Franco noted that he could accept staff‟s analysis, but without the addition of the growth areas with a
recommendation of no expansion he cannot support this.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:2. (Porterfield and Franco voted nay) (Strucko absent)
Mr. Cilimberg noted that no date has been scheduled for the Board of Supervisors hearing, but it most
likely will be scheduled after the first of the year.
Mr. Loach thanked everyone for coming tonight.
In summary, the Planning Commission by a vote of 4:2, recommended approval of the Final Draft
Places29 Master Plan for the document otherwise as has been presented with the modifications
nonsubstantive that need to be made before it goes to the Board with the recommendation of no
expansion to the growth area at this time. (Porterfield/Franco voted nay)
Old Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any old business.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – OCTOBER 27, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
16
December 1, 2009 the Planning Commission meeting will start at 6:00 p.m. in Room 241 for the Joint
City/County meeting.
In a meeting today with the City representatives it was decided that the agenda would focus on the
following items related to Places29:
o what Places29 is recommending;
o to receive the City‟s current thoughts and input regarding Hillsdale Drive and some of the projects
within the City that are in the Corridor area or parallel to the Corridor; and
o any City input on the Route 29 Corridor Study recommendations on what Route 29 does south of
Hydraulic Road going down to the Bypass; and
o also a request that the University provide some input on how they look at the transportation in the
Corridor in terms of accessing University related facilities whether it be the North Fork Park or the
University itself because a lot of the traffic north/south is actually going to the University. There is
an interest in having some University perspective there.
At the December 1 meeting an additional item might need to be added for the County Planning
Commission to take up. It will be a quick agenda item that will not need a lot of discussion. The
meeting on December 1 will start at 6:00 p.m. and be devoted to the joint discussion.
November 10, 2009 the Planning Commission meeting starts at 4:30 p.m. on the Farm Wineries.
November 17, 2009 the Planning Commission meeting starts at 5:00 p.m. on the Entrance Corridor
Administrative Process. The Village of Rivanna public hearing will start at 6:00 p.m.
Mr. Franco thanked staff for their hard work on Places29.
Mr. Cilimberg thanked the Planning Commission for their work on Places29 noting that the transportation
component was a difficult issue.
New Business:
Mr. Strucko asked if there was any new business.
THERE IS NO MEETING SCHEDULED ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2009.
THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10,
2009.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. to the Tuesday, November 10, 2009 meeting at
6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
Return to exec summary