HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-5-02Tenative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
MAY 2, 2012
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Adoption of Final Agenda.
5. Brief Announcements by Board Members.
6. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing May, 2012 as National Tourism Month.
b. Proclamation recognizing May 25, 2012 as Senior Independence Day.
c. Spring Hill Baptist Church.
7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
8. Consent Agenda (on next page).
9:30 a.m. - Public Hearings:
9. SP-2012-00001. Ivy Forum (Sign #90). PROPOSAL: Special use Permit request for
Indoor Athletic Facility on 0.9370 acres. No dwellings proposed. ZONING: CO Commercial Office –
offices, supporting commercial and service; residential uses by special use permit at a density of 15
units/acre. Section 23.2.2 (14) Indoor Athletic Facility. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office Service – office uses, regional scale research, limited production
and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential
(6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 7. LOCATION: 2200 Old Ivy Road TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-
00-00-046C0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett.
10. ZMA-2011-008. Three Notch'd Center (Sign #115). PROPOSAL: Request to
amend the application plan to include an automobile laundry use on property zoned PD-SC-
Planned Development Shopping Center which allows large-scale commercial uses and residential
by special use permit at 15 units/acre. No residential is proposed. PROFFERS: Yes. EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Light Industrial- manufacturing, storage,
distribution, with supporting office, retail, R&D, flex and commercial uses within the Crozet Master
Plan. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 5368, 5374, and 5382 Three Notch'd Road,
located on the northside of Three Notch'd Road approx 500 feet west of its intersection with
Parkview Drive. TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A3 Parcel 9 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
11. An ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, of the Albemarle County Code, to
amend Section 2-202, Compensation of board of supervisors, to increase the
compensation of the members of the Board of Supervisors by an inflation factor of 1% effective July
1, 2012 from $14,687.00 per annum to $14,834.00 per annum.
12. An ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Offenses-Miscellaneous, of the Albemarle County Code,
by adding Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass
Violations. The proposed ordinance (authorized by Virginia Code § 15.2-1717.1) would allow the
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0502/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:42:39 AM]
Tenative
owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully in charge of a property to designate the Albemarle
County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for the purpose of
enforcing trespass laws.
Action Item:
13. Proposed Route 29 Bypass, Consideration of Request to VDOT for public hearing.
Recess
Presentations:
14. 10:45 a.m. - Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board
Chairman.
15. 11:00 a.m. - SPCA Annual Report, Susanne Kogut, Executive Director.
16. 11:15 a.m. – Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Update, Gary O’Connell, Executive
Director.
17. 11:35 a.m. – Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Quarterly Update, Tom Frederick, Executive
Director.
18. Closed Meeting.
19. Certify Closed Meeting.
20. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
Presentations:
21. 1:30 p.m. – Jefferson Area CHIP, Judy Smith, Executive Director.
22. 1:45 p.m. - Natural Heritage Committee Report, Lonnie Murray, Chairman.
23. 2:00 p.m. - CACVB Marketing Plan Update.
24. 2:30 p.m. - Discussion and to receive public comment: Target Study Recommendations for
Albemarle County.
25. Community Development 2012 Work Program.
26. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
27. Adjourn to May 9, 2012, 3:00 p.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
8.1 Approval of Minutes: January 4, January 11, February 8(A), February 8(N), February 29,
2012.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0502/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:42:39 AM]
Tenative
8.2 Albemarle County’s FY12/13-FY16-17 Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives.
8.3 Resolution on the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk of
its revenue and refunding bonds in one or more series (the "Series 2012 Bonds") in an aggregate
principal amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist Sentara Healthcare (Martha Jefferson Hospital).
8.4 FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
8.5 Revised Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
8.6 Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-Year
Improvements Program (SYIP).
8.7 SDP-2011-060. Colonial Nissan- Major Site Development Plan Amendment – Zoning
Ordinance Waivers.
8.8 SDP-2012-015. Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse Development Plan Amendment –
Zoning Ordinance Waiver.
FOR INFORMATION:
8.9 CCP-2012-0001. Law Enforcement Firing Range (Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site).
8.10 Athletic Synthetic Turf Fields Annual Report.
8.11 VDOT – Culpeper District, Albemarle County Monthly Report, May 2012.
8.12 2011 Annual Report of the Albemarle County Planning Commission.
8.13 Update on Wireless Policy and Regulations.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2012Files/0502/0.0_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/2/2020 10:42:39 AM]
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
MAY 5 – 13, 2012
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry in Albemarle County continues to be vital to our economic stability and
growth; and it contributes significantly to our County’s cultural and social climate; and
WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry supports the vital interests of the Albemarle County community,
contributing to our employment, economic prosperity, international travel and relations, peace and understanding and
goodwill; and
WHEREAS, the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau is funded through the collection of the
overnight hotel tax from County hotels, bed & breakfasts, and campgrounds; and
WHEREAS, the mission of the CACVB is to enhance the economic prosperity of the County by promo ting, selling, and
marketing the destination; and
WHEREAS, the CACVB supports and promotes the Monticello Artisan Trail, a vibrant agricultural scene and historic
landmarks that attract out-of-area visitors who can enjoy the beautiful Albemarle County la ndscape; and
WHEREAS, in its most recent report, the Virginia Tourism Corporation disclosed that for 2010, $274.4 million in
direct visitor spending occurred in Albemarle County; and approximately 2,832 jobs in Albemarle County are directly
supported through the tourism and hospitality industry, which includes lodging, food service, attractions, transportation,
agritourism, and the arts; payroll for these individuals was $50.6 million; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association estimates that “1 out of every 9 jobs in the U.S. depends on travel and
tourism;” and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Travel Association further estimates that “each U.S. household would pay $1,000 more in taxes
without the tax revenue generated by the travel and tourism industry;” and
WHEREAS, every citizen in Albemarle County benefits from the positive economic impact of the tourism industry;
and, it is fitting that we recognize the importance of travel and tourism to the health and vibrancy of our community;” and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOVLED, that I, Ann Mallek, Chair of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do
hereby proclaim the week of
May 5 - 13, 2012
as
NATIONAL TOURISM WEEK
in Albemarle County, and I call upon all citizens to recognize the value of the tourism industry in our community and to
observe this week with appropriate ceremonies and activities.
Signed and sealed this 2nd day of May, 2012
Return to agenda
WHEREAS, we are ever mindful that our nation is built on the wisdom, talents, and
hard work of those who were born before us; and
WHEREAS, we acknowledge with gratitude their contributions to those great gifts of
peace and prosperity which we now enjoy; and
WHEREAS, as a society fortified by independence, our aim is to nurture those who
are younger and follow the example of those whose years exceed ours;
and
WHEREAS, our older citizens have worked long and hard to ensure that our lives are
better, and our community acknowledges and supports their right to live
independently and actively into their later years.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ann H. Mallek, Chair, on behalf of the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors, do hereby proclaim May 25, 2012, Senior Independence
Day, and call upon all of our citizens to serve one another and the
common good by celebrating this day going forward.
On behalf of the citizens and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, we would like to
recognize and commend
Spring Hill Baptist Church
for their collaborative work with the Albemarle County Social Services Family Support Program
and Agnor Hurt Elementary School. Spring Hill Baptist Church makes a significant contribution to
the community through a variety of programs. We honor Spring Hill Baptist Church today for two
of those programs – The Saturday Tutoring Program and The Summer Day Camp.
The Tutoring Program began October 1, 2005 with five children and serves twenty-five children
today. Some of these children are returning middle school students who also support the younger
children. The service is free to the children and provided every Saturday by church volunteers and
the Youth Minister. It includes transportation, lunch, educational games and outdoor activity. The
church also pays for use of the space at the school.
The Summer Day Camp began in 2008 serving twenty-two children for one week but grew to two
one week camps serving fifty elementary and returning middle school students in 2011. The camp,
staffed by church volunteers, provides academic tutoring, indoor and outdoor sports & games,
fishing, swimming, nature walks, arts & crafts, and woodworking. All campers also get breakfast,
lunch and snacks. A bus and driver are provided by the County Schools but the church pays for the
entire camp including food, materials, and all transportation costs.
We are strengthened and enriched as a community by the skills and dedication this church
contributes to the community. As a local government, we could not begin to fund all the many
services we receive for free from this church that help make us a nationally recognized place to live.
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors congratulates Spring Hill Baptist Church for the
success of these two programs and expresses its thanks for the outstanding work they continue to do
in support of our community.
Signed and sealed this 2nd day of May 2012.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
County’s FY12/13-FY16/17 Strategic Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the Strategic Plan goals and objectives
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, and Davis; and Ms. Catlin,
Ms. Allshouse, and Ms. Wyatt
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 1, 2012, staff presented to the Board of Supervisors an overview of strategic planning efforts that have
occurred since the Board’s June 2011 Strategic Planning Retreat. These efforts include finalizing the County’s Vision
Statement and the development of seven goals for implementation for the upcoming 5-year planning period. At that
meeting, the Board approved the following goals and associated objectives:
1. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
2. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
3. Protect the County’s parks and it’s natural, scenic and historic resources
4. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges
5. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service
At the Board’s March 7, 2012 meeting, the Board approved two additional goals and associated objectives:
1. Ensure the health and safety of the community
2. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents
This executive summary provides a revised goal statement for the “Protect the County’s natural, scenic and
historic resources” goal based on feedback received from Board members on March 7, 2012.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has finalized the proposed Strategic Plan identifying seven strategic goals and associated objectives.
(Attachment A) Board members expressed general consensus to amend the “Protect the County’s parks and its
natural, scenic and historic resources” goal to include language reflecting the need to follow established growth
management principles. Based on this feedback, staff has proposed the following amended goal:
Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s
established growth management polices
As a result of the extensive feedback from both the Board and employees throughout the past year, staff believes that
this strategic plan has the strong support needed to achieve success over the next five years. Upon the Board’s
acceptance of all goal and objective statements, staff will develop action plans for each goal. Implementation of the
plan will begin on July 1, 2012, and the Board of Supervisors will receive regular updates on the progress of the plan
through a variety of methods:
Twice a year updates, in July and January, to be presented at Board of Supervisors meetings
Regular updating of key performance indicators, or KPIs, that can be viewed by Board members and the
public at any time on the County’s website at the following link: www.albemarle.org/performance
AGENDA TITLE: County’s FY12/13-FY16/17 Strategic Plan
May 2, 2012
Page 2
References in executive summaries and budget materials that will connect Board agenda items and funding to
the Strategic Plan goal/objective they support
Annual Report to Citizens published in February of each year that gives a summary of annual progress
BUDGET IMPACT:
The FY12/13–FY16/17 Strategic Action Plan will provide direction for the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan and
annual budget processes.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of all goal and objective statements for the County’s FY12/13–FY16/17 Strategic Plan.
(Attachment A)
ATTACHMENTS
A – FY12/13–FY 16/17 Strategic Plan goals and objectives
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
FY13-17 Albemarle County Strategic Plan
VISION:
A thriving County,
anchored by a strong
economy and excellent
education system, that
honors its rural heritage,
scenic beauty and
natural and historic
resources while fostering
attractive and vibrant
communities.
MISSION:
To enhance the well-
being and quality of life
for all citizens through
the provision of the
highest level of public
service consistent with
the prudent use of public
funds.
VALUES:
Integrity
Innovation
Stewardship
Learning
1. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County
residents
a. Increase the availability and quality of pre-kindergarten learning
opportunities and adult workforce development opportunities.
b. Improve coordination to support goals shared between the School
Division’s Strategic Plan for K-12 Education and the County’s overall
Strategic Plan.
2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs
a. Improve the evaluation practices and procedures used to assess the
community’s facility needs.
b. Increase the capacity of the Capital Program.
c. Identify and implement appropriate alternative construction project
procurement methods (design/build, CM Agency, Job Order Contracting,
PPEA, etc.) to reduce costs and improve project execution
3. Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy
a. Complete all objectives of last two years of the Economic Vitality Action
Plan.
b. Establish fully functioning economic development program for the County.
c. Assess and implement appropriate incentive options to support economic
development in the County.
4. Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources
in accordance with the County’s established growth management
polices
a. Work in conjunction with key stakeholders to protect the health of our local
waterways and other critical natural resources.
b. Preserve and maintain the quality of the County’s investment in its parks
and its recreational trail and greenway/blueway system.
c. Maintain and preserve County-owned historic resources and facilities and
work in conjunction with key stakeholders to enhance awareness of the
rich historic assets of this region.
5. Ensure the health and safety of the community
a. Work in conjunction with key community partners to establish multi-
disciplinary teams to address specific public health and/or safety issues,
emerging trends and or vulnerable groups.
b. Enhance the safety of the County by improving emergency response times
and increasing prevention activities and services.
6. Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community
challenges
a. Increase County’s volunteer management capability
b. Increase opportunities for citizen self reliance and responsibility for
addressing community issues
7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures
excellent customer service
a. Demonstrate improvements to internal and external customer service.
b. Reinforce a culture of using cross departmental efforts to improve
communications and teamwork for cost effective solutions.
c. Expand opportunities for training and professional development.
d. Assure staff is supported and recognized for excellence in service.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia (the
"Authority"), has considered the plans of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company"), a Virginia non-
stock corporation that is the sole corporate member of Martha Jefferson Hospital (the
"Hospital"), for the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the
"Norfolk Authority") of its revenue and refunding bonds (the "Bonds") in an aggregate principal
amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist the Company and its affiliates in (a) financing or
refinancing the construction and equipping of a new Sentara Leigh Hospital bed tower to
substantially replace the existing Sentara Leigh Hospital, located at 830 Kempsville Road in
Norfolk, Virginia, including construction and equipping of the new bed tower, a replacement
central utility plant, new structured parking, a new main entrance, telephone communications /
infrastructure for the bed tower, improved clinical and support space, and renovations to public
corridors; (b) advance refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the
Authority's Hospital Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital), Series 2002 (the "2002
Authority Bonds"), which financed certain capital projects and equipment of the Hospital, now
located at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); (c) advance
refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Prince William Hospital Facility Revenue Bonds (Potomac Hospital
Corporation of Prince William), Series 2003, which financed certain capital projects of Sentara
Potomac Hospital, located at 2300 Opitz Boulevard in Prince William County, Virginia; (d)
funding any required reserve funds; and (e) financing costs of issuance allocable to the Bonds;
WHEREAS, as referenced above, a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to
advance refund obligations of the Authority the proceeds of which were allocated to facilities of the
Hospital located in the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on April 10, 2012, with respect to the
advance refunding of the 2002 Authority Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code");
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code provides that the highest elected governmental
officials of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in which any facility financed
with the proceeds of a private activity bond is located shall approve the issuance of such bond;
WHEREAS, the Hospital is located in the County and the members of the Board of
Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"), constitute the highest elected
governmental officials of the County;
WHEREAS, the Authority has adopted a resolution recommending that the Board
approve the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, a copy of the Authority's resolution, a statement in the form prescribed by
Section 15.2-4907 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), and a
reasonably detailed summary of the comments expressed at the public hearing, as required by
Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia Code, have been filed with the Board.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. That the Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Norfolk Authority to the
extent required by the Code.
2. That the approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by the Code, does not
constitute an endorsement to a prospective purchaser of the Bonds of the creditworthiness of the
Company, the Hospital or any other person, and that the Bonds shall provide that the Authority
and the County, among others, shall not be obligated to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or
other costs incident thereto, and neither the faith or credit nor the taxing power of the
Commonwealth of Virginia or the County shall be pledged thereto.
3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia on the 2nd day of
May, 2012.
Attachment A – EDA adopted resolution
Attachment B – Fiscal Impact Statement
Attachment C – Summary of public hearing comments
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
RESOLUTION OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FOR THE BENEFIT OF SENTARA HEALTHCARE,
AN AFFILIATE OF MARTHA JEFFERSON HOSPITAL
WHEREAS, there has been described to the Economic Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority"), the plans of Sentara Healthcare (the "Company"), a
Virginia non-stock corporation that is the sole corporate member of Martha Jefferson Hospital
(the "Hospital"), for the issuance by the Economic Development Authority of the City of Norfolk
(the "Norfolk Authority") of its revenue and refunding bonds (the "Bonds") in an aggregate
principal amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist the Company and its affiliates in (a) financing
or refinancing the construction and equipping of a new Sentara Leigh Hospital bed tower to
substantially replace the existing Sentara Leigh Hospital, located at 830 Kempsville Road in
Norfolk, Virginia, including construction and equipping of the new bed tower, a replacement
central utility plant, new structured parking, a new main entrance, telephone communications /
infrastructure for the bed tower, improved clinical and support space, and renovations to public
corridors; (b) advance refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the
Authority's Hospital Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital), Series 2002 (the "2002
Authority Bonds"), which financed certain capital projects and equipment of the Hospital, now
located at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia (the "County"); (c) advance
refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Prince William (the "Prince William Authority") Hospital Facility
Revenue Bonds (Potomac Hospital Corporation of Prince William), Series 2003, which financed
certain capital projects of Sentara Potomac Hospital, located at 2300 Opitz Boulevard in Prince
William County, Virginia; (d) funding any required reserve funds; and (e) financing costs of
issuance allocable to the Bonds;
WHEREAS, as referenced above, a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to
advance refund obligations of the Authority the proceeds of which were allocated to facilities of the
Hospital located in the County;
WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to the advance refunding of the 2002 Authority
Bonds, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
"Code"), has been held by the Authority on the date hereof;
WHEREAS, the Company and its representatives have described the debt service cost
savings and efficiencies that will arise from the issuance of the Bonds solely through the Norfolk
Authority, and the health care and other benefits to the County and the Commonwealth of Virginia
to be derived from such issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Norfolk Authority and the Company have agreed to share a portion of
the Norfolk Authority's annual administrative fee with respect to the Bonds with the Authority,
and in connection therewith, the Company and its representatives have requested that the
Authority authorize the execution and delivery by the Authority's Chairman or Vice Chairman of
an Annual Administrative Fee Payment Agreement dated as of May 1, 2012 (the "Fee Sharing
2
Agreement"), between the Authority, the Norfolk Authority, the Prince William Authority and
the Company, a substantially final draft of which has been presented to this meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
1. It is hereby found and determined that the issuance of the Bonds will benefit the
inhabitants of the County and of the Commonwealth of Virginia by promoting their health, welfare,
convenience and prosperity.
2. The Fee Sharing Agreement is hereby approved in substantially the form
presented to this meeting, with such changes, insertions and omissions as may be approved by the
Chairman or Vice Chairman, either of whom may act, which approval shall be evidenced
conclusively by the execution and delivery thereof. The Chairman or Vice Chairman, either of
whom may act, is authorized to execute and deliver the Fee Sharing Agreement.
3. The Authority hereby recommends and requests that the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board of Supervisors"), approve the issuance of the Bonds as
required by the Code and hereby directs the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Authority to
submit to the Board of Supervisors a statement in the form prescribed by Section 15.2-4907 of
the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Virginia Code"), a reasonably detailed summary
of the comments expressed at the public hearing, pursuant to Section 15.2-4906 of the Virginia
Code, and a copy of this Resolution.
4. The approvals herein do not constitute an endorsement to any prospective owner
of Bonds of the creditworthiness of the Company, the Hospital or any other person, and the
Bonds shall provide that the Authority and the County, among others, shall not be obligated to
pay the Bonds or the interest thereon or other costs incident thereto, and neither the faith or credit
nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the County shall be pledged thereto.
5. All costs and expenses in connection with the financing and refinancing plan
described in this Resolution shall be paid from the proceeds of the Bonds to the extent permitted
by law or from funds of the Company, and the Authority shall have no responsibility therefor.
6. All other acts of the officers and agents of the Authority that are in conformity
with the purposes and intent of this Resolution are hereby approved and ratified.
7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately.
3
The undersigned hereby certifies that the above Resolution was duly adopted by a majority
of the directors of the Economic Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
meeting duly called and held on April 10, 2012, and that such Resolution is in full force and effect
on the date hereof.
Date: April __, 2012
Chairman, Economic Development Authority of
Albemarle County, Virginia
11609554_1.DOC
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT*
Public Hearing Date: April 10, 2012
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
FINANCING FOR:
Applicant: Sentara Healthcare
Project: Health Care Facilities Revenue and Refunding Bonds (Sentara Healthcare), Series 2012B
1. Maximum amount of financing sought $ 300,000,000**
2. Estimated taxable value of the facility’s real property to be constructed in Albemarle
County $
N/A
3. Estimated real property tax per year in Albemarle County using present tax rates $ N/A
4. Estimated personal property tax per year in Albemarle County using present tax rates $ N/A
5. Estimated merchants’ capital tax per year in Albemarle County using present tax rates $ N/A
6. (a) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within Albemarle County $ N/A
(b) Estimated dollar value per year of goods that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within Albemarle County $ N/A
(c) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from Virginia companies within Albemarle County $ N/A
(d) Estimated dollar value per year of services that will be
purchased from non-Virginia companies within Albemarle County $ N/A
7. Estimated number of regular employees on year round basis 1,665
8. Average annual salary per employee $ 57,600
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA
By
Chairman
* The information in this Fiscal Impact Statement was supplied to the Authority by Sentara Healthcare.
** A portion of the proceeds of the Bonds in the approximate amount of $44,580,000 will be applied to advance refund
obligations of the Authority that financed certain facilities of Martha Jefferson Hospital located in the County.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENTS
At 4:00 p.m. on April 10, 2012, the Chairman of the Economic Development Authority
of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Authority") called to order a meeting of the Authority; and
at 4:07 p.m., announced the commencement of a public hearing held in the 4th Floor conference
room at 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, on the issuance by the Economic
Development Authority of the City of Norfolk (the "Norfolk Authority") of its revenue and
refunding bonds in one or more series (the "Series 2012 Bonds") in an aggregate principal
amount of up to $300,000,000 to assist Sentara Healthcare (the "Company"), whose principal
business address is 6015 Poplar Hall Drive, Norfolk, Virginia 23502, in (a) financing or
refinancing the construction and equipping of a new Sentara Leigh Hospital bed tower to
substantially replace the existing Sentara Leigh Hospital, located at 830 Kempsville Road in
Norfolk, Virginia, including construction and equipping of the new bed tower, a replacement
central utility plant, new structured parking, a new main entrance, telephone communications /
infrastructure for the bed tower, improved clinical and support space, and renovations to public
corridors; (b) advance refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the
Authority's Hospital Revenue Bonds (Martha Jefferson Hospital), Series 2002 (the "2002
Authority Bonds"), which financed certain capital projects and equipment of Martha Jefferson
Hospital, located at 500 Martha Jefferson Drive in Albemarle County, Virginia; (c) advance
refunding the entire principal amount of, and the accrued interest on, the Industrial Development
Authority of the County of Prince William Hospital Facility Revenue Bonds (Potomac Hospital
Corporation of Prince William), Series 2003, which financed certain capital projects of Sentara
Potomac Hospital, located at 2300 Opitz Boulevard in Prince William County, Virginia; (d)
funding any required reserve funds; and (e) financing costs of issuance allocable to the Series
2012 Bonds.
Richard L. Hurlbert, Jr., Esq., of Kaufman & Canoles, a Professional Corporation, Bond
Counsel for the Company, and Mr. J. Michael Burris, Chief Financial Officer of Martha
Jefferson Hospital, described to the Authority the advance refunding of the 2002 Authority
Bonds, and invited questions concerning such refunding from members of the Authority.
No members of the public appeared and spoke at the public hearing in support of or
opposition to the Series 2012 Bonds or the advance refunding of the 2002 Authority Bonds and
the Chairman closed the public hearing at 4:23 p.m.
11612804_1.DOC
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2012 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2012037, #2012068, #2012069, #2012070, #2012071,
#2012072, and #2012075 for local government and school
division programs and projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
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 requested FY 2012 appropriations itemized below is $1,552,366,79. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the
currently adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This request involves the approval of six (6) FY 2012 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2012037) totaling $1,178,576.00 for a transfer from the FY11 General Fund balance
to the FY12 Capital Improvement Program Fund;
One (1) appropriation (#2012068) totaling $181,199.61 for proffer revenue offsetting current capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2012069) totaling $16,990.00 for a grant awarded to the Police Department for a one-
time equipment purchase;
One (1) appropriation (#2012070) totaling $121,404.02 for various school division programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2012071) totaling $54,197.16 to cover costs associated with the March 6, 2012
presidential primary election;
One (1) appropriation (#2012072) reallocating $40,000.00 from the Pantops Master Plan funding to the
Rivanna Trail Bridge (Old Mill Trail Bridges) project; and
One (1) appropriation (#2012075) reallocating $7,000.00 from the Grants Leveraging Fund to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of appropriations #2012037, #2012068, #2012069, #2012070, #2012071, #2012072, and
#2012075.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
1
Appropriation #2012037 $1,178,576.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $ 1,178,576.00
This request is to reappropriate funding to the FY 12 General Government and School Capital Program funds from
the FY 11 General Fund Balance. Each year, funding is budgeted in the General Fund for transfer to the Capital
Improvement Fund (CIP) General Government Debt Service Fu nd and the School Debt Service Fund to make
interest and principal payments on funds borrowed by the County for capital projects.
In FY 11, a total of $16,199,914.00 was budgeted for this purpose. As noted in the FY 11 End of Year Financial
Report that was provided to the Board in October, 2011, $1,178.576.00 of those funds were not needed to pay for
debt service in FY 11 as expected. Those funds were not expended in FY 11 due to the following: 1) the General
Government did not issue any new debt in FY11, 2) the County received a School debt-related bond premium, and
3) there were savings associated with reductions in interest rates for prior year Virginia Public School Authority
(VPSA) Issuances due to VPSA refinancing of certain outstanding bonds for interest rate savings.
Since there is currently an adequate level of CIP debt service funding appropriated for the CIP in FY 12, this
funding will not be required to be moved forward specifically for CIP debt service in FY 12. This request is to
appropriate $1,178,576.00 from the FY 11 General Fund Balance to the CIP program as follows:
$589,288.00 to the FY 12 General Government Capital Fund for “pay-as-you-go” capital projects, and
$589,288.00 to the FY 12 School Capital Fund for “pay-as-you-go” capital projects
Appropriation #2012068 $181,199.61
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenues $ 181,199.61
As indicated in the staff recommendations to the Board during the FY 13 Budget Work Sessions and in the follow-up
proffer report to the Board on March 7, 2012, available cash proffer funding can be used for several capital projects.
This request is to allocate various proffer fund revenues toward the cost of the current capital projects as identified in
the schedule below. (The schedule below identifies the revenue source, the project to be funded, and the amount.)
This will reduce the use of the School Capital Fund balance by $24,016.44 and will reduce the use of fund balance in
the General Government Capital Fund by $157,183.17 for a total decrease in use of fund balance in the Captial
Program Budget of $181,199.61.
Proffer Revenue Source Project Amount($)
Old Trail Proffer Crozet Elementary School ADA Entrance Ramp $ 24,016.44
Old Trail Proffer Crozet Greenway Project 24,146.44
Hollymead C Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 62,264.79
Hollymead D Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 31,146.37
Hollymead Town Center A1 Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 31,056.42
North Pointe Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 8,451.43
UVA Research Park Proffer Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk 117.72
TOTAL: $181,199.61
Appropriation #2012069 $16,990.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 16,990.00
This request is to appropriate a Virginia Department of Emergency Mangement state grant in the amount of
$16,990.00 (Grant 2011-SHSP CBRNE) to the Police Department. The purpose of this grant is to assist localities by
funding the maintenance and replacement of services and equipment provided through previous flow -through U.S.
Department of Homeland Security grants to Virginia. This particular grant will fund a one-time equipment purchase
for telecommunications equipment used in hostage/barricade type critical incidents to assist bringing such situations
to negotiated conclusions. No local match is required.
Attachment A
2
Appropriation #2012070 $121,404.02
Revenue Source: Local Revenue (non-tax) $ 70,664.02
Use of Fund Balance (schools) $ 50,740.00
This request is to appropriate various School Division requ ests as approved by the School Board on March 22,
2012. This appropriation request of $121,404.02 includes the following:
Burley Middle School is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $250.00. These local funds
are to compensate the County for expenses from the Activity Accounts at Burley Middle School.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $6,288.00 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to cover the purchase of
classroom projectors.
Albemarle High School (AHS) is reimbursing its School Division budget in the amount of $3,544.00 for field
trip expenses, piano tuning, expenses associated with a jazz festival, dance team coaching fees,
photography activities, a Student Council Association activity, and an AHS athletics expense. The funds to
reimburse the School Division budget came from their Activity Accounts at AHS.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $871.97 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher
Support Organization. The donor has requested that their contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment
Time before 9” program for the month of February at Henley Middle School.
Albemarle County Schools has been awarded a grant in t he amount of $19,710.00 from the KOVAR
Corporation. KOVAR is a charitable corporation established by the Virginia Knights of Columbus in 1971,
dedicated to assisting Virginians with intellectual disabilities. These are local funds. These funds will be
used to purchase electronic hardware, software and protective and adaptive gear for students with
intellectual disabilities. The equipment will increase their independence and functional skills by developing
receptive and expressive communication, promoting technological literacy and training access to electronic
resources.
On Thursday, January 12, 2012, the School Board approved the redistribution of $50,740.00 in School
Division fund balance funds to the three comprehensive high school athletic departments to be distributed
based upon student participation and used for programs proportionately divided among genders.
Albemarle County Public Schools has been awarded a locally-funded grant in the amount of $40,000.00
from State Farm Insurance Company. These funds will be used to support the M3 – Men, Math, and
Mission Program. This program is designed to provide African-American males with a solid pathway for
future success through increased opportunity for rigorous coursework, consistent opportunities for
mentoring and support, and service learning to develop their understanding of giving back to their
community. This program aims to engage African-American males in their middle school years, which set
the foundation for the high school coursework and ultimatel y for career pathways in life. The M3 Program
will continue to be focused directly on a skill that is critical for increased academic success; algebraic
concepts. This program has been expanded to Charlottesville City and Fluvanna County students.
Appropriation #2012071 $54,197.16
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 54,197.16
This is a special appropriation request for the costs of the 2012 Presiden tial Primary Election, held on March 6,
2012. The Department of Voter Registration and Elections expects that these costs, or the majority of them, will be
reimbursed by the state through the State Board of Elections. A reimbursement request was submitted to the State
Board of Elections on March 28, 2012 and is contingent on the General Assembly’s passage of a budget bill. The
costs of the March presidential primary cannot be paid from the Department's $55,000.00 primary election reserve
fund because those funds will be needed for a June U.S. Senate primary election. (See, generally, Va. Code §
24.2-518 - county and city treasurers to pay costs of primary elections)
A majority of the costs incurred for the 2012 Presidential Primary Election were for elec tion officers at the polling
places and for programming and delivering voting machines.
Attachment A
3
Appropriation #2012072 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Pantops Master Plan $ 40,000.00
This request reallocates $40,000.00 in CIP funding currently available in the Pantops Master Plan to the Old Mills
Trails Pedestrian Bridges project. The Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project is currently identified as a high
priority in the Pantops neighborhood plan. The Pantops Master Plan is intended to implement high priority projects
in the Pantops neighborhoods.
A Notice to Proceed on the Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges project was issued to C & B Construction Services
LLC on March 28, 2012. The work involved the construction of three pedestrian bridges. After the work had begun,
it was found that the length of bridges #2 and #3 had to be increased due to unsuitable footer soil directly adjacent
to the steep and sloughing banks. Bridge #2 has to be lengthened from 25' to 40' and bridge #3 had to be
lengthened from 30' to 40'. A geotechnical investigation for the new footer locations (40’ spans) has been
conducted and approved by the engineer. The contractor has submitted a change order for this additional work
totaling $39,870.00. The original contract amount was $79,100.00 and the new contract amount with the change
order will be $118,970.00.
There is no net increase to the Capital budget since this is a transfer of already appropriated funds.
Appropriation #2012075 $0.00
Revenue Source: Transfer from Grants Leveraging Fund $ 7,000.00
In 2010 the Charlottesville Albemarle Airport (CHO) formed a public -private partnership between the airport and 18
local organizations of the Greater Charlottesville Region for the purpose of supporting air service improvements and
to secure new service between Charlottesville and Chicago-O’Hare (ORD). This partnership was instrumental for
CHO to apply for and be awarded a Small Community Air Service Development Program (SCASDP) grant from the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) for funding to provide financial assistance and support to a potential
carrier for this route. It was because of this effort that we were able to celebrate the launch of American Airlines
service to ORD on June 9, 2011. Chicago is CHO’s second largest market without nonstop service, and American
Eagle / American Airlines now provides global access via their hub at ORD. Such a connection also provides quality
commercial air service to support the economy of the region through improved access for visitors and mo st
importantly to support area businesses, organizations and educational institutions. Those airports that contribute
from local sources other than just their own revenues are accorded priority consideration. With that in mind, CHO
requested financial support from the members of CHO’s public -private partnership including Albemarle County. In
support of this effort, which dates back almost two years, Albemarle and Charlottesville anticipated being able to
provide $7,000.00 each towards the partnership. In c omparison, CHO will be providing the largest amount of match
at $50,000.00. The total amount raised by the public - private partnership was $96,000.00. The DOT will be
providing $500,000.00. The total amount will be used as cost abatement for the first year of commercial service for
American Eagle/American Airlines.
Staff recommends that the Board appropriate $7,000.00 in one-time matching funds from the grants matching fund
in support of this effort. There is no net increase to the General Fund budget sinc e this is a transfer of already
appropriated funds.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Use of County Facilities Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of revised Community Use of County Facilities
Policy
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Letteri, Davis, Herrick, Shadman, and
Freitas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Since first adopting a County facilities rental policy on February 10, 1982, the Board has encouraged the use of County
facilities by Local Government and the School Division for their activities, as well as by outside organizations and
groups when their activities do not interfere with County business. There have been several administrative revisions to
the reservation application, with the last revision on April 22, 2010. The rental policy, including an increase in rental
rates, was last approved by the Board on September 3, 2008.
DISCUSSION:
A draft of the proposed revised rental policy is attached (Attachment A). The substantive changes addressed in the
proposed rental policy are:
limiting after-hours rental to no later than 10:00 p.m., reflecting current practice;
eliminating weekend rental, reflecting current practice;
including in the policy a provision addressing the use of the grounds that continues the consistent, but
unwritten policy for its use, applied for over the last 25 years (to assure the grounds cannot be claimed to be
an unrestricted open public forum);
and
adjusting the rental rates to enable the County to recoup operating expenses while still offering access to
County facilities below the local public and private market for similar services.
Also attached is the reservation application to be used in conjunction with the revised rental policy (Attachment B).
BUDGET IMPACT:
Annual revenue from facility rentals would likely increase based on the rental rate increase and would offset direct
costs associated with room rental activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the revised Community Use of County Facilities Policy.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Community Use of County Facilities Policy
B – Reservation Application
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
COMMUNITY USE OF COUNTY FACILITIES
A) Generally
1. The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the
physical facilities belonging to the citizens of the County. To achieve this end, the
use of County facilities for governmental, school and related activities, as well as by
outside organizations and groups, shall be encouraged when these activities will not
interfere with the routine business of the County.
2. Proper protection, safety and care of County property shall be primary considerations
in the use of County facilities.
B) Eligible Organizations
1. The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of priority
and the charging of fees.
1. Classification
I. School and County government and School-affiliated or related groups.
II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational, cultural, political, civic, charitable,
social, veteran’s veterans’ or religious groups or organizations.
III. Profit making or Private groups, organizations, or businesses.
2. Membership
The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of County
facilities must be largely from the County of Albemarle. This restriction shall not
exclude the use of certain facilities, as determined by the County Executive, by
state and national organizations that have a local sponsoring division of such
organization.
3. Commercial Activities
Commercial use of County property by any organization or individual is expressly
prohibited.
C) Applications and Approval
1. Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies or
organizations that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment of charges,
compensation for damages to property and for use of the property in reasonable
conformity with the regulations on the application.
2. The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all
applications for the use of County facilities that meet the requirements of the Board,
that comply with implementing regulations the County Executive deems necessary to
protect County property and that do not conflict with established business or
commercial interests in the community. The County Executive shall design such
application forms as are required. The completed and signed form shall be a binding
agreement upon the applicant and the County.
2
3. No rental application will be considered more than six months prior to the desired
rental date.
4. The County Executive or his designee reserves the right to cancel a rental contract up
to ten calendar days prior to a scheduled rental.
5. The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A are is available during business
hours (8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the applicant provides
shuttle bus services or off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site
parking is not available for large meetings during business hours.
6. All activities shall end, with County facilities vacated, no later than 10:00 p.m.
6.7.The Lane Auditorium is not available on any day during which a local government
board, commission, or other duly appointed entity is scheduled to use the facility due
to the possibility of these meetings running beyond the scheduled end time.
7.8.Meeting rooms and Auditorium are not available on holidays, scheduled or declared,
when the County Office Building is closed.
8.9.Reservations will automatically be cancelled when the County office buildings are
closed due to inclement weather or emergency conditions.
10. County Office Buildings’ Grounds and Parking Lots:
a. Unless otherwise specifically allowed in this policy, the Grounds of the County
Office Buildings are not open for public use. For purposes of this restriction, the
Grounds do not include parking lots that are open for public use or sidewalks,
provided that ingress and egress are not obstructed and that use of those parking lots
or sidewalks does not interfere with the conduct of County business.
b. Parking in County parking lots for purposes not related to business being
conducted in or on County facilities shall not be permitted during the County’s
regular business hours, or during meetings of the Board of Supervisors, Planning
Commission, or School Board. In addition, there shall be no public parking in such
lots between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. At such other times, unrestricted
spaces in parking lots are open to the public for general parking purposes.
c. Veterans’ Memorials. The County Executive or his designee may consider
requests for the use of the area in proximity to the veterans’ memorials on the
Grounds by veterans’ groups or organizations consistent with this policy. Such
requests must be made and approved no less than 5 business days before the proposed
activity.
d. At no time shall vehicles be parked on the lawns or pedestrian walkways.
e. Unauthorized users of County facilities or Grounds are subject to removal and/or
prosecution for trespassing.
D) Fees (See Attachment)
1. The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make
additional adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional
adjustments shall be based upon the classification of the group or organization, the
3
facilities to be used, the size of the group, the objectives of the organization, the
approximate cost to the County and the purpose for which the facility will be used.
2. In general, the County Office Building Rental Charges schedule (attached below) will
apply.
3. A full rental fee shall be charged to all groups (except Classification I) when County
facilities are to be used for fund raising and/or when an admission charge is levied.
4. All fees must be paid at least seven (7) calendar days in advance, and the sponsoring
organization whose name appears on the application shall be held responsible for any
and all damages to property and equipment.
E) Protection of County Property
1. An employee or agent of the County shall be on duty on the property at times when
the facilities are in use. No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without
the consent of the employee in charge if such usage is not in conformity with the
contracted agreement. The employee in charge may expel any group if said group,
after ample warnings, fails to adhere to the provisions of their rental agreement.
2. The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for crowd control measures,
including the employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be
arranged in advance when deemed necessary by the County Executive or his
designee.
F) Safety
1. Organizations and individuals using the facility shall be responsible for familiarizing
themselves with the nearest exits in case of emergency evacuation. Each conference
room has a Fire Escape Plan posted at its entrance which shows the primary and
secondary escape routes.
G) Deposits
1. A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or
his designee prior to use of the property.
Lane Auditorium and COB-5th Street Room A Rental Charges
Classification Weekday-
Business Hours
Weekday-
Evening Weekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge$18.00
flat fee
$18 custodial
charge$40.00
per hour
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/Custodial Personnel
Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned.
upon satisfactory inspection
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$175$200.00 flat
fee plus $18
custodial charge
$175$200.00
flat fee plus
$18 custodial
charge
Fee: $175 flat fee plus $28/hr
Security/ Custodial Personnel
Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection.
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the local
office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
4
The Lane Auditorium and COB – 5th Street Room A are available during business hours (8:00
a.m.-5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday) only if the Applicant provides shuttle bus services or
off-site parking for participants of the meeting. On-site parking is not available for large
meetings during business hours.
County Office Building Meeting Rooms Rental Charges (Other than for Lane Auditorium and
COB-5th Street Room A)
Classification Weekday-
Business Hours
Weekday-
Evening
Weekends
I. County/Schools* No Charge No Charge No Charge
II. Youth agencies, educational,
recreational, cultural, political,
civic, charitable, social,
veteran’s or religious groups or
organizations
No Charge$18.00
flat fee
$18.00
custodial
charge$40.00
per hour
Fee: $28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned.
upon satisfactory inspection
III. Profit Making or Private
Groups, Organizations or
Businesses
$40.00 per hour
plus $18.00
custodial charge
$40.00 per
hour plus
$18.00
custodial
charge
Fees: $40.00 per hour plus
$28/hr Security/Custodial
Personnel Fee
Deposit: $150, to be returned
upon satisfactory inspection.
* Departments directly supervised or sponsored by the County Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the local
office of the Virginia Cooperative Extension
Additional Charges
1. Each additional room used shall incur an additional charge, pursuant to the above schedule.
2. Requests to set up additional chairs/tables shall incur a flat $18.00 charge.
3 Any portion of a meeting scheduled past 5: 30 5:00 p.m. will be subject to the applicable
custodial charge weekday evening rate.
4. For any event at which food is served, a $150.00 security deposit will be charged, to be
returned upon satisfactory inspection of facility.
File: I:\dept\general services\forms\room rental application & policy.doc
1
Application Number____________
APPLICATION FOR RESERVATION OF
ALBEMARLE COUNTY FACILITIES OR GROUNDS
I (we) __________________________________________________________, on behalf of
___________________________________________________________________ (organization)
(the “Applicant”), have read and understand the attached rules and regulations and in accordance
with same, I (we) hereby make application for the use of Room ____________ (space wanted) on
_________________ (date), between the hours of ___________ and ___________ under the
conditions indicated below:
1) The exact purposes, for which the space will be used, including the exact kind of equipment
and apparatus to be brought on the property and any special equipment desired to be used:
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2) The following person(s) (include contact information) will be in charge of the program:
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3) The schedule of admission charges will be as follows:
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4) The proceeds from such charges will be distributed and used as follows:
___________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5) Number of anticipated people attending:_________________________________________
Number of anticipated parking spaces needed: ____________________________________
6) Will food be served during this event (YES/NO)? _________________________________
General Rules and Responsibilities of Individuals/Organizations Using County Facilities
On behalf of the Applicant, the undersigned acknowledges and hereby agrees to ensure
compliance with the following rules and responsibilities:
1. The rental fee shall be paid prior to the rental date.
2. A representative designated as the Applicant’s “responsible individual” shall remain on site
throughout the rental period.
3. The Applicant shall provide appropriate supervision of all the individuals using the facility
(to include the audience in case of performances).
4. The Applicant shall ensure all general and specific rules and regulation s are adhered to, and
safeguard all County property entrusted into its care.
5. Only the room/facility specifically requested and paid for (and adjacent restrooms) shall be
used.
6. Auditorium furniture shall not be moved or otherwise rearranged.
2
7. No food or drink shall be brought into the Lane Auditorium.
8. Other than guide dogs, hearing dogs, and service dogs for persons with disabilities, no
animals shall be allowed in County buildings, without the County’s prior consent.
9. No tobacco or alcohol shall be brought onto any County grounds or into any County facility.
10. Rental of the Lane Auditorium shall not include the use of its audio/visual/recording /
computer equipment, except by Class 1 Departments (directly supervised by the County
Executive/Superintendent or sponsored by the Virginia Cooperative Extension). Other
groups may bring their own equipment, if desired.
11. The Applicant shall be responsible for all damage to County property and shall either
(choose one):
______(a) Maintain commercial general liability insurance (of not less than $1,000,000 per
occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate combined limit) that insures it, the County of
Albemarle, its officers, employees and agents against claims of personal injury, including
death, as well as against claims for property damage, which may arise from the operations of
the Applicant, of any agent, or of anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them.
The Applicant shall provide Certificate(s) of such insurance; OR
______(b) Indemnify and hold harmless the County and any of its officers, employees and agents
for any and all claims of any kind asserted for any damage, loss, injury or death to persons or
property arising out of the above use of County property, including attorney’s fees.
Nothing herein shall be construed as a waiver of the sovereign immunity of the County.
Failure to adhere to these terms and conditions may be used as grounds to bar future use of
County facilities. Allowing a group/organization to use the Count y’s facilities does not constitute an
endorsement of the group/organization’s policies, beliefs or practices.
I hereby certify that I am authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant. I assume full
responsibility for compliance with the above Rules.
Signed ________________________________________
(Applicant)
By ___________________________________________
Address _______________________________________
Phone Number __________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY - ACTION TAKEN
1) ( ) Approved for use of Room ____________ on _____________________________
pending receipt of rental fee.
2) Total rental fee: $_________________ Due Date(s):_______________________
3) Classification:____________________________
4) ( ) Disapproved for reason described below:
___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
County of Albemarle (General Services)
By:_________________________________
Revised: 9/30/99, 7/3/02, 3/19/08, 4/7/2010,
4/22/10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal
Year 2013-2018 Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of County’s Road Improvements Priority List for
Transmittal to Commonwealth Transportation Board
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) will be conducting a series of public hearings in April and May (May 2nd
in Culpeper) to give citizens and public officials an opportunity to provide comments on projects in the Working Draft
Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-Year Improvements Program (SYIP). Projects can include interstate, primary road, rail,
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit improvement priorities. Comments can also be sent to the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit (VDRPT) by May 18, 2012.
This process differs from the Secondary Road Plan process in that specific amounts of funds are set aside for secondary
road projects in the County after a local public hearing, whereas funds for interstate and primary road projects are
allocated for each construction district after the scheduled statewide public hearings. All interstate and primary road
projects proposed within individual localities in the district compete for those district funds. The Culpeper District includes
Albemarle, Culpeper, Fauquier, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Orange, and Rappahannock Counties.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment A is staff’s recommended priority list of improvements for inclusion in the FY 2013-2018 SYIP based on
the Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Long Range Transportation Plan Constrained Project List and prior Board priority
lists. The list in Attachment A is essentially the same list adopted by the Board in April 2011, but has been updated to
note the latest status of projects (funding, design and/or construction), as well as two new transit improvement projects
and two new safety improvement projects.
The proposed new transit projects are:
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2):
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport.
Both of these projects are recommended in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, including the Places29 Master
Plan. Both projects have also been identified in the Charlottesville Area Transit (CAT) Transit Development Plan
for possible implementation with the next 3-5 years.
The proposed new safety improvement projects are:
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS (Page 2):
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways…:
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory Farms subdivision area).
Residents in the area have recently requested these improvements to provide safe pedestrian access along and
across Route 250 in this area. A recent pedestrian-vehicle related fatality occurred in this area.
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at … Route 240 (at the Mechums River Bridge).
Traffic control and alignment improvements for this intersection have been identified in the County’s
Comprehensive Plan/Crozet Master Plan and in the TJPDC 2035 Rural Long Range Transportation Plan.
AGENDA TITLE: Road Improvement Priorities for Virginia’s Working Draft Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-Year
Improvements Program (SYIP)
May 2, 2012
Page 2
In addition to the above changes, staff is proposing to add a new section to this document (after the County Priorities)
that notes major projects which have been fully funded in the State Six Year Improvement Plan. This section is
identified as: “OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT
PLAN”.
Including this section enables anyone viewing the document to see both the projects recommended for development
as well as those currently programmed for construction.
With the Board’s approval, staff will forward the priority list to VDOT (and VDRPT) by May 18, 2012.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This is a state funding program, so there are no direct impacts to the County’s budget.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the County’s Priority List (Attachment A) as modified for this year.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Albemarle County Recommended Priorities for FY 2013-2018 SYIP
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
ATTACHMENT A
ALBEMARLE COUNTY RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR FY 2013-2018 SYIP
(ADOPTED APRIL 2011)
MAY 2, 2012
NOTE: UPDATES AND NEW ADDITIONS ARE NOTED IN STRIKE-THROUGH AND RED ITALIC TYPE
I. MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construct Meadow Creek Parkway from Route 250 Bypass to Melbourne Rd., including the
interchange at the Route 250 Bypass. Secondary/Urban/Federal earmark funds –
Designed and funded to construct; County portion complete under construction. City
section funded and under construction except for interchange.
1. Improvements to Route 29 North Corridor:
a. Funding of 29H250 Phase II Study, Option B design recommendations , most
particularly additional north and southbound lanes on Route 29 from the Hydraulic
Road intersection to the Route 250 Bypass and an additional ramp lane from
Route 29 southbound onto the Route 250 Bypass West; Places 29 Priority
project; Primary/Proffer/City funds – Partial funding committed to design
and construct.
b. Construct a third lane on the northbound and southbound lanes of Route 29 North
from the South Fork Rivanna River to the Hollymead Town Center; Places 29
Priority project; No funding to design or construct.
b. c. Construct Hillsdale Drive extension from Hydraulic Road to Greenbrier Drive;
Places 29 Priority project; Urban funds/Private right of way donations –
Designed and being funded to construct.
c. d. Construct Berkmar Drive extension. Places 29 Priority project; Portion being
constructed in Hollymead Town Center; CIP funding – available for design
only (no funding to construct).
2. Improve Route 250 East corridor as recommended in the Pantops and Village of Rivanna
Master Plans (improvements to I-64 interchange, pedestrian crossings in Pantops, parallel
roads, new bridge/crossing at Rivanna River and widening of Route 250 east from the I -64
interchange to Village of Rivanna). Interstate funding – I-64 interchange under
construction; [note: I-64 exit ramp improvements completed] Portions of parallel roads
constructed in private projects; no additional funding to design or construct.
3. Improvements in accord with the recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan:
a. Implement sidewalk plan (per Downtown Sidewalk and Parking Study and Crozet
Master Plan); CIP/Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds - Crozet Ave.
Streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Create bike lanes to and in downtown; Secondary/Revenue Sharing funds –
Jarman’s Gap Rd. designed and funded to construct under construction;
Library Ave. partially built.
c. Construct Eastern Avenue, to include the Lickinghole Bridge and a ra ilroad crossing;
Portion constructed in private project; Location plan complete. No funding to
design or construct.
d. Construct un-built sections of Library Ave. east from Crozet Avenue to Hill Top St.
CIP funds - Portion constructed; No additional funding to design or construct.
4. Widen Route 20 North from Route 250 to Elks Drive/Fontaine Drive intersection, including
bike lanes and sidewalks. No funding.
5. Undertake improvements recommended in the Southern Urban Area B Study, including
improvements to Fontaine Avenue and construction of Fontaine Avenue to Sunset Avenue
connector road. Proffer for a portion of Fontaine Ave. to Sunset Ave. Connector; No
additional funding to design or construct.
6. Widen Route 20 South from I-64 to Mill Creek Drive, including bike lanes and sidewalks. No
funding.
7. Improve two intersections on Route 20 (Valley Street) in Scottsville: the Warren Street
intersection and the Hardware Street intersection. No funding.
II. TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS
1. Regional Transit Authority - Funding to establish a regional transit authority to provide
expanded transit service to Albemarle County and Charlottesville. No funding.
2. Expand Existing Service - Funding to expand existing transit service capacity for CAT,
JAUNT and RideShare, including capital projects to enhance capital operations (such as bus
pull-outs, shelters, etc.). Limited funding in CIP for 2-4 bus stops/shelters.
3. Funding for Transit Operational Costs - Fully fund the State’s existing formula share of transit
operating costs or provide fuel subsidies in the face of rapidly escalating fuel costs. Services
provided in County by CAT are County funded.
4. Inter-City Rail – Maintain increased inter-city rail service initiated to Charlottesville/Albemarle
County in 2009. State funded through 2012.
5. Provide new service to Avon Street/Urban Neighborhood 4 area. No funding.
6. Provide new service in the US 29 North corridor/Hollymead/Airport. No funding.
III. SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
1. Construction of pedestrian walkways and/or bikeways along primary roads in the County’s
Urban Neighborhoods and Development Areas as part of road widening/improvement
projects. Absent major road improvements, the following are prioritized for pedestrian and/or
bikeway improvement:
a. Route 240 in downtown Crozet; Enhancement/Revenue Sharing funds – Crozet Ave.
streetscape project designed and funded to construct.
b. Pedestrian crossings at strategic locations on Rt 29 N orth; No funding.
c. Route 250 East in Pantops - complete existing sidewalk system through extension and
connections; provide pedestrian crossings at strategic locations; CIP funding – under
construction.
d. Route 250 West from the City limits to the 250 Bypass area; No funding.
e. Route 20 South from City limits to Mill Creek Drive extended. No funding.
f. Route 250 West in Crozet (Cloverlawn/Blue Ridge Shopping Center/Cory Farms
subdivision area). Limited funding available (County CIP).
2. Intersection improvements on Route 250 West at: 1) Tilman Road; and 2) Owensville Road;
3) Route 240 (at Mechums River Bridge). Improvements to address traffic control, such
as traffic light, round-about, or other such improvements. No funding.
3. Full lane widths, paved shoulders and spot improvements on Route 22 and Route 231. No
funding.
4. Traffic control improvements at the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 151 (traffic
light, round-about, or other such improvements). No funding.
OTHER APPROVED PROJECTS FULLY FUNDED IN THE STATE SIX YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Rt. 250 Bypass, Construct Interchange with McIntire Road (Charlottesville)
McIntire Road Extended, Construct 2 Lanes (Charlottesville)
Route 29 Corridor Improvements, reconstruction with added capacity from Ashwood
Boulevard to Town Center Drive
Route 29 Western Bypass, New Construction
Bridge Replacement, Route 250 over Little Ivy Creek
Various spot and safety improvements--5 projects on Rt. 29, Rt. 53, Rt. 20, Rt. 250 (flashing
lights, shoulder widening, signage and guardrail, turn lane improvements)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP2011-060, Colonial Nissan Major Site
Development Plan Amendment – Zoning Ordinance
Waivers
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of waiver requests from the following
sections of the zoning ordinance:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
2. Section 4.12.15 (d) Sight Distance in Parking
Areas
3. Section 4.12.17 (d) Turning Radii Design
Requirement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish, Meagan Yaniglos
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY: N/A
BACKGROUND:
The property is located on Myers Drive and Seminole Trail (US 29) (TMP45-94B). The Board of Supervisors has
approved a Special Use Permit (SP-2011-18) for a parking deck on this site. A site development plan amendment is
now under review for this proposal. The requested modifications would have previously been approved
administratively as part of the site plan review. Due to a recent State Supreme decision, these modifications must now
be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Staff is recommending approval of all three waiver requests.
DISCUSSION:
1. Critical Slopes Waiver – This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s determination that the waiver
requests meets the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5 (b):
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may
waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello
Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VR) zoning districts in the following circumstances: (i) the critical
slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a site plan approved by the county; or
(ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the critical slopes and the
extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the existing structure with a new structure
whose footprint does not exceed the footprint of the existing structure. The agent may grant a waiver if he or
she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a field
inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for
protection in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and
sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square
feet; and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a plan that
describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man-made bodies of
water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in
the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic
effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and
other best management practices.
2. Waiver for the sight distance requirement within the parking garage – This approval is based on staff’s
determination that parking garages require this waiver because of the nature of the design of a parking garage. Staff
has consistently granted this waiver administratively for parking garages, such as those at Martha Jefferson Hospital.
d. Sight distance. Minimum intersection sight distance for internal intersections of access aisles, intersections
of access aisles and pedestrian ways, and access aisles around buildings shall not be less than one hundred
(100) feet. The county engineer may increase this minimum, if the travel speed is anticipated to exceed ten
(10) miles per hour, to a sight distance commensurate with the anticipated travel speed. If the county engineer
anticipates that travel speeds of twenty (20) miles per hour or greater may be reasonably achieved along a
primary travelway serving a development, he may require that the travelway comply with the private road
horizontal and vertical standards stated in Table A of section 14-514 of the Code for the anticipated traffic
volume. Sight distance shall be measured as provided in Section 602 of the Albemarle County Design
Standards Manual.
3. Waiver of the turning radii requirement within the parking garage – No truck traffic is expected within the
parking garage. It is for employee parking and excess vehicle inventory only. Therefore, Staff is recommending
approval of this waiver for Colonial Nissan. Also, staff has consistently granted approval of this waiver for parking
garages, including for Martha Jefferson Hospital.
d. Turning radii. Turning radii shall be limited by the requirement to maintain one hundred (100) foot sight
distance. Turning movements for delivery vehicles or other expected truck traffic shall be evaluated by the
county engineer using AASHTO single unit truck standards or other AASHTO standard vehicle as appropriate.
BUDGET IMPACT: none
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s requests for the following waivers.
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
2. Section 4.12.15 (d) Sight Distance in Parking Areas
3. Section 4.12.17 (d) Turning Radii Design Requirement
ATTACHMENTS: None
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
SDP-2012-015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse
Development Plan Amendment – Zoning Ordinance
Waiver
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of a waiver from the following section of the
Zoning Ordinance:
1. Section 4.2 Critical Slopes
STAFF CONTACT(S):
David Benish, Joanne Tu Purtsezova
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY: N/A
BACKGROUND:
The Ivy Fire Station is proposed to be located in the former Kirtley Distributing Warehouse at 642 Kirtley Lane, off of Ivy
Rd. (TMP 59-23B1). This is a request to allow disturbance of critical slopes. The critical slopes to be disturbed have been
determined to be man-made. Due to a recent State Supreme Court decision, the waiver request must now be approved
by the Board of Supervisors. Staff is recommending approval of this waiver request.
DISCUSSION:
The staff’s recommendation for approval is based on the finding that this critical slopes waiver request has substantially
met the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5 (b):
b. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive the
prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on any parcel not within the Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD)
or Village Residential (VR) zoning districts in the following circumstances:
(i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to a site plan
approved by the county; or
(ii) the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure located on the critical slopes and the extent
of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the existing structure with a new structure whose
footprint does not exceed the footprint of the existing structure.
The agent may grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protec ted resources and a field
inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for protection
in the open space plan;
2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes;
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and
sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet;
and
4. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer of a plan that describes
how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water; the
loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of
the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be
mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater man agement, and other best
management practices.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a waiver of Section 4.2, Critical Slopes.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
TO: File
FROM: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner
DATE: April 11, 2012
RE: CCP201200001 Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2012, by a vote of 5:2, made a
finding that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range Facility
(Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site) is in substantial accord with the County’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors as outlined in the staff report, as
follows:
1. Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
2. Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
3. Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties;
4. Site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
Cc: Gregory Patsch
Police Dept. Col. Sellers
File
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: CCP 2012-00001
Law Enforcement Firing Range
Staff: Andy Sorrell, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 3, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
N/A
Owner/s: Albemarle County
Applicant: Office of Facilities Development/
Albemarle County Police Department
Tax Map Parcels: 129-2A
Location: end of Rt. 704 Fortune Lane,
approximately 1.4 miles south of intersection of
Fortune Lane and Riding Club Rd
Acreage: 169.12 acres
Zoning District: RA, Rural Areas
Conditions or Proffers: No
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller
Proposal: Compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan review for a potential law enforcement
training facility, consisting of an outdoor firing
range, at the end of Fortune Lane in Keene.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Area
Use & Character of Property:
Location of the closed Keene landfill, open
space, wooded
Use of Surrounding Properties: wooded, open
space, agricultural
Factors Favorable:
1. The site will utilize an under-used county-
owned property.
2. The site’s size and remote nature isolates
it from more densely populated areas.
3. The location of the firing range on site will
further limit adverse impact on adjacent
agricultural properties.
4. The site’s location limits impacts to
natural, scenic, historic and cultural
resources.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed use on the site will
produce noise at property lines that are
above the noise ordinance provisions of
the zoning ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission find that the location, character and
extent of the proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the County’s
Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable fac tors of the staff report as outlined in
said report.
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Andrew V. Sorrell
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 3, 2012
CCP 201200001 LAW ENFORCEMENT FIRING RANGE
Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Va. Code 15.2- 2232)
BACKGROUND
This is a proposal to establish a County owned and operated firearms training facility
consisting of a 100 yard outdoor fenced firing range, classroom building, toilet facilities,
access road and parking area. The facility is proposed on county-owned property which
is the site of the closed Keene landfill (Attachment A).
The Albemarle Police Department currently utilizes a private firearms range to maintain
the necessary firearms training certifications for the County’s Police Officers. The
current site is inadequate for police training because of limitations on when training can
be scheduled and restrictions that prevent realistic, scenario—based training. In
addition, the County Police Department does not have a say in how the range is
operated, maintained or monitored. In order to reduce liability concerns and increase
officer proficiency and safety the Police Department needs a facility that will permit more
frequent training (at least three times a year). A dedicated law enforcement firing range
owned, operated and managed by the County will permit more frequent personnel
training and has been identified as a high priority in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
The proposed firearms training facility is part of a larger, long-term CIP request for a
public safety training center (PSTC). The PSTC was proposed in a 2008 study prepared
by TENG & Associates, Inc. The TENG study conducted a site analysis of several
county-owned properties for a PSTC that could meet the current and future training
needs of the Albemarle Police Department and Fire/Rescue Department.
Because of the sensitive nature of a firing range, the County has limited options for
finding a site to operate the facility upon. The 2008 TENG Study evaluated three
county-owned properties: the Preddy Creek site (northeast part of the County, east of Rt.
29), the Byrom site (far northwest part of the County) and the Keene Landfill site
(southern part of County near Rt. 6). The Preddy site was not preferred because of its
proximity to adjacent localities and poor soils. The Byrom site was not preferred
because it is under a conservation easement, it is close to the Shenandoah National
Park and the property has a significant amount of critical slope. The Keene landfill site
was the preferred site and the 2008 study included an overall conceptual master plan for
the PSTC on the property. The conceptual master plan proposed a centralized public
safety training center include a firing range, a burn building, a vehicle extrication area, a
hazard materials training area, an emergency vehicles course, and classroom space
together with associated support structures (Attachment C).
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 3
Due in part to the increasing difficulty in utilizing the current private firearms range, the
County Police Department revised the PSTC CIP request to break out as a separate
request the infrastructure necessary to complete only the firearms training facility. The
Police Department therefore has requested only the proposed firearms training facility
(firing range) to be reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan at this time.
Other phases of the PSTC which have not been submitted as part of this review request
have not been reviewed for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and will need such
a review if and when they are proposed to be constructed in the future.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
A Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review (or “2232 Review”) considers
whether the general location, character and extent of a proposed public facility are in
substantial accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. It is reviewed by the Planning
Commission and the Commission’s findings are forwarded to the Board of Supervisors
for their information. No additional action is required of the Board. The Commission’s
action is only related to the appropriateness of the site for this public use, and is not an
action or recommendation on whether the station should be funded and/or constructed.
CHARACTER OF THE SITE / AREA
The firing range is proposed to be located on a 169.12 acre parcel that contains the
closed Keene Landfill. The firing range would be located south of the landfill disposal
boundaries or disposal “cells” (Attachment C). The site is bounded by rural agricultural
land on the east, west and south sides with one adjacent property to the east within the
Totier Creek Agricultural – Forestal District (parcel 129-3). Parcel 129-3 is 145 acres in
area; approximately 95 acres are wooded (including the portion adjacent to the proposed
firing range site) with the remaining 50 acres in open field and pasture with livestock
(cattle). Staff reviewed the proposed firing range with the Agricultural-Forestal District
Committee at their meeting on March 19, 2012. The consensus of the Committee was
that the proposed firing range was not a use that complemented or was otherwise
conducive to agricultural or forestal uses. The Committee also felt that if such a use was
to be approved, that every measure be taken to mitigate the noise and safety impacts to
adjacent property within the District. Measures such as retaining and enhancing the
wooded buffer adjacent to the proposed range and orienting the range north facing
rather than south facing to reduce the likelihood of rounds leaving the property were
specifically addressed by the Committee. The property is within the Southern Albemarle
Rural Historic District. Within a one mile radius, there are approximately four historic
structures that contribute to the District. None of these structures will be impacted by
this proposal.
On the north, along Fortune Lane, smaller rural residential parcels exist. Within a one
mile radius of the proposed range location, there are approximately 19 homes. Four
homes are located on Fortune Lane the closest being approximately 2/3 of a mile to the
north of the firing range site. Approximately fifteen homes front on Irish Road within a
one mile radius, the closest being approximately ½ mile to the south of the firing range
site.
The property is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan; and this area
drains into the Totier Creek Water Supply Watershed. It has been designated as Rural
Area since adoption of the 1971 (first) Comprehensive Plan. The Keene Sanitary
Landfill was permitted on the site in approximately 1974 and the property was utilized as
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 4
a municipal landfill until its closure in May 1991. The site is zoned for rural area uses
and is outside of the jurisdictional boundaries for water and sewer.
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The primary component of this project is
the proposed 350’ by 150’ outdoor firing
range surrounded by 20 foot tall side and
rear berms. The firing range is proposed
to be a 100 yard range with twelve firing
lanes, expandable to 24 lanes. The firing
line would be covered (roofed) and paved
in asphalt. The range floor and berms
would be grassed. The range is proposed
to accommodate handguns and rifles. Other components of the project would include
road improvements onsite to include a gravel access road and parking area, toilet
facilities, perimeter fencing around the range, and a learning cottage (classroom). The
project will require the submittal and approval of a site plan and an erosion control plan.
Ideally, the County desires to begin construction on the facility in the spring of 2013 with
the facility opening in the summer of 2013. This timeframe for opening the firing range is
considered critical for providing the necessary training and qualifying for the Police
Department. If the County Police Department’s current arrangement was terminated and
the County had no firing range, then county personnel would need to travel outside of
the County to receive necessary training.
Types of Activity
Activity onsite will involve firearms and special weapons training and qualification f or
members of the County Police Department. Other in-service activities could include
simmunition (force-on-force) training, less-than lethal training, and any other outdoor law
enforcement training where a controlled environment is necessary. In addition to in-
service training, schools and special events are proposed to be held from time-to-time.
Examples of a training school could include a five-day school to teach new officers
during a basic training academy class or training veteran officers on a new weapon
system or training officers on law enforcement tactics. Examples of special events could
include a law enforcement shooting competition or a firearms safety class offered to the
public.
Site Access
The site would be accessed from the terminus of Fortune Lane, Route 704 which is
currently a gravel public road. The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has
indicated that Fortune Lane will be hard-surfaced in 2012 as part of the Rural Rustic
Road program. VDOT has stated that due to the low amount of additional traffic
generated by the proposed firing range that Fortune Lane remains eligible for the rural
rustic program and the hard-surfacing of the road scheduled to occur.
Frequency of Use
The County Police Department anticipated using the site three to four days per week
which may include 10-20 police vehicles and up to 20 people per use. In addition to in-
service training for police officers, schools and special events are proposed to be held
from time-to-time. Except for special cases or events, it is not anticipated that the site
will be used on weekends. Hours of operation would vary by the season, but would
Figure 1: Perspective View - Firing Range
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 5
conclude no later than 10:00 PM. Periodic night training is required by the Police
Department’s training standards. Such night training would occur no more than four
times per quarter.
Facility Users
It is anticipated that the facility will primarily serve the Albemarle County Police
Department and the Albemarle County Sheriff’s Department. The Charlottesville Police
Department has committed to providing funding for the project so they will be users as
well. It is anticipated that there will be up to 20 people on site per use. The firing range
would be staffed by the County Police Department when training is being conducted.
The possibility exists to partner with other local governments, federal agencies and
private corporations for use of the facility. A public-private partnership with a corporation
would be based on regional law enforcement needs first and then if available, the range
could be available for lease by corporations that require firearms training. If the County
was to enter into such a lease agreement, county personnel would be present to monitor
the training activity and such expense would be built into the lease agreement.
Noise Measures
Noise abatement has been
addressed through facility
location and design features.
The 2008 TENG Study
concluded that placement of
the firing range at the rear of
the property where the site
elevation is low would aid in
keeping generated noise levels
low. The 2008 TENG study
proposed to orient the range
facing south with earthen
berms on three sides 20 feet in
height (Attachment C). Taking
from the firing line, preliminary
noise calculations for four rifles and twelve handguns firing simultaneously produced a
decibel level of 90 for a 320 foot radius from the firing line at the range site. The 90
decibel radius was contained within the property boundaries. The noise level
calculations take into account a grass-surfaced firing range with 20 foot tall side and rear
earthen berms with a wooded buffer behind them. At the site of the proposed range,
planted loblolly pines are approximately 15 feet tall and are 6-8 years old (Figure 2).
Attachment D provides the estimates noise levels for the proposed firing range. At the
property line, noise levels range 71 to 86 decibels on the western property line closest to
the facility and 69 to 82 decibels on the eastern property line closest to the facility. The
northern property line at Fortune Lane furthest from the facility would be approximately
52 dB. Figure 2 below illustrates real-world examples of noise levels.
Figure 2: Perspective View – Existing Tree Buffer Size
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 6
Figure 3: Examples of Noise Levels (approximate)
Lawn mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB) 90-100 dB
Food blender (88 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB). 80-89 dB
Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); radio or TV-audio,
vacuum cleaner (70 dB) 70-79 dB
Conversation in restaurant, office, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft 60-69 dB
Quiet suburb, conversation at home. 50-59 dB
Source: http://www.industrialnoisecontrol.com/comparative-noise-examples.htm
Staff has determined that as a public use, the proposed firing range is exempt from
noise ordinance provisions of the zoning ordinance. However, the noise ordinance can
serve as general benchmark of what noise levels are appropriate. For uses located in
the Rural Areas, noise levels are permitted to be 55 dB at night and 60 dB during the
day. Therefore, using the noise ordinance provisions as a benchmark, the facility would
be over the desired limits of the noise ordinance at the property lines closest to the
proposed range site but not significantly so, given the nature of the use/ facility.
Within the portion identified as “general location of proposed firing range” on Attachment
E, the County is researching the best location and orientation for the firing range. The
2008 TENG study recommended the firing range face south. This recommendation
included supporting noise level documentation. A general area has been identified for
the location of the firing range so that if additional research and noise data indicate that
noise and other concerns can be mitigated more effectively by adjusting the range’s
location and/or orientation within the identified area, that the County have the flexibility to
do so.
In addition to the design measures on the range itself, other noise mitigation measures
may include retaining and cultivating the wooded buffer of planted loblolly pine (currently
15 feet tall) as well as using engineered baffles or barriers.
Other Safety and Security Measures
The facility will be secured with perimeter fencing which will include signage warning of
the firing range. The fencing will be secured when the facility is not in use. The access
road will include a gate which will remain locked when the facility is not in use. As
proposed in this request, ammunition and weapons are not proposed to be stored onsite.
A storage building would be used for keeping maintenance, cleaning and targeting
supplies onsite. Outdoor lighting will be minimal and just include, several outdoor light
fixtures affixed to the classroom, bathroom and cover over the firing line.
While the potential exists for an errant bullet to leave any outdoor firing range, the
County is taking several precautions to minimize this risk. First, the location of the range
has been carefully selected on the property to buffer the firing range from adjacent
properties. Secondly, the design of the firing range contributes to keeping all bullets
within the berm perimeter. The range will be contained on three sides by earthen
structures whose dimensions are 40’-45’ thick at the base, 5’ thick at the top, and are
approximately 20’ high. Thirdly, State certified instructors will always be present to
ensure that range rules are followed and unsafe practices prohibited. In addition, targets
are placed at a 3’-5’ height to ensure that there is ample backstop on all sides of the
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 7
target, especially above the target area. If research and data support that noise and
safety measures can be better mitigated by orienting the range to the north rather than
south-facing as proposed in the 2008 study, then the range would be oriented away
from adjacent properties further reducing the chance of an errant bullet leaving the
property.
Lead Abatement
Lead abatement will occur once the fired round count exceeds one million lead bullets.
Bullet containment and berm design will follow recommendations in an Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) manual entitled. “Best Management Practices for Lead at
Outdoor Shooting Ranges.” Once the identified volume of lead bullets have been fired,
a lead-reclamation company will be hired to conduct removal work. The Police
Department will also follow an Environmental Stewardship Plan that outlines a site
assessment, action plan, and how to measure success for lead abatement. To enhance
the lead-abating design elements outlined in the EPA manual, the Police Department is
conducting a cost comparison analysis between using lead-free ammunition, a bullet
reclamation system, or a combination of the two. The Police Department has stated that
they plan to use 80% lead-free rounds and use lime to neutralize the lead that is onsite.
STAFF COMMENT
The purpose of this review is to determine if the proposed location for the firearms
training facility is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This proposal has been
reviewed based on Comprehensive Plan policy, including the Community Facilities Plan
(part of the Land Use Plan) and the Rural Areas Plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Community Facilities Plan
The Community Facilities Plan, a component of the Comprehensive Plan, provides the
following guidance regarding the development and location of community facilities:
Objective: Give priority to facilities which address emergency needs, health and
safety concerns, and provide the greatest ratio of benefit to the population
served.
Staff Comment: This is a firearms training facility which is needed to meet service
standards for training as established in the Community Facilities Plan.
Objective: The location of new public facilities should be within the County’s
Development Areas so as to support County land use policies. Development
Areas such as Communities and Villages will serve as service center locations
for the Rural Areas. Only in cases where it is not possible to locate a new facility
in the Development Area due to physical constraints, or the nature of the facility,
and/or service(s) provided, will public facilities be allowed in the Rural Area.
The location of community facilities can be an important factor in determining
where development can and will be accommodated. Therefore, the provision of
community facilities must be carefully coordinated with the land use plan to
ensure the adequate provision of facilities and services to accommodate existing
and anticipated development. The primary focus of the land use plan is to
encourage development in the Development Areas; the necessary facilities
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 8
should be provided to support this pattern of growth. In certain cases it may not
be appropriate, or possible, to provide facilities solely in the Development Areas
due to the nature of the service or other unique circumstances. However, the
priority is to provide the highest level of service to the Development Areas
[emphasis added].
Staff Comment: This objective provides some flexibility to locate public facilities in the
Rural Area to due to the “nature of the service” or “unique circumstances.” This flexibility
was specifically contemplated for public facilities like a firing range which has unique
location needs due to the nature of the service the facility provides. Due to the noise
impacts of an outdoor firing range more land area is often needed to buffer and reduce
such impact to an area. In addition, while every precaution shall be taken to prevent
rounds from leaving the site (such as a 20 foot tall berm), locating a firing range outside
of a Development Area (where residential density is greater) reduces potential impacts if
rounds were to leave the property.
Objective: Priority shall be given to the maintenance and expansion of existing
facilities to meet service needs.
Maintenance of existing facilities is of primary importance. No benefit is gained if
new facilities are provided while existing facilities deteriorate and become
substandard. Also, in meeting new service needs, consideration should be given
to whether the existing facilities can provide an adequate level of service through
modification of them.
Staff Comment: The County does not own or operate the current location where firearm
training occurs; therefore there is no opportunity to expand the existing facility that is
used for firearms training.
Objective: All sites should be able to accommodate existing and future service
needs. All buildings, structures and other facilities shall be designed to permit
expansion as necessary.
Staff Comment: The 2008 TENG study found that the proposed site is large enough to
accommodate future service needs, however at this time such future needs have not
been evaluated.
Objective: Schedule funding of community facilities through the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP), based on the adopted Community Facilities Plan.
Staff Comment: The proposed firing range has been scheduled for funding through the
CIP and is based upon the adopted Community Facilities Plan.
Objective: All community facilities shall be in conformance with County
regulations, site development standards, and policies to the greatest extent
feasible.
County projects are expected to meet all County development regulations and
procedures, consistent with any other like type of development project. County
projects should further strive to achieve or meet all other appropriate
development standards and policies established/encouraged by the County
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 9
(stormwater/water quality, critical slope management, building form/orientation,
amount/location of parking, pedestrian/bike accessibility, others). Public projects
should be examples of good development and should be models to demonstrate
the type of development the County wants to see.
Staff Comment: As an outdoor firing range, the facility will have difficulty in meeting the
noise standards desired in the zoning ordinance. While this facility is a public use and
therefore exempt from the noise ordinance, the County is committed to locating the
proposed firing range on the property in a manner that best mitigates the noise and
safety concerns associated with facility use. This is why only generalized area for the
proposed firing range has been shown for the location of the range (Attachment E).
While the 2008 TENG study provided data for one particular site on the property, if
further analysis finds noise and other concerns can be better addressed by adjusting the
range location and/or orientation, the County wanted the design flexibility to do so.
Objective: Determine the value of maintaining existing but obsolete facilities and
sites for the potential re-use for other services/facilities prior to their disposal.
Consideration should be given to the re-use of public facilities/sites for other
public uses, if no longer viable for its original service/facility. It is costly and often
difficult to purchase property and site public facilities in new locations. Prior to
disposing of public properties, a review of the site/facilities potential for other
public uses or reservation of the property for future use should be considered.
Staff Comment: The proposed firing range site utilizes and re-uses county owned
property that has been unused since the Keene Landfill closed in 1991. The proposed
firing range will be located south of the closed landfill disposal cells and will not disturb
the earthen cap that seals the landfill.
Police Department Service Objectives and Standards
The following provides specific service objectives and standards for the Police
Department (as found in the Community Facilities Plan) that relate to the
development and location of new training facilities:
Service Objective:
Provide new facilities in a manner that accommodates anticipated service
demands and the needs of the current and future staff.
Service/ Facility Standards:
Training Facilities. Provide, or insure availability of, training facilities including
firing range academic facilities classroom/training rooms.
Staff Comment: The service/facility standards for the County Police Department,
specifically address the need for training facilities such as a firing range. A firing range
that is owned, operated and managed by the County will insure the availability of a
county-controlled firing range. The firing range shall meet the service demands of the
current and future law enforcement personnel. Space for other aspects of a public
safety training center has the ability to accommodate anticipated service demands in the
future.
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 10
Staff opinion is that the proposed firing range site is generally consistent with the
Community Facility Plan recommendations.
Rural Areas Plan
Because the firing range is proposed in the County’s designated Rural Areas, it is
necessary to weigh the impact that the proposed firing range site could have on key
components of the Rural Areas. The Rural Areas Plan provides the following guidance:
1. Agriculture - - Protect Albemarle County’s agricultural lands as a resource base
for its agricultural industries and for related benefits they contribute towards the
County’s rural character, scenic quality, natural environment, and fiscal health.
2. Forestry resources - Protect Albemarle County’s forests as a resource base for
its forestry industries and watershed protection.
Staff Comment 1-2: The proposed site of the firing range is on property adjacent to a
parcel within the Totier Creek Agricultural-Forestal District. Staff solicited input from the
Agricultural-Forestal District Committee at their meeting on March 19, 2012. As started
earlier in the staff report, the Committee felt that the proposed firing range was not a use
that complemented or was otherwise conducive to agricultural or forestal uses. The
Committee also felt that if such a use was to be approved, that every measure be taken
to mitigate the noise and safety impacts to adjacent property within the District.
Measures such as retaining and enhancing the wooded buffer adjacent to the proposed
range and orienting the range north facing rather than south facing to reduce the
likelihood of rounds leaving the property were specifically addressed by the Committee.
3. Land Preservation – Permanently preserve and protect Albemarle County’s rural
land as an essential and finite resource through public ownership or through
conservation easements.
4. Land Conservation – Protect Albemarle County’s rural land through planned
management of open spaces to prevent exploitation, destruction, or neglect.
5. Water supply resources - Protect the quality and supply of surface water and
groundwater resources.
Staff Comment 3-5: The proposed site of the firing range is not adjacent to land within a
conservation easement. The site is located within the Totier Creek Water Supply
Reservoir Watershed. The County is committed protecting the quality and supply of
surface water and groundwater and particularly water supply watersheds. To this end,
at the proposed site of the firing range, the Police Department plans to utilize best
management practices (BMPs) to ensure lead from fired rounds does not contaminate
water supplies. Bullet containment and design of the 20 ft. tall berms will follow
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) BMP guidelines specifically created for outdoor
firing ranges. In addition, the Police Department is considering using lead-free rounds
for certain types of ammunition.
6. Natural resources - Preserve and manage the Rural Areas' natural resources in
order to protect the environment and conserve resources for future use.
7. Scenic resources - Preserve the County's rural scenic resources as being
essential to the County's character, economic vitality, and quality of life.
8. Historical, archeological and cultural resources - Protect the Rural Areas' historic,
archeological and cultural resources.
SITE
CCP 2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range
Planning Commission 4/3/12
Staff Report Page 11
Staff Comment 6-8: The proposed site of the firing range does not impact rural scenic
resources because the proposed site is not within an entrance corridor nor is it in a
location that would be visible from a public roadway. The proposed site is within the
Southern Albemarle Rural Historic District. The proposed site limits possible impacts on
historic resources by its isolated and remote location.
Staff opinion is that the proposed firing range site is consistent with the Rural Area Plan
recommendations.
SUMMARY
Factors Favorable:
1. The site will utilize an under-used county-owned property.
2. The site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas.
3. The location of the firing range on site will further limit adverse impact on
adjacent agricultural properties.
4. The site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural
resources.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The proposed use on the site will produce noise at property lines that are above
the noise ordinance provisions of the zoning ordinance.
Staff finds the proposed site and scale of activity for the proposed Law Enforcement
Firing Range in substantial accord with the County’s Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission find the location, character and extent of the
proposed Law Enforcement Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the
County’s Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors of the
staff report as outlined above.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Location Map
B. Aerial Photo of Site
C. Conceptual Master Plan (from the 2008 TENG Study)
D. Estimated Firing Range Noise Levels ( 2 pages, from the 2008 TENG Study)
E. Map of General Location for Proposed Firing Range
Return to PC actions memo
SITE
Parcel InfoParcelsLaw Enforcement Firing Range - Location Map Attachment AMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesMarch 14, 2012GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)2500 ftATTACHMENT A
Parcel InfoParcelsLaw Enforcement Firing Range - Aerial Photo Attachment BMap is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other SourcesMarch 14, 2012GIS-WebGeographic Data Serviceswww.albemarle.org(434) 296-5832Legend(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)2500 ftATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D1
ATTACHMENT D2
General Area for
Proposed Firing
Range to be located
ATTACHMENT E
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 3, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
CCP-2012-00001 Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site
PROPOSAL: Albemarle County Law enforcement firearms training facility on approx. 170 acres
ZONING: RA Rural Areas agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas, the goals of which are to preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development
lots)
LOCATION: Southern terminus of Fortune Lane/Route 704, approx. 1.4 miles south of intersection of
Route 704/Riding Club Rd.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 129000000002A0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller
(Andy Sorrell)
Mr. Sorrell presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
CCP-2012-00001 Law Enforcement Firing Range General Vicinity Map
• End of Fortune Lane
• 170 acres County –owned parcel
• Closed Keene Landfill site
• Zoned RA, Rural Area
• Comp. Plan designated Rural Area
Proposal
• County owned & operated firearms training facility - 100 yard outdoor firing range;
• Other facilities include a classroom building, toilet facilities, access road and parking area;
• Users: county and city law enforcement
• Frequency: 3-4 times/ week, 20 officers per use
– Night training up to 4 times/quarter no later than 10 p.m.
No weekends except for special cases /events
General Area Proposed for Range
• Request to find general area compliant as shown on slide in green area on map
• Flexibility if other orientations and/or areas can address noise & safety concerns as well or better
than current location (Staff report shows a particular location as shown on a 2008 Concept Study.
If they were to find a location that was within that green area that was perhaps different than that,
they would want that flexibility.)
Staff reviewed slides of photographs and drawings to review the following:
Entrance to Landfill Property
Entrance looking towards Fortune Lane
Height of Pine Buffer
(Loblolly Pines on either side of the road with six to eight years growth)
The pine buffer would surround the proposed firing range. The County Forester is present tonight
and could potentially answer any questions regarding the age and height of that particular buffer.
He worked with the county when that was replanted six to eight years ago. The pine trees are
about 15’ tall.
– Perspective View of Range
The range is proposed to be surrounded on three sides by a 20’ tall earthen and berm. It would
be proposed to have 12 shooting lanes to start out with the ability to potentially expand them in
the future. However, for right now that is not proposed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
2
Noise Measures
The major concern with a facility of this nature is noise. Noise has been addressed, as follows:
• Noise addressed by location & design features
• Located at rear of property where the elevation is lower and the noise would have less of an
impact than if it was at a higher location on that property. It is also not sited on the closed landfill.
It would not be disturbing the disposal cells of that landfill.
• Firing range oriented south with 20’ earthen berms on 3 sides surrounded by 15’ loblolly pine
buffer. If additional data can show that orienting it in another direction or something that could
further lessen the noise impacts that is what they would like to do in that general area.
• 71 -86 dB at western property line (closest to the facility)
• 69 - 82 dB at eastern property line.
• ~ 52 dB at northern property line adj. to Fortune Lane
Examples of Noise Levels (approximate)
- Lawn mower (96 dB); motorcycle at 25 ft (90 dB) - 90-100 dB
- Food blender (88 dB); garbage disposal (80 dB) - 80-89 dB
- Passenger car at 65 mph at 25 ft (77 dB); radio or TV-audio, vacuum cleaner - (70 dB) - 70-79 dB
- Conversation in restaurant, office, Air conditioning unit at 100 ft - 60-69 dB
- Quiet suburb, conversation at home - 50-59 dB
What this is showing is that at the property lines the facility would be above what the Noise Ordinance
does permit. However, it is something that the county is working very hard to locate the facility in a
manner that would reduce the impacts from noise on adjacent property owners and adjacent users.
Easements in Vicinity –
Ag.- Forestal Committee Review
• Adjacent property to southeast (fronting on Rt. 6) within Totier Creek Agricultural Forestal District
• Agricultural and Forestal Committee made a finding that the firing range isn’t consistent w ith
agricultural or forestal uses (March, 2012)
• Suggested consideration be given to:
– reorienting range north-facing inward to property
– Maintaining and preserving the wooded buffer between the District property & the county
property
Commission Action
• Review for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (Planning Commission finding)
(April, 2012):
– to make a finding on whether the general use and location are consistent with the Comp
Plan (“substantial accord”);
– Review required by State Code (15.2-2232).
• Site Plan (including Erosion & Sediment Control Plan) approval for development of site.
Factors Favorable & Unfavorable
Favorable
– Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
– Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
– Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural
properties;
– Site’s location limits the impacts to the natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
This particular property is not one that is adjacent to a parcel that is on the National
Registrar. There are some sites within proximity of a mile. It is not intermediately
adjacent to any.
Unfavorable
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
3
– Use will produce noise at some property lines above the noise ordinance. This is a
county facility and it is exempt from the noise ordinance. However, it is a benchmark for
the county to use as to what the county sees acceptable for noise. That is why it is
something that they are trying our best to locate the facility in the area that would reduce
those noise impacts as best possible.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Summary:
• Comprehensive Plan location standards allow facilities to be located outside Development Area
to meet unique circumstances, in this case to meet both training standards and safety needs for
the Development Area AND Rural Area;
• Facility location generally and on-site limit impacts to rural area resources;
• Character and extent of use is within the scale anticipated in the Community Facilities
Plan/Comp. Plan for law enforcement training facilities. This is a permanent firing range that
meet the County Police Department service standards for training as found in the Comprehensive
Plan;
This would be serving a need for the whole county by being able to have a county owned and operated
firearms training facility. Currently the county uses a private facili ty, which they do not have operational
control over. This would allow for additional abilities to train and to make sure that those safety needs are
being met for the county law enforcement.
Also, the location of the particular property and its location on site will limit its impact to the rural area
resources that it is adjacent to. It definitely is something that is not intermediately visible from a scenic
byway or Entrance Corridor. It is not intermediately adjacent to an historic resource.
The character and extend of this use is within the anticipated scale of what the Comprehensive Plan calls
for. The Comprehensive Plan does speak to the need for a law enforcement firing range/training facility.
This permanent range would meet the County Police Department’s service standards for training as found
in our Comprehensive Plan. This is something they have been planning for quite some time.
Recommendation
• The Commission finds that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement
Firing Range facility is in substantial accord with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson questioned if the Planning Commission makes the final action since this is a finding and not to
specify conditions or to make a recommendation to the Board like a special use permit.
Mr. Sorrell replied that is correct because it is a finding of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The
finding of the Planning Commission would be provided to the Board of Supervisors as information.
Mr. Loach asked if the site itself is surrounded by an Agricultural Forestal District.
Mr. Sorrell replied the property is adjacent to an Agricultural Forestal District on one side. There is a
conservation easement that is not intermediately adjacent.
Mr. Loach noted the staff report indicates that four homes are located on Fortune Lane with the closest
approximately two-thirds of a mile to the north of the range site. In addition, it says approximately 15
homes are on Irish Road within a one mile radius. He asked did staff extrapolate out the noise values to
see what they would be at those property lines.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was done in the 2008 study for the site they had chosen at that time. The map in
the staff report basically shows what the noise levels would be at various ranges , which is where he
pulled the information on the decibel readings at the property lines. On the left side of the aerial photo at
the dotted white line is about 52 dB at that range. The Noise Ordinance establishes 55 dB for nighttime
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
4
readings for rural areas and 60 dB for the day. Generally that would be where those readings would be
that are compliant with the Noise Ordinance.
Ms. Monteith asked if the Commission were to find t his in compliance what is the process about it going
to the Board of Supervisors and what would happen after that.
Mr. Sorrell replied if the Commission was to find this to be in compliance with the Comp Plan, then the
information would be provided to the Board of Supervisors as information and the applicant could submit
a site plan to the county for review. The Planning Commission makes the finding. The Board of
Supervisors does not take an official action on this particular activity since it is a public facility.
Mr. Kamptner asked to make one correction in that the Board of Supervisors does have the ability to
overrule the decision of the Planning Commission.
Ms. Monteith asked if the Commission finds it in compliance and the Board of Supervisors did not
overrule it, then the project would move forward.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct.
Mr. Morris asked if any discussion has taken place about additional ranges in the future at this location.
Mr. Sorrell replied the 2008 Study was done to determine if that particular property was large enough to
accommodate a number of uses that could relate to a safety training facility for the county. At this time
the applicant has requested this particular firing range be reviewed for compliance. If addi tional ranges or
other components of a safety training facility would be required, then they would have to come back
under a review just like this. They have prepared a concept plan for what could potentially or basically fit
on a property of that size. However, at this time that has not been requested. It is just this particular
firing range and other ancillary uses to that.
Ms. Monteith acknowledged that she had a lot of questions and asked if they were going to come back
and discuss this more after hearing from the public.
Mr. Morris explained the public hearing process noting the hearing will be opened for applicant and
general public input prior to further discussion by the Commission.
Mr. Smith asked how the estimated firing range noise levels are determined.
Mr. Sorrell replied the estimated firing range noise levels were determined by an engineer that was able
to estimate it using methodologies for this type of facility. The 2008 study was done by an engineering
firm who were able to provide that data. The applicant can also address that in more detail as to how
that was determined.
Mr. Loach asked if the same parameters such as the height of the berms, the length of the range, etc.
were used when they calculated the data.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct. The engineers calculated it using the 20’ grassed berms with a
wooded buffer behind them.
Ms. Monteith noted she had several questions for the applicant to address. In thinking about alternatives
obviously one of the things presented in the staff report was there are certain conditions in the existing
firing range that they are using that have to do with flexibility and choices that there are concerns around.
She asked if there are options of scheduling; if access has been discussed with the existing use; are
there any other methods of practice that could be applied; and are there any options where the existing
use is occurring that have been addressed.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
5
Rob Heide, a Police Officer serving as a project manager on this application, said they were not going to
add anything to what Mr. Sorrell said since he did a very thorough job. There is representation here from
the contract engineering firm, Keenly Horn; Travis Henry, with Facilities Development; and
representatives of the Police Department should they have any questions or need clarification.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Monteith asked for responses to her previous questions.
Mr. Heide said the Police Department entered into a temporary agreement in 1995 with the private club
facility. At that time they were the only department using the private facility. Other departments found out
they had a good thing going and joined in. Between the number of law enforcement personnel using the
facility and number of private members of the club it has well exceeded its capacity. To that end in a
recent action the club’s board limited all law enforcement agencies to two da ys a month. Therefore, that
is over 400 people trying to use 8 hours a month for training. There was no statement in th e contract
about extending or reevaluating it. The contract just ends in two years on a certain date. The answer to
the question is there have been limitations put on this so that they can better manage the capacity for
their membership at large.
Ms. Monteith said it was suggested that if no new location can be found that officers or people within
Albemarle County, which is what they are specifically addressing, might have to go outside of the county
to practice. What would be the closest location?
Mr. Heide replied it would be Augusta County, which is about 15 to 20 miles outside of Albemarle County.
Mr. Randolph commended Mr. Heide and his team for their effort to invite all of the Commissioners down
to look at the site. It was very valuable to see the site and to have a discussion about what their plans
were. He had two questions. The first is about the design to reassure the public about the noise level. In
his Army experience he was well aware that the higher the caliper the louder the noise. He asked what
the highest caliper round was anticipated to be fired at this facility.
Mr. Heide replied that it would be a 308 caliper rifle, which is a specialty weapon used by their SWAT
Team. The tradeoff with that is they don’t shoot them as frequently as hand guns per say just because
there is not a need to. While there might be a slight increase in decibel at the source it is far l ess
frequent.
Mr. Randolph asked would the department be prepared if there was an email list put together of the
contiguous property owners to let them know night firing was occurring or on weekends when firing was
occurring just as a courtesy. Those neighbors could possibly make plans to go to the movies and not
have to deal with the stress of listening to the rounds from the firing range.
Mr. Heide replied absolutely. They are already looking at different software opportunities out there that
allow people to opt in for a type of update as he described. They are talking about that now , but have not
really gotten into that detail because they are still far from that. However, it is something on the table as
they speak.
Mr. Loach noted the range as proposed is an outdoor range. He asked if there are any future plans for
an indoor component.
Mr. Heide replied no.
Mr. Smith asked how many round would typically be fired in a day.
Mr. Heide replied that was dictated on what they were trying to accompl ish in that training evolution. The
annual qualification is their heaviest round of usage, which is state mandated. They have to shoot X
amount of rounds to show proficiency once a year per person, which is several hundred rounds per
person on a given da y. All of the other training would be a lesser round count than that. They don’t
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
6
equate number of rounds fired with quality of training. They try to find a balance between what they are
budgeted for every year and still maintain quality training.
Ms. Monteith asked if there is a cost estimate on this project. If so, what are the costs?
Mr. Heide replied the cost estimate is 1.153 million.
Mr. Dotson said the noise estimates have been made on the basis of four rifles and 12 pistols firing at
once. He asked if that is normal or an unusual case.
Mr. Heide replied that would be unusually high. If they have ten hand guns firing at once it does not
mean the sound is ten times what one is. To answer the question, that is not realistic and is a very high
number with a worst case scenario. It would not be a realistic training environment to do that.
Mr. Dotson said if he was on property nearby and could hear the sounds of this what he would likely hear.
Would he hear something with a one hour duration or just one hour during the day? Would he be able to
detect the individual rounds being fired, or would it be sort of a blur of sounds? What would it be like?
Mr. Heide replied that it depends on the training. During qualification training where they have a line of six
or eight people shooting within a two or three second period of time it might sound like a little bit of a
longer noise. In reality it is one or two rounds being fired by six or eight people in a very short period of
time, which would be their heaviest use of the range. The duration of hours on that day would be an eight
hour training day with breaks, lunch and pulling people off the range to revisit a training issue or what
have you. Other types of training would potentially be more sporadic and with less volume. It would be
involving hand guns, rifles, and shotguns. The majority of the time it is going to be sporadic through the
day and won’t be eight hours of constant percussive.
Mr. Dotson said the staff report mentions there could be occasional events such as competitions. He
assumed that is amongst police forces not involving the public. It might be to test and sharpen your
abilities with city, county, Augusta County, and others coming in.
Mr. Heide replied yes there is a potential for competitions. However, that is not something they have
discussed to have in the near future such as the day it opens. Of course, there is always within the police
culture the need to host events for a school or competition. They wanted to keep the possibility open to
use it for community education as well. There is hunter safety classes offered through the county and
perhaps that could be hosted at a range. When they say special events it is community based events
and law enforcement based events. However, again it would not be something that goes beyond what
Mr. Sorrell had in his staff report information regarding time frame of usage, days of usage and things like
that.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this is the best design to minimize noise and could they have the range open at one
end or closed off.
Mr. Heide said he did not know if their representative from Kimberly Horn wants to speak to that. Most
ranges have a simple backstop and are open on the other three sides. This range is closing in three
sides and only opens at the back. Therefore, from that perspective it is going to have a better impact at
mitigating noise. He did not know if they closed off the back end since he had never seen a range built
like that. Just coming from a range conference that talked about building and developing there was
nothing mentioned regarding anything like that.
Brian Peters, with Kimberly Horn and Associates, said he was working on a term contract with the County
of Albemarle to design this project pending the Commission’s action. The sound waves when they
bounce or project themselves off the back berm are not going to come back at you level. So having the
berm behind you really would not do anything significant to noise. Most of the noise absorption a fter the
firing is going to be that sound wave that comes out, hits the berm and is absorbed by the berm.
Obviously, some of that sound is then redirected off the berm in a different direction. They will be looking
at that in the design to be sure they are making decisions consistent with the design similar to what was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
7
done in the Tank Study from a noise level standpoint. They want to do what they can to resolve that
noise challenge.
Ms. Monteith asked what kind of coordination or meetings have occurre d with the adjacent neighbors of
this site.
Mr. Heide replied that before they did anything internal on this project, like applying for this Comp Plan
review, they sent letters to all abutting owners and then owners one -half a mile up Fortune Lane from the
entrance to this county property. They let th ose owners know what they were doing and who to contact.
They also let the owners know they would be in the area that coming week to go door to door and meet
with folks. It was in late January, around the 25th and 26th, that they sent those letters out. People
received the letters and they started to get phone calls. On January 31 most of the department heads
from the Police Department and Sheriff ’s Office that will be using this facility went down and went door to
door and met with folks. If they were not home or they got a delayed response they opened up the
opportunity to meet with them one on one. Some folks took advantage of that. They were able to hear
what some of their concerns were. Actually hearing some of those concerns moved them away from the
concept plan being the absolute location of the range and opening up the rest of the property to reorient
the range and move it further away from those abutting owners. They have done quite a bit of outreach
before they ever put the pen to paper in terms of applying for this project.
Ms. Monteith asked what other mitigations have been made regarding the impact s that people were
concerned about.
Mr. Heide replied that it was not as much mitigation as it is not locking them in. The 2008 report has the
range location at the very southern tip of the property. After listening to some of the property owners they
looked at the opportunity to reorient it where the range is now facing the opposite direction from these
properties and moving it upwards of a quarter of a mile further away. That is the reason in the staff report
for the larger green area shown in terms of the affected part of this property. They did not go with what
was recommended in 2008.
Mr. Smith pointed out that 20 participants times 200 rounds is about 4,000 rounds. He asked why they
did not do any live fire testing for the sound.
Mr. Heide replied that he could not speak to that. It seems typical at this stage of a project that the s ound
studies are done through a model with existing data. Regarding the new location he just spoke about
they are doing a line by line comparison to see if that location actually is better than the one proposed in
2008. It is a different engineering firm, a different sound engineering firm, and they are doing the same
kind of modeling. It seems to be an industry standard to do it in this way. No one mentioned taking a
noise generator out or anything like that.
Ms. Monteith noted there were many things in the staff report she had questions about. One of the things
that stood out in the frequency of use was the use would conclude no later than 10 p.m. She wondered
why people in this community need to have firing range impact noise going on until 10 p .m. at night.
Mr. Heide replied that two-thirds of law enforcement’s job is to work at night. They would be doing
officers a bit of an injustice if they had them shoot outside the scope of when they actually work. It is a
totally different environment when out at pitch black and having to manipulate the fire arm that is issued to
them, having to shoot it accurately, and to operate it correctly and safely. They would be doing officers a
disservice. They don’t need to do it that often, which is why they committed to no more than four times a
quarter. The thing that is not in the staff report, which they debated about being in there, is they don’t
want to be at the range from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. in July waiting for it to get dark. They intend to avoid the
months where it does not get dark until later and use the months where it is darker earlier from 5:30 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m.
Ms. Monteith suggested that mitigation should be looked at.
Mr. Smith asked how they see to shoot at night with no lights.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
8
Mr. Heide replied they do it carefully and have techniques and strategies that are used. Typically there is
always some form of ambient light available to be able to identify the location of the target. However, it is
through muscle memory, which is accomplished through repetition in the environment you are working in.
Mr. Dotson said if not here are there other locations in the county that would have different impacts than
this site. He offered that as a serious question. It seems that most parts of the county have some
scattered rural residents. Most parts of the county are not too far from a conservation easement or an
agricultural/forestal district. He asked if they have looked at other sites. The obvious thing about this site
is that it is already county owned and sort of a previously abused property. It would be nice to have the
property put to a beneficial use.
Mr. Heide replied that most of the study done was to pick the best property. They looked at three different
properties. Because it was a landfill he did not think it bumped the site up to the top of the list. It was the
property’s size, the surrounding area in terms of how sparely populated it was, and perhaps the cost to
develop it. Those other two county properties have gone away and are now being used for other things.
He referred the question to Trevor Henry.
Trevor Henry, Director of Facilities Development, said Mr. Heide had accurately described what was done
in 2008. A study was commissioned to look at the best location for the firing range. There were three
sites, which included Preddy Creek, the Byron Park area and this site. The conclusion at the time was
the site presented today was the best location. Since 2008 both of the other sites have actually been
converted to parks.
Mr. Dotson asked if in each case the three sites were already publicly owned, and Mr. Henry replied that
was correct.
Mr. Dotson asked if there has been a study that simply look ed for remote locations not adjacent to any of
the things that are concerning us. He was not suggesting that there should have been.
Mr. Henry replied that he would have to go back and look at the parameters of the study, but he did not
think that was a criterion. He thought it was just for existing owned facilities.
Ms. Monteith pointed out Mr. Dotson was making a really good point. Of course, they were given in the
staff report the other sites that had been studied. However, she would really like to know more broadly
the criteria of that study because there are a lot of people who would be impacted by this.
There being no further questions, Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Mike Sheets, resident of 6783 Fortune Lane, said he owned two parcels located on Fortune Lane and
had the following concerns.
- He was concerned about the notifications, but assumed he was outside of the one-half mile buffer
as far as getting notice. He was disappointed because he was not aware of the proposal until his
neighbors told him about it. He has lived on Fortune Lane for 40 to 50 years and had to put up
with the landfill.
- The road has not been addressed. He had not heard anything about the road or road
improvements to be put in to handle the traffic. This is a one-way road since people who go
down the road have to come back, which means he has to look at the same car twice. He did not
think it was fair in his history of living there for 50 years that he had to tolerate the traffic that is
going to be created by the proposed firing range. He understands that VDOT is getting out of the
picture and putting more of the financial burden on the county with the times and economy being
what it is. VDOT is not currently supporting the dump road and comes down there once to
possibly five times a year to scrap the road. They are the last ones to get their road scrapped
with snow. He was concerned about that.
- As a member of Rivanna Rifle Club he feels their pain because the club has grown tremendously
and has been limited. He thinks the facility is great, but thought the facility needs to be handled
much more delicately. He hoped that the Commission and Board see this. These statistics are
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
9
great; however, they are not actual conditions. He was a hunter and heard rifle firing hundreds of
yards away or for miles. He has a bird shoot club called Church Hill who hunts on Saturdays
when it sounds like a war zone. The decibels are measured sound and don’t impact what the ear
hears. He understands everybody here is addressing the noise.
- He thinks the facility is great, but should be put under a roof. He suggested that they spend
another $250,000 and put the facility under a roof. It is not fair for the residents to have to listen
to the gun fire.
- He was concerned about the impacts to his property. If the road was enlarged and paved would
he lose a portion? He was concerned about the future because there is going to be more
planning and things being done at the site. He understands there is going to be a fire tower for
the fire department. That means he is going to have the long fire engine coming down the road.
He has children and grandchildren playing out there. He did not think it was fair as a tax payer
his entire life to have to be burdened with the Keene Landfill and now this.
Brian LaFontaine, resident of 1810 Irish Road in Esmont, said his property is intermediately adjacent just
to the south. He thanked the Commission for the good questions they have posed tonight. His intent is
not to prevent the establishment of this much needed training facility since it is recognized that public
safety employees do need it. However, they do need to bring forth the issues that will affect the market
value of the adjacent property and the peaceful and serene lifestyle that they have enjoyed for many
years. Although they do appreciate the relocation of the range, which they just heard tonight, this
recommended location is still very close to their property line. This makes them the most affected by
gunshot noise. He noted the following concerns.
- There are water ways that run from the vicinity of the landfill on to their land. There are numerous
springs and shallow aquifers that populate these properties. Lead or other forms of contamination
can easily be transferred to the water tables and potentially affect the adjacent property owner’s
drinking water.
- They are told that the range will be enclosed on three sides to reduce the noise. However, he
was not aware before tonight of any documentation that those types of berms would be sufficient
to keep the noise down to a nonintrusive level. They are told that the noise level from the firing
range should be no more than 54 decibels at the location of their home. The level of a normal
conversation is about 54 decibels, which is akin to a knock on a door. He did not know about
anyone else, but it would drive him crazy to have somebody knocking at his door five to six hours
a day.
- He asked how the noise would affect the wildlife habitat. It could potentially destroy hunting on
their farm. He asked how the cows in their fields would be affected. Many dogs are scared to
death of gun shots. Would his dog have to cower in the house? Why have more noise
prevention options not been presented such as soundproofing baffles over the range or indoor
facility possibilities? They are told indoor facilities are cost prohibited because of the regulations
requiring lead dust collection and containment. But then they were told that lead ammo is not
going to be used. He asked what the problem is.
- They also know that future plans call for a driving track, which is another issue for another time. It
is a known fact that the market value of adjacent properties will plummet. No one wants to live
next door to a firing range. They need proof that what they say the noise levels will be will
actually be or lower and what recourse they have if they are not. They need to be assured that
pollution to our springs and water aquifers do not happen and what can they do if it does. There
are a lot of questions and few answers. If it means that this project be delaye d until these
questions can be answer then so be it. If a new firing range and training facility is in the future of
Albemarle County, let’s make sure it is done right.
Mr. Dotson asked if his property accessed from Fortune Lane or from Route 6.
Mr. LaFontaine replied it accessed from Route 6. The original firing range was slated to be down at the
very bottom of the property. They had a very good meeting with Officer Heide and some other
representatives. It was after that meeting that they took another look at the proposed location.
Apparently what they learned tonight was they moved it a little more north, which they do appreciate that
effort.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
10
Mr. Lafferty asked how long have you been at that location.
Mr. LaFontaine replied that the property was in a family trust and purchased in 1973. His family has been
living there since 1984.
Brenda Morris, resident of 7246 Fortune Lane, said her problem is they have not addressed the issue of
safety at all. She asked if her children and grandchildren would not be allowed to go comfortably outside
to play for stray bullets. They have not addressed that fact. She thought that it being an old landfill is a
huge reason that it is being chosen. Moving the proposed location further north brings it closer to her
house. However, there are houses all around that property. She did not know why it does not need to be
considered more heavily to put it someplace else that does not have people living all around it and to look
at the fact that the road issue is a problem.
In addition, Ms. Morris pointed out she drives a school bus on that road and lives there. Six school buses
go in and out of that road twice a day. There is no passing zone for a school bus or car much less a
school bus and a fire truck or anything else that is going to be traveling that road. Her biggest concern is
the safety of stray bullets. She has a friend that used to live by the Rivanna Range and she actually has
had two stray bullets go through her home. She was not harmed, but are they go ing to wait until
somebody is harmed by a stray bullet before saying that might have been a bad decision to put that there.
She asked if they were going to wait until somebody got hurt before they say they need to raise it higher.
They need to look at some place that is not as populated as this area is
Mr. Lafferty asked how long she has lived there.
Ms. Morris replied that she had lived in the area all her life. However, she has lived at this particular
house for the last four years.
D. G. Van Clief said he did not live adjacent to the property, but did own property adjacent to it. He
simply would like to voice a similar concern to the other speakers this evening. Obviously, staff had given
a great deal of thought to this. He would add they are big supporters of law enforcement and delighted to
see a range that will meet the needs of training proficiency that our law enforcement personnel need and
deserve. Frankly, they would welcome added presence of law enforcement presence in our area.
However, they do have the same concerns as the other two contiguous property owners. He owns the
property to the southwest and wondered if the county has taken into consideration in its evaluation
process what the impact would be beyond noise, and again to Ms. M orris’ point regarding safety and in
terms of future marketability. Obviously, this is a rural area now. That status quo may or may not be the
same some years from now. He asked is there a source of information they can go to in terms of what i t
might mean to the value and marketability of the adjacent property in the future.
Mr. Morris pointed out those questions would be addressed once they close the public hearing.
Neil Williamson, with Free Enterprise Forum, said Free Enterprise Forum has no opinio n about this
application or any other application. In general, they have questions about the policy. What they have in
front of them is a request regarding consistency with the Comp Plan. They have a general idea of where
the range is going to be. If this were a private developer coming in with a private range would the
Commission accept that level of detail? In addition, they find that the questions that the Commission has
posed regarding intensity, caliper, noise, and hours of operation all fall with in that clear determination.
They are a bit unclear of the understanding of how, as they have spoken on other applications, other
options that were considered really influence the decision whether this is consistent with the Comp Plan
or not. That is interesting information. He just did not know if that was germane to their decision. In
addition, the cost of the program or the cost of what they are going to go forward with – is that germane to
determine if this is or is not a part of the Comp Plan compliance.
Mr. Randolph asked Mr. Williamson if he felt it was important for the Commission to consider the cost of
the project.
Mr. Williamson replied that he considers that the county is the applicant in this presence. If the applicant
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
11
were a private entity he would say absolutely not. He believes that the cost of the project falls under the
preview of the Board of Supervisors in their CIP. The Commission has an opportunity to speak when the
CIP is considered. He thinks this is an application in whether the proposal is compliant or not with the
Comp Plan. Either decision is fine with the Free Enterprise Forum. The cost of the program really does
not fall under the Commission’s preview.
Ms. Monteith noted since she asked the question that this is tax dollars and not private dollars.
Jo Higgins pointed out in ’89 when she was hired by the county one of her projects was the closure of the
Keene landfill. She met a lot of the property owners at that time. Possibly between ’92 and ’95 there was
much discussion about making this a training facility. It was on the CIP list for some time and has been
bumped back many times in looking for other alternatives. The road issue was probably looked at , which
was in that file. At the time this was operating there were 27 haulers in the county. About one-third of the
haulers used the Keene landfill versus the Ivy landfill. The traffic then was quite brisk. It had daily traffic
with dump trucks bringing stumps in and also with trash hauling trucks. The road was heavily traveled.
The issue then was road width and that sort of thing. However, it was deemed to be adequate. It was
suggested at that time if another use was going to occur it would be less disruptive to people to have it
basically continuous after the landfill was closed. Once it is closed everybody forgets about the traffic that
existed. She was not suggesting that it was not important. She was just saying there was a lot of traffic
on the road, which was established for a very long time. Then it was switched over to Ivy Landfill.
Ms. Higgins continued noting the other concern about the drawing was that a berm is a lot of dirt. Her
first question is where the dirt is coming from and if there is adequate land. To get that dirt they are
going to have to clear trees and where that tree clearing occurs could affect the sound. As far as the
cost there is one other thing they talked about, which was the lead abatement. However, there was also
discussion about a baffle wall to actually receive bullets. She recalled an old file that actually showed a
covered line, like a 10’ wide covering on top, where the shooters would stand. It was always assumed
that it was going to be heavily insulated. Now standing in the rain and shooting is probably not what
someone wants to do. Therefore, she was wondering where that went. She suggested that a cost
comparison be done between the cost of moving all of that dirt with the price of fuel in doing some sort of
baffled cover and guide walls. The interstate acoustical walls would be an example. It might be more
cost effective than trying to clear trees, move dirt, and do an E & S to alter the site in that way.
In addition, Ms. Higgins noted there are two ranges that she was aware of. One is near her neigh borhood
in Augusta County. She had no idea it was even a shooting range. It was an old chicken building that
had been insulated. While driving by there is not sound from the bullets being fired. There are a load of
trucks there and they are all practicing their gun shots. There is also one in Fluvanna where the shooters
are stationed it is an insulated building and they shoot out into a wall. Again, people drive by and don’t
even know it. She was not sure if it was permitted. She noted that there ar e options.
Hal West said he lived on Esmont Road just around the corner from the Keene Post Office. He did not
hear about this until he caught it on the news this morning since he did not get anything in the mail. He
was off yesterday and heard some rifles. There were some pistol shots just behind him over behind
Riding Club Road. He thought the shots were in the direction of the landfill. He was not sure if the shots
came from there, but sounded so close. It was just one individual firing for abo ut an hour in the
afternoon. They hear rifle shots and pistol shots quite often. He had to go back to the woods behind his
home to make sure someone was not on the property. It sounded like someone was right there. It was
about a quarter of a mile as a crow flies from the old landfill. He suggested if the Commission decided to
do something like this that hopefully the range would be enclosed in preferably a sound proof area. He
would think that using the landfill would be a good idea for the county. Also, the roads need to be kept up
including Riding Club Road coming in from Route 20 as well as Fortune Lane. He lives on Esmont
Road, which is paved. There is a lot of traffic on Esmont Road in front of his house as it is. However,
with this proposal the traffic would increase. They would need to take care of Fortune Lane and Riding
Club Road as well.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to
the Planning Commission for discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
12
Mr. Lafferty said it was stated in the report and presentation that noise is not a factor in making this
decision. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied the staff report said the use is not subject to the noise regulations. Noise may be a
factor in their consideration. For example, the rural areas plan when they look at its impact on agriculture
and things like that. However, the public use is not subject to the noise standards although the county is
trying to adhere to those regulations.
Mr. Morris asked if staff wanted to address some of the questions that were raised before they go further.
Mr. Sorrell replied that he could answer some of the questions. The applicant can address the other
questions. Regarding the road, Fortune Lane is scheduled to be hard surfaced by VDOT this year, which
is under the Rural Rustic Road Program. As part of the review of this project VDOT did review this and
determined that this proposal would not prevent the paving of that particular road. The road
improvements for that will be made later this year.
Mr. Benish pointed out the work was going to advertisement this past March. He did not know what the
status of the bid opening is. That improvement was actually approved and scheduled before this
proposal was submitted. It has been scheduled for upgrade.
Mr. Smith asked staff to elaborate on road improvement.
Mr. Benish replied the Rural Rustic Road is a surface treatment used on low volume level roads out in the
rural areas. It is a tar and gravel type treatment that is rolled and surfaced. It looks like a hard surface,
but it is not a plant mix type high-level that you would see on a higher volume road way.
Mr. Smith asked if there would be no additional width or ditch line work.
Mr. Benish replied no, as he understands the paving work can be accommodated within the existing cross
section to meet VDOT standards.
Mr. Sorrell said regarding the market value issue staff strictly stuck to the land use impacts that this might
have on the surrounding area in terms of noise, safety and things of that nature. Staff did not look at the
market value effects on adjacent property. The applicant might be better prepared to answer the
questions regarding stray bullets and soundproofing.
Mr. Heide said the way they plan to address the question regarding safety in terms of stray rounds
leaving the site is how they always do wherever they are training, which is through operating it safety. Our
instructor/officer ratio is one instruction for every three officers. The target placement is key for keeping
rounds within the range facility. W hen they are thinking of standing in the middle of this facility they are
going to have 20’ berms in every direction that the firearm is pointing. Targets are placed at the ground
level up to a height of about 4’. There is roughly a 15’ to 16’ buffer above that , which allows for some
judgment in the officer’s aiming. They would need to be aiming very high when they are shooting 25
yards, 10 yards or 7 yards away from the back berm. Observation, the instructor ratio and the placement
of the targets are the three key ways they are going to address keeping rounds within the range. The
target is put against the berm on a 20’ high impact area, which makes it even harder for a round to leave
the range. Accidents can happen. However, through design they are trying to address that safety issue
with the design and operation.
Mr. Sorrell noted the other question was for soundproofing and lead abatement.
Mr. Heide said what they were trying to do, since this is tax payer money being spent, is find out what
type of base line they have as designed and if it is still unacceptable then they can look at methods to
address it. Some of those methods have to do with plants, engineered noise mitigation systems, and
walls that absorb noise or deflect it. When they see overhead baffles on an outdoor facility it is not
because of noise, but to ensure that rounds don’t leave the range where the height of the berm may only
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
13
be 12’ to 14’ high. They are called no blue sky ranges. So as a shooter they are looking down the range
and see no blue sky. That is what baffles are. They don’t have anything to do with sound. Regarding
lead abatement, they are looking at three different ways. This is a cost benefit analysis.
- The first way is to design the earthen berms in such a manner that it is easy for a lead reclaimer
to come in and sort out the sand that will be on the face of the berm from the lead and then put all
of the sand back and they haul the lead away.
- The second option, which has to do with the money that is available, is to purchase rubber bullet
traps. It is a metal frame that has a bed of rubber beads and the bullets impact the rubber and
they set there until it reaches a predetermined amount. Then they call the same lead reclaimer in
to sort it all out and haul it away.
- The third way, which is the most expensive way because it is an annual expense, is lead free
ammunition. With lead free ammunition obviously they don’t have the lead, but they still have
something that needs at some point in time to be extracted and hauled away. Those are the
three ways they are looking at addressing that concern.
Ms. Monteith asked if they have done a cost estimate or a design for an indoor type facility.
Mr. Heide replied that indoor facilities are extremely expensive. A lot of this is actually OSHA driven. To
exchange the air on an indoor range for the size they need the air conditioning system would be
approximately one-half of this project. That is not the building, range, or equipment.
Mr. Randolph asked how many officers the county is currently down.
Mr. Heide replied it was six officers.
Mr. Randolph noted that building an indoor range when there is no money in the budge t to actually
ensure that they have a force that is appropriate to the needs within the community is a little bit of a pipe
dream.
Mr. Heide said that they could use that terminology.
Mr. Franco asked if they can regulate this by limiting the number of officers by the number of shooting
lanes. If they reduced the number down to 10 instead of 16 potential shooters would that cut the sound in
half?
Mr. Heide referred the question to the Brian Peters with Kimberly Horn and Associates.
Brian Peters replied that they would have limited return from that restriction. If they had 8 officers firing
that does not mean that particular weapon produced a certain number of decibels that they multiply by 8.
That is because unlike other sound sources, such as a roadway, if th ey take 100 vehicles and add
another 100 vehicles the sound doubles. That is because they have a continuous sound source that lasts
over a period of time. Firing is a very instantaneous thing. It is not a boom, but a bang, bang, bang. With
that it is not a cumulative sound effect like they would have with other sound sources. He thought they
would have limited return on what the folks next door would hear by offering that restriction.
Mr. Franco said the sound levels they saw in the report are those booms. In other words, when the 16
shots are fired that would be the impact or is that a continuous noise effect of usage of the range.
Mr. Peters replied that he could not speak to the Tank Study in particular because he was not the
engineering firm that completed that. All he has is the same information that the Commission has seen
at this point in time. It would be very similar to the assessments are done as the design progresses. The
assessment will develop those decibel ranges with the number of uses they would expect.
Mr. Franco said that would represent a 5 minutes average. In other words, the sound ordinance is based
on a 5 minute average. If a shot is a boom and there is 59 more seconds that are there where they listen
to the ambient, then it is going to kind of average out. Even at the qualification level that they were talking
about earlier of 20 officers firing 200 shots or 4,000 shots it is working out to about 8 a minute if they do it
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
14
over the 8 hours. He knows they are taking breaks and doing other things so maybe it is 16 shots a
minute. He was trying to figure out if the numbers they are seeing represent an average of a 5 minute
noise level or is it really just sort of the knock that he is hearing.
Mr. Peters replied that it would be the knock that he would be hearing. That would be the main problem.
When they work with a locality that has a noise ordinance on a private range the biggest problem would
be the noise ordinance is not really written to account for this type of noise producer. What he is saying
he felt he was on track with that.
Mr. Franco said he assumes if the berms are raised in height that would be a potential mitigation.
Mr. Peters replied that he would offer that it could be. At some point they would have ex tremely limited
return at some height.
Mr. Loach said on the outer limits they are showing 55 decibel at the outer radius. What is the standard
deviation? Is there a wide deviation from that 55 decibel? He asked how accurate it is and how wide is
the deviation from that 55 decibel. He asked if there are multiple factors that come into play that affect
that.
Mr. Peters replied that it is a model and a little bit of both. Therefore, it would not be unrealistic to expect
that if this is actually what happened and this particular study or assessment took into effect all the
factors. Our assessment will be more informed because they will be doing actual design versus the Tank
Study. But any model they do whether it is a noise model for this or any other applicant or traffic model,
at the end of the day it is not what he likes as an engineer typically being an answer and putting a box
around it. There would be some deviation. He would not know in this particular model how it was done
and what that deviation would be. It would be close to give them an idea that somewhere in the vicinity of
that white circle based on the inputs put in they would be at 55 decibels. If they went out and did a noise
meter what would you find. He would not be prepared at this time to say a number of what they could
expect to deviate. It would not surprise him if that was 56, 57 or if 55 was even closer. It all depends on
the inputs to the model and how it was done. He could tell them the assessment that the county has
tasked them to do to evaluate their design. This was a high level assessment to develop a worst case
scenario. They will refine that and move forward in their design. They are using a data base in their
model that has been used in numerous ranges around the country that has weapons that the Police
Department will be firing. Our model will in put sound levels from the actual weapon type that he is going
to be using on his range. With all of that he can tell them they can feel reasonably comfortable that white
circle is where the 55 decibel line will be in general.
Mr. Smith asked does their study take into effect topography, contours and tree cover.
Mr. Peters replied that it will be informed by them , but would not be a massively in depth 3-D model. It
would be a model that was done very similar to this one. But, again they will know what elevation the
range would set at whereas in the Tank Study they probably took an engineering judgment decision.
They will know more based on the actual site plan than the folks did in the 2008 study. He replied yes to
some degree they will take into effect the surrounding topography, the surrounding trees, and then
whatever mitigation which obviously will be the 20’ berm.
Mr. Randolph asked him to clarify if there would be any relationship actual or potential between
atmospheric conditions- weather conditions, temperature and sound.
Mr. Peters replied yes.
Mr. Randolph noted what he was trying to get at is the question about the standard deviation here with
the level of sound during the summer time when the air is actually thinner . He asked would one therefore
be subject to louder sound because it was going to carry further than in the winter where there is more
moisture in the air and therefore the sound will be deadened. In other words, for the contiguous
neighbors is the noise going to be perhaps louder naturally because of weather conditions during the
summer than it would be during the winter.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
15
Mr. Peters said that was a good question. He thought that those type of sound anomalies he would
hesitate to say that during the summer it will be worse and in the winter it will not. Some of that is driven
purely by atmospheric conditions that may vary and you could have the same condition in the winter time
as in the summer. Would those things affect it - yes it would affect it. Would they be able to say that in
the summer time it will be worse - probably not. Obviously elevation plays into that more than anything
else. If he fires a round off in a valley a nd compares that to where he would be if he was top of the ridge,
the folks in the bottom of that valley are going to hear that from further away as opposed to if he was on
top of the ridge. Hence the positive benefits that will be evaluated to potentially move the range away
from the tank study location.
Mr. Randolph pointed out that a 20’ berm with Loblolly pines growing behind on three sides would
address a concern that has been voiced about stray rounds.
Mr. Heide pointed out they have no plans to plant on top of the berm.
Mr. Dotson noted that several times in his remarks he has talked about design studies that your firm will
now be doing and kind of updating the 2008 data. He was hearing that more data will be available at
some stage in the future than is available now in looking at some of these alternatives. He asked if that is
correct.
Mr. Peters replied that he would say yes. The purpose of that is making sure if the range was
repositioned on the site they would not provide a design that did something significantly worse than is on
the screen. There would be more information. The only thing they would be informing this kind of study
with would be true elevations from our grading on the site. It would not be a 3-D model.
Mr. Lafferty said in general in the winter time when the air is cold it is denser. He asked if that was
correct.
Mr. Peters replied that would depend on the humidity. On a real humid summer day that would not be
entirely true. But, in general yes.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the sound would carry further in a denser medium. He said that night practices are
going to be in the winter time when it is colder. He asked if he will be taking that into account in his
studies.
Mr. Peters replied that they have not started the study yet and referred the question to Mr. Heide.
Mr. Heide said he would guess that it is a trade off. Is it better to try to get as much training done in a
shorter period of time when folks are less likely to be at home because they are coming home from wo rk;
or, to shoot when sound does not carry as far or as fast, but they are doing it when folks are home. He
did not know how to answer that other than it is a balancing act of sorts.
Mr. Peters offered in that scenario when the sound is transmitted like that from an atmospheric condition
he would not want them to think that white line moves out. More than likely what happens is folks who
may be below the 55 decibel line could hear that. He was a history buff – if they think about that from a
civil war perspective there are plenty of senses of a civil war battle being heard hundreds of miles away
purely from an atmospheric condition. But it was not like it was right out their window, but he just heard
the sound. That is how that would be because 55 dec ibels would not be a super loud noise based on the
numbers given earlier from the staff report.
Mr. Smith pointed out to answer the question it would be louder in the summertime because folks are
outside when it is being used.
Mr. Franco noted they talk ed about qualifications being the most intense time. Do the qualifications
require the night time use or will the night time be more limited. Will it be 20 officers firing several
hundred rounds?
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
16
Mr. Heide replied no. Typically there might be 20 officers there. However, there may only be 8 to 10
officers shooting at only one time. They work in relay so to speak in rotation. Annual qualification is a
daylight and test. So they want to give people the opportunity to perform their best. Night time fi re is
more job specific. They try to gauge those types of courses on what is realistic for an officer to shoot
when they are actually involved in a gun fight on the street, which is a minimal number of rounds each
time someone goes through the course.
Ms. Monteith asked what kind of traffic analysis has been done in terms of the potential traffic impacts.
Mr. Peters replied that the traffic analysis has not been done beyond the Police Department estimated
number of people that was just given. It does not mean that there would be 6 vehicles if 6 officers were
going down for certification. For this phase, which is before the Commission tonight, traffic would be
going into the range, doing the certification and training and then going out. It would not b e a generator of
traffic at this time. Unfortunately that would be something that he could study as an engineer.
Mr. Sorrell pointed out that when VDOT reviewed this project they reviewed it at the 10 to 20 vehicles per
use. At that level they felt that the Rural Rustic Road Program would still permit that road to be paved.
Their concern was if this was deemed a higher intense use that had a lot of traffic, then that would not be
meeting the intent of paving a rural road because it would be used more frequently. They provided
information that said this was not deemed development in their words. So the road could continue under
the Rural Rustic Road Program to receive that hard surface.
Mr. Benish noted that Rural Rustic Roads are not anticipated to exceed 1,500 trips per day. When he
mentions that it is within that standard that does not mean that it will have 1,500 trips per day, but it is just
the limit of the category for the road.
Mr. Morris invited further questions for the applicant. There being none, Mr. Morris reminded the
Commission that what they were really looking at on this is the use of this land as a firing range in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Sorrell replied that was correct.
Mr. Benish said it was the scope, scale and intensity. It is a general location. The map provided the
region by which they say that use is appropriate, which again allows for some flexibility in the site design
to massage the specific location.
Mr. Kamptner asked to elaborate on the standard that the Commission will be applying. It is “substantially
in accord”, which is a standard the Commission does not see day to day. In this context substantially
would mean largely but not wholly in accord. If they need another term for accord it was conformity. So
the standard they are applying “substantially in accord” also translates to largely, but not wholly in
conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. There are various elements of the Comprehensive Plan that
the Commission has before them for consideration in making that determination.
Mr. Loach asked if the Board can ask for additional improvements and if there is going to be a different
standard that the Board will use.
Mr. Kamptner replied what the 2232 says is simply that the Planning Commission makes their decision,
they communicate their findings to the Board, and the Board may overrule the action of the Commission
by a majority vote. Presumably the Board will be applying the same standard “substantially in accord”
that the Commission is applying.
Mr. Benish suggested that they keep in mind too that this is an evaluation of whether this general location
is in accord with the Comp Plan looking at the Communities Facilities Plan, and Land Use Environmental
Goals and Objectives. Aside from this decision the Board controls essentially a department of the county
in how that facility operates. So there are perspectives that the Board can have with the Police
Department to address how this facility operates on a day to day basis. They under stand the scope that
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
17
is intended here. But this is a public facility and not a private facility. It is under the management that
ultimately is under the control of the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Loach agreed since that was the point he was trying to make.
Mr. Sorrell said he also wanted to add that when they mentioned the additional reviews that may be
required for the site if they were to provide other things there. If the county was to designate in the
Community Facilities portion of our Comprehensive Plan as they were updating it to say this is an area
appropriate for this type of use and that was called out specifically in the Comprehensive Plan, then it
might not be necessary to come back in to do the individual compliance with the Comprehensive P lan
reviews for the other components.
Mr. Franco said based on what is front of the Commission tonight and what our responsibilities are he
thought it was clear that there was some concern about the noise issue, but as staff said this is a county
facility so the county really does have the ability to mitigate noise to a level that is acceptable to the
adjacent neighbors and to the project itself. He would like to make the following motion based on that.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded that the Commission finds that the location,
character and extent of the proposed Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site is in substantial
accord with the County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factor s
outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Morris invited further discussion.
Mr. Randolph asked to make the following comments:
- He was well aware of Fortune Road since his son is a property owner there and has been for
about six or seven years. His son is a law enforcement official for the federal government and he
know he supports a training facility for the county. He thought it was needed by the police. It is
the time and budget responsive it is a better use of resources for the county. Police officers will
not have to travel as far. Everyone is aware of from events in Sanford, Florida that better training
results in increased weapon’s proficiency and better public safety. That is a bottom line that the
Police Department is out to achieve with this training facility. This is the best location currently
available.
- In all likelihood if they don’t utilize this location they will have a window of opportunity close on us.
It will be irretrievable and therefore the Police Department will have to look to d o their training in
the county of Fluvanna, Nelson or Augusta and there are costs associated with that. If people in
the audience want an indoor range then he certainly would urge them along with their neighbors
to pressure the Supervisors to support a budget where those sums of money are going to be
allocated for an indoor range. At this time the money is not there for an indoor range. All of us
would be in agreement in an ideal world that an indoor range would be part of this proposal.
However, they are not in an ideal world.
- Since he represents the Scottsville District he thinks it is important to be mindful that with this
training range in Scottsville that the police presence in southern Albemarle County will be
enhanced dramatically. Where currently there are about one-half hour response times that once
officers are training at this facility the response time to any issue in Scottsville region should be
ten minutes or less because officers will leave this training facility if they are called to respond.
- Finally about property values, property values on Fortune Lane with a paved road with increased
police presence may in fact be enhanced. For contiguous property in the future in 20 to 30 years
if this facility is to grow and there is support within the community for it to grow then government
might be interested in purchasing increased property in the region. As the Police Department
has bent over backwards to try to address the noise issue and staff will continue to work with the
Police Department on that just in good faith moving forward he would dispute with Mr. Williamson
that he thinks this is an issue for us to address at this time because it is a question of trust. The
Police Department is also part of the public trust as are we and he was comfortable that they will
do everything possible within the budget constraints that they live by to try to mitigate as much
noise as possible He would be supportive of the motion and just wanted to make those remarks.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
18
Mr. Dotson commented that there are some land uses that nobody ever wants to be near, but they are
needed since they provide a needed function. He asked himself the question is it conceivable that there
would be a better location in the county even if they look ed beyond publicly owned land. He would be
doubtful because there are no places where they can get completely away. He just did not think they
were there. If a facility is needed he thought ethically they should provide it for ourselves and not go to
some other jurisdictions and impact those neighbors and citizens. They should have to “bite the bullet”
and have it ourselves. Having said that, he was not comfortable with what they have heard about the
sounds. The sort of analogy Mr. LaFontaine used of a “knock at the door” would drive him crazy if he
heard six hours, one hour, thirty minutes of knocking on the door every day. He thought that would drive
somebody nuts and would bother them. He was just wondering if now that they have got some new
engineers on board looking at design options if it might not be possible to mitigate some of the sound. He
was not so much concerned with the volume of sound as simply the attention getting nature of the sound
like the knock on the door and whether that might not be avoidable. He was really not convinced that
they know as much right now as they could know about this that would make it a lot easier to agree with
the motion.
Mr. Loach agreed with Mr. Randolph that this is a clear need. Even the neighbors who spoke saw the
need for the firing range. Like the gentleman that spoke he also belongs to the gun shop. On the other
side of the coin he served as a reserve deputy with the Sheriff’s Department. One of the reasons he
joined the gun club was so he could practice more. As Mr. Heide said one of the things that they have to
develop is muscle memory with their weapon. That is only a component of practice. As Mr. Dotson just
said they are going to get more data from the engineers that he thinks is important in making the final
decision for the Board. His vote is based on compliance with the Comp Plan, which is what he is judging
and making his vote on. That is why he asked the question about when this gets to the Board because
he thought the Board has a wider jurisdiction to look at other factors. As stated this will be a function of
county government and it has to be compliant to the people of the county. He was hoping as they work
through this things will get better. His vote will be based on the issue at hand, which is the Comp P lan.
Ms. Monteith commented that there are four areas in the staff report that have to do with the Comp Plan
that she has concerns about. She realizes that these are concerns and not necessarily regulations.
However, in the report the consensus of the Agricultural/Forestal Comm ittee was that the proposed firing
range was not a use that complimented or was otherwise conducive to agricultural or forestal issues.
Two, is the sound issue where she did not believe that they were in compliance with our own re gulations.
Three, is that the location of this new public facility should be within the county’s development area, which
is not. It is in the rural area. Four, was where they were talking about issues around this being a
watershed and they are not completely sure about what the impacts to the watershed will be with this use.
If this is voted in compliance tonight she would like to see additional mitigation measures designed as
part of this project before it goes to the Board to be under consideration.
Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner if this body was at liberty to add conditions at this time.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the practice of the Commission over the years has been to occasionally impose
a condition if it deemed that the condition was needed in order make the finding of substantial accord. It
certainly does not have to. However, that has been the practice of the Commission. Typically those have
been on applications for privately owned facilities that were subject to the 2232 review.
Mr. Benish clarified that the Commission’s action will go to the Board of Supervisors for information.
There is no mandated action by the Board of Supervisors. He wanted to make sure there is no confusion
with the public. There is not a next step of the Board other than they are informed of the Commission’s
decision. They have an option to pick it up.
Mr. Dotson asked to clarify that. The Board would receive the Commission’s minutes and that is as much
notification that they would have.
Mr. Benish replied that there would an action letter notifying the Commission’s action with any conditions
with that action and the minutes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
19
Mr. Franco noted the Board would also get the information from staff when the project began to move
forward. A lot of the questions they have right now are due to a lack of information. What they are doing
with this action is saying go ahead start to better design the facility and look at what mitigation measures
can be done to bring it closer to the rural noise regulations. Then the Board as part of their expenditure of
the funds can make a decision if it requires additional funding whether they want to pay those additional
funds.
Mr. Dotson asked is that a part of the motion and a part of what will be in the action letter.
Mr. Franco replied no. He thought they were just getting the Commission’s minutes and their
recommendation that the use is appropriate in this location and that sound is of concern and it needs to
be looked at more closely as the project develops.
Mr. Smith said this is a situation where you are dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t. He thinks
the concept and idea is great and they need it. However, he does not like it.
Mr. Morris agreed with Mr. Franco and the motion that this is a facility that is desperately needed. He was
sorry that it cannot be an indoor facility that is totally soundproof. However, that is not the reality of the
environment that the Police Department works in. It would seem that everything that they can do to
provide them realistic training is to the betterment of everyone in the county. He asked for a roll call.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Dotson and Smith voted no)
Mr. Morris noted staff would forward the Planning Commission’s finding and other information to the
Board of Supervisors, as follows:
The Planning Commission finds that the location, character and extent of the proposed Law Enforcement
Firing Range Facility (Firearms Training Facility at Keene Landfill Site) is in substantial accord with the
County’s adopted Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors in the staff
report, as follows:
1. Site will utilize an under-used county-owned land;
2. Site’s size and remote nature isolates it from more densely populated areas;
3. Location of range on site will further limit adverse impact on adjacent agricultural properties;
4. Site’s location limits impacts to natural, scenic, historic and cultural resources.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Athletic Synthetic Turf Fields Annual Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on the completion and community use of County
athletic synthetic turf fields
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messers. Foley, Elliot, Davis, and Crickenberger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 9, 2008, the Board approved an appropriation of $225,000 from the Parks and Recreation Capital
Improvement Plan to be used for a School Board project to convert three (3) high school stadium fields from natural
grass to synthetic turf ($75,000 per high school). On April 6, 2009, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was
executed between the County Department of Parks and Recreation and the School Division that assures the
availability of the turf fields for community recreation use (Attachment A).
The MOU guidelines provide that school division events take precedence over community use, even in the event of
cancellations and rescheduling. Community use is scheduled by Parks and Recreation through the respective high
school athletic directors. There is no charge for Parks and Recreation-sponsored youth non-profit organization
practices; however, there is a $50.00 per hour charge for games, plus an additional $25.00 per hour for a school
division employee to provide custodial services and field supervision.
The purpose of this executive summary is to report on the completion and the community use of the athletic synthetic
turf fields.
DISCUSSION:
The synthetic turf athletic fields were completed at Monticello High School in July 2009 and at Albemarle and Western
Albemarle High Schools in February 2011.
The following two charts provide information regarding the project costs, funding sources, community recreation use
and revenue for each high school athletic synthetic turf field as provided by the high school athletic departments and
the School Division Department of Fiscal Services.
Location Project
Cost
Community Foundation
Donation
High School Booster
Fund Raising
Parks &
Recreation
Albemarle High School $552,000 $418,528 $51,567 $75,000
Monticello High School $606,833 $325,000 $206,833 $75,000
Western Albemarle High School $552,000 $418,528 *$65,377 $75,000
TOTAL $1,710,833 $1,162,056 $323,777 $225,000
*Note: $6,905 from WAHS fundraising was used to fund the AHS field.
Since the completion of the athletic synthetic turf fields, a total of 130 community use practices and 72 community use
games by Parks and Recreation-sponsored youth organizations have occurred as follows:
Location
Community Organizations
PRACTICES
Sponsored by Parks & Rec.
No Charge
Community Organizations
GAMES
Sponsored by Parks & Rec.
$50/hr field & $25/hr staff
Total
Amount
Collected
Albemarle High School 70 16 $6,000
Monticello High School 60 31 $8,305
Western Albemarle High School *0 25 $6,800
TOTAL 130 72 $21,105
*Note: The W estern Albemarle High School athletic director was not aware that Parks & Recreation-sponsored
community organizations are intended to use the field for practices. These groups were scheduled on other fields for
practices. The athletic director is now aware of the terms of the MOU.
AGENDA TITLE: Athletic Synthetic Turf Fields Annual Report
May 2, 2012
Page 2
The fees that are collected will be placed in an account reserved for funding the future replacement of the turf fields.
The athletic directors have not seen an increase or decrease in the number of injuries or heat related illnesses since
the synthetic turf fields have been installed.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost benefit of maintaining a synthetic turf field versus a natural grass field is $45,000 per year per field. The
annual maintenance cost for a synthetic turf field is $5,000 versus $50,000 for a natural grass field, which includes
supplies, equipment, and labor costs. The estimated life expectancy of a synthetic turf field is 10 to 12 years and,
based on an estimate from the Brigham Young report prepared in 2008, the replacement cost is $250,000 to
$300,000.
Based on construction and maintenance costs over a 12-year field life, the cost of one turf field is approximately
$666,833 and of a natural field is $600,000 for 12 years. However, this higher turf field cost is offset by the increased
use of the field. There is no down time required between uses of a turf field like there is with a natural field, practices
and games do not have to be cancelled due to poor field conditions when there has been earlier precipitation, and
there is an additional savings of fees that have to be paid to officials and other staff for games that are cancelled at the
last minute and rescheduled, which doesn’t happen as often with turf fields. In addition, the schools’ and community’s
needs are being better met, and there are savings in not having to build or maintain additional fields to otherwise meet
those needs that can be met by the additional use that can be scheduled on a turf field.
In addition, the projected cost comparison of the next 12-year period indicates that a turf field will be less expensive
than a natural field. If the replacement cost of a turf field is $250,000 to $300,000 as projected in the 2008 Brigham
Young report referenced above, and if there is still a $45,000 savings in the annual maintenance cost of the fields, the
net cost of the turf field over the next 12-year period would be $150,000 to $200,000 less than that of a natural field
over the 12-year period, not taking into account the additional savings of not having to build additional fields.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This matter is presented for information purposes only.
ATTACHMENTS
A – 2009 Memorandum of Understanding
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Page 1 of 5
Culpeper District
Albemarle County Monthly Report
May 2012
Special Issues
US 250 Shadwell Bridge Replacement over the Buckingham Branch Rail Road—The
project has scheduled the bridge closure to begin on May 1, 2012. The closure and
associated detour have a scheduled duration of 70 days.
Bridge Replacement Project Rte 672, Blufton Road—The road will be closed to traffic on
Tuesday, May 8 from 12 midnight to 8:00 p.m. A shuttle service will be provided on May
8 for the residents.
Bridge Replacement Project on Route 783 over a Branch of Mechunk Creek. The road will
be closed to through traffic at the bridge for an approximate four week period beginning in
late June and will reopen in late July. This bridge will be replaced with Bridge
Maintenance Funding and will have no effect on the SSYP just like the recent replacement
of Route 743 over Jacobs Run and the upcoming replacement of Route 672 over the Doyles
River. Work will be done with in house personnel and consist of both the complete
replacement of the superstructure as well as some underlying substructure. Though there
is a four week planned closure the hope is to complete it and have it opened to traffic in a
lesser time frame.
Bridges on Route 745, Arrowhead Valley Road—Norfolk Southern Corporation has
awarded the contract to the contractor for the southern bridge replacement. The
anticipated completion date quoted by the contractor is August 15, 2012. The bridge is
currently owned and maintained by the Rail Road. Once the construction is completed the
maintenance will become the responsibility of VDOT.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board will be conducting a public hearing to give
citizens the opportunity to review and provide comments on projects and programs to be
included in the Fiscal Year 2013-2018 Six-Year Improvement Program (FY13-18SYIP),
including highway, rail and public transportation initiatives.
These projects and programs represent important improvements to address safety,
congestion and preservation of Virginia’s transportation network. It is important that we
hear from you and your constituents about those projects you feel are the highest priority
for the state’s limited transportation funds.
The public hearing for citizens in our region will start at 6:00 p.m. on May 2, 2012 at the
VDOT Central Office Auditorium, 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23219.
Written comments may also be submitted during the hearing, or they may be mailed or e-
mailed afterwards.
Page 2 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
May 2012
Preliminary Engineering
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 691, Jarman’s Gap
Bike lanes and sidewalk
improvement
Construction Underway Construction Complete
– September 2012 January 2011
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.4 Mi E.
of Monticello Loop Road
Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Shoulder Widening 0.06 Mi
E. of Monticello Loop Road
Design Public Hearing Right of Way – May
2012 February 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 20
Design Public Hearing Advertisement February 2013
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Right of Way Advertisement May 2013
Route 53 Safety Project –
Intersection Improvements at
Route 729
Preliminary Design Design Public Hearing
– April 25, 2012 October 2013
Route 616, Black Cat Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
April 2012 March 2014
Route 677, Broomley Road
Bridge Replacement over RR Survey Preliminary Design –
July 2012 December 2014
Route 637, Dick Woods
Road
Bridge Replacement over Ivy
Creek
Survey Preliminary Design –
July 2012 December 2014
Route 250, Bridge
replacement over Little Ivy
Creek
Project Kick-off Survey – Fall 2012 January 2018
Route 762, Rose Hill Church
Lane, Unpaved Road Project Scoping Construction Spring 2012
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
Page 3 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
May 2012
Preliminary Engineering Continued:
PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Route 704, Fortune Lane,
Unpaved Road Advertisement Construction Start –
Spring 2012 March 2012
Route 672, Blufton Road,
Unpaved Road Project Scoping Advertisement April 2012
Route 608, Happy Creek
Road, Unpaved Road Advertisement Construction Start –
Spring 2012 March 2012
Brocks Mill Road, Rural
Addition -- Project Scoping –
Spring 2012 *
Route 774, Bear Creek Road,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
Route 703, Pocket Lane,
Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping –2016 *
*Dates to be determined following evaluation of Scoping Team comments.
CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE:
PROJECT LAST
MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE
Jefferson Park Avenue Bridge
Replacement
Construction
Underway
Construction Complete
– Summer 2012 August 2010
Best Buy Ramp Survey Preliminary Design –
July 2012 November 2014
Construction Activities
Pipe Rehabilitation (NFO) BRDG-967-045, N501; BRDG-967-062, N501
Scope: Pipe Rehab in Culpeper, Louisa, Madison, Albemarle, Fauquier, Orange, and Rappahannock
Counties.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion Date: April 29, 2012.
Page 4 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
May 2012
Construction Activities--Continued
Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501
Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide.
Next Major Milestone: Contract completion.
Contract Completion date: July 1, 2012.
McIntire Road U000-104-102, C501
Scope: Construct New Two Lane Road, Bridge and Pedestrian Path.
Next major Milestone: Complete bridge construction
Contract Completion:.July 30, 2012
JPA Bridge Replacement U000-104-V09, C501
Scope: Replace Bridge and Approaches over Railroad.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Bridge.
Contract Completion Date: August 24, 2012.
Jarmans Gap Road (NFO) 0691-002-258, C501
Scope: Grade, Drain, Asphalt Pavement, Planting and Utilities.
Next Major Milestone: Complete Phase Two.
Contract Completion: September 21, 2012.
Route 250 Bridge over Buckingham Branch Railroad (NFO) BRDG-002-797,B644
Scope: Substructure repair and superstructure replacement.
Next major milestone: Substructure work ongoing, Route 250 shutdown May 1,2012
Contract Completion Date: August 17, 2012.
Bridge Deck Repair and Polymer Overlay (NFO) 0029-002-044, N501, N502
Scope: Patch decks and epoxy overlay on the Route 29 Bypass over R oute 29.
Next Major Milestone: Resume Work in the Spring after the Winter Shutdown.
Contract Completion Date: Summer 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies
Completed
Route 643 (Proffit Rd.) and Route 649 (Polo Grounds Road) – Intersection safety review
complete. Awaiting sign installation.
Route 6 (Irish Road) at Route 627 (Porters Road) – Intersection Study. Study completed and
pending tree trimming, sign adjustments, and sign installations.
Route 601 (Garth Rd) from Route 654 to Route 676 – Study complete, speed limit to remain
and recommending signing and markings solutions.
Route 250 near Boars Head Inn –Guardrail review – Study memorandum complete; awaiting
funding for installation.
Page 5 of 5
Albemarle County
Monthly Report Continued
May 2012
Traffic Engineering Studies Continued:
Under Review
Route 690 – Speed data collected, report documentation drafted, and in final review.
Route 631 at Belvedere Road – Traffic control signal analysis in review.
Rio Rd and John Warner Parkway – Study to investigate U-turn conflicts with right turns;
under review.
Route 1140 (Peter Jefferson Parkway) – Evaluation of pedestrian crossings under review.
Route 240 – Cross walk relocation at the Crozet Library.
Route 250 and 1054 (E. of Shadwell) – Intersection Safety review
Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Rd) – Speed study in progress.
Route 743 (Earlysville Rd) – Speed study with comprehensive safety review in progress.
Route 643 (Polo Grounds Road) – Pavement marking evaluation at the intersection with
Route 29.
Route 22 and Route 740 – Signing review to address turning conflict concerns.
Route 22 – No Parking sign review near the intersection of Route 250.
Route 702 – Interchange signing review.
Maintenance Activities
On-going routine maintenance activities with specific emphasis on winter pavement deformations.
Preparations for first round mowing.
David Crim Virginia Department of Transportation
Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way
Charlottesville, VA 22911
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
MEMORANDUM
To: Board of Supervisors
From: V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary to Planning Commission
Date: March 21, 2012
Re: Planning Commission Annual Reports
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia says that, among its duties, the Planning Commission
shall, “5. Make . . . an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the
commission and the status of planning within its jurisdiction.” Attached you will find a report
summarizing the activities of the commission in 2011 accepted by the Planning Commission at
its March 20, 2012 meeting. Hopefully you will find this information of interest and I am more
than happy to answer any particular questions you might have.
View report
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
2011 ANNUAL REPORT
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Section 15.2-2221 of the Code of Virginia stipulates that the local Planning Commission shall “make . . .
an annual report to the governing body concerning the operation of the Commission and the status of
planning within the jurisdiction”. This report is a brief summary of the Albemarle County Planning
Commission’s membership and activity during 2011.
COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP
COMMISSIONER DISTRICT SERVED
Russell (Mac) Lafferty Jack Jouett 1/10 - 12/31/11
Don Franco Rio 3/4/09 - 12/31/11
Cal Morris, Vice-Chairman Rivanna 1/04 - 12/31/11
Ed Smith Samuel Miller 1/10 - 12/31/11
Linda Porterfield Scottsville 1/08 - 12/31/11
Thomas Loach White Hall 1/08 - 12/31/11
Duane Zobrist, Chairman At-Large 1/10 - 12/31/11
Julia Monteith University of Va. (Non-voting) 1/06 - 12/31/11
2011 MEETING AGENDA SUMMARY
# Meetings = __30____
PUBLIC
HEARINGS/REGULAR
ITEMS # Considered # Approved # Denied # Deferred
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
1 1 - -
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) 10 7 - 3
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) 2 1 - 1
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) 1 1 - -
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) 19 11 3 5
Special Use Permit (SP) 45 41 3 1
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) 6 4 - 2
Final Site Plan (SDP) 7 7 - -
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 2 1 - 1
Final Sub Plat (SUB) - - - -
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) 1 1 - -
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) - - - -
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - - -
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 10 10 - -
CONSENT AGENDA
Preliminary Site Plan
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Final Site Plan (SDP) - - N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 1 N/A N/A
Final Sub Plat (SUB) 2 2 N/A N/A
Site Plan Amendment
(SDP) - - N/A N/A
Site Plan Waiver (SDP) 1 1 N/A N/A
Subdivision Waiver
(SUB) - - N/A N/A
Agricultural/Forestal
District (AFD) 5 5 N/A N/A
PC Minutes 27 27 N/A N/A
Other 15 15 N/A N/A
WORK SESSION
Comp Plan
Amendment (Includes
5 Year Review and
Master Plans) (CPA)
4 N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Text
Amendment (ZTA) - N/A N/A N/A
Subdivision Text
Amendment (STA) - N/A N/A N/A
Comp Plan Compliance
Review (CCP) - N/A N/A N/A
Zoning Map
Amendment (ZMA) - N/A N/A N/A
Special Use Permit (SP) 2 N/A N/A N/A
Preliminary Sub Plat
(SUB) 1 N/A N/A N/A
Other 4 N/A N/A N/A
2011 HIGHLIGHTS
CPAs considered included the Urban Development Areas (UDAs) and General Comprehensive Plan
Review
ZTAs considered included Industrial Performance Standards, Farm Winery Noise (Outdoor Music),
Monticello Historic District, Wireless, Special Lots, Fees, Industrial Uses and Process Improvements
STAs considered included Special Lots and Miscellaneous Amendments
CCPs considered included Henly Middle School Wind Turbine and Ivy Fire Station
ZMAs considered included Pantops Ridge, Republic Capital, Morey Creek, Fontana, Albemarle Place,
Estes Park, Peter Jefferson Overlook, Redfields, Albemarle Health and Rehab and Hollymead Town
Center Area
SPs considered included Four Seasons Learning Center, Crozet Music Festival, Westminster Canterbury,
Charlottesville KOA Campgrounds, Blue Ridge Swim Club, Charlottesville Power Equipment, South Plains
Church, Ivy Creek Church, Ragged Mountain Dam, Locally Grown Fesitval, Badger Industrial, Colonial
Nissan Parking Structure, Southern Albemarle Day Care and Community Center, Glenn Hall Additional
Development Right, Dover Foxcroft Special Events, Clifton Lake, Granger Fill in the Floodplain, Elks Lodge
Farmers Market and several wireless facilities (towers)
SDPs considered included Re-Store’n Station, Dunlora Forest and several wireless facilities (towers)
SUBs considered included Barracks West Townhouses and Willow Lake
Other matters covered included the CIP, Planning Commission Training, Economic Vitality Action Plan
and Joint Meeting of the City and County Planning Commissions
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Wireless Policy/Regulations Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Provide Update on Wireless Policy and Regulations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On December 7, 2011 the Board of Supervisors authorized an appropriation of up to $12,000 for the purpose of hiring
a consultant to assist the County in updating the Wireless Policy/Regulations and to investigate possible strategies to
encourage deployment of broadband access throughout the County. The Board also instructed staff to work with
industry representatives to discuss possible ordinance amendments to address process improvements. Staff has met
with industry representatives to discuss potential changes in the ordinance and the impact of recent rulings,
interpretations and laws. A more formal discussion with industry representatives is scheduled for June 7th to discuss
specific changes to the ordinance.
Finalization of the contract and the discussions with the industry have been complicated due to a variety of ex ternal
decisions including the FCC’s “Shot Clock” ruling, which requires expedited action on certain wireless applications,
the recent adoption of the “Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012,” which includes a provision that
affects a locality’s authority to deny certain wireless applications that do not propose “substantial changes” to an
existing facility’s physical dimensions, and the Virginia Supreme Court’s decision in Sinclair, which eliminated the
Planning Commission’s authority to approve Tier II applications. These changes to the regulatory environment have
caused the project to be delayed while staff identified the appropriate scope of work.
DISCUSSION:
The Board expressed an interest in the consultant performing the following scope of work (included as Option 2 in the
presentation made to the Board on December 7, 2011):
Describe how technology is changing deployment.
Describe the court decisions that are influencing the regulating of deployment and why.
Describe the FCC rulings, programs and policy initiatives that may impact regulation of deployment and why.
Describe how changes in wireless will impact the regulation of deployment.
Specifically, describe how Albemarle County’s policy should change and list those sections in the County Code
that need to be revised on the basis of technology, court cases and the recent FCC rulings.
In addition to the above, the Board wanted to determine how the County could encourage broadband deployment into
portions of the County not currently served. Staff interpreted this deployment to be wireless broadband which may be
met by either licensed or unlicensed providers. Staff has defined the scope of work and is in the process of procuring
the consultant’s services.
The Board did not direct staff to work with the general public initially in any discussions regarding changes in wireless
regulations. The original discussions with the public regarding wireless planning occurred over 12 years ago. Since
that time, the way individuals use wireless has changed significantly. It is possible that the general attitude toward
wireless planning has also changed. Staff recommends that as a part of the process of updating the policy,
discussions occur with consultants and industry representatives, as well as the public in general. Any work with the
industry and public would occur after the Board has had an opportunity to review and evaluate the work of the
consultant.
AGENDA TITLE: Wireless Policy/Regulations Update
May 2, 2012
Page 2
BUDGET IMPACT:
The Board has authorized an appropriation of up to $12,000 for this project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is provided as an informational item only and no Board action is required at this time. Staff will proceed with
finalizing a contract with the consultant and submit a schedule for this project to the Board once a notice-to-proceed
has been issued to this company.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 20, 2012
Carolyn Shears
314 East Water St.
Charlottesville, Va 22902
RE: SP201200001 Ivy Forum
TMP 60-46C
Dear Ms. Shears:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2012, by a vote of 7:0
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following condition:
- The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 2, 2012.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832 x: 3250
Sincerely,
Claudette Grant
Senior Planner
Planning Division
CC: Ivy Forum LLC
314 East Water St
Charlottesville Va 22902
Ivy Forum
PC Public Hearing 4/3/12
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Proposal: SP 201200001 Ivy Forum Staff: Claudette Grant
Planning Commission Public Hearing: April 3, 2012 Board of Supervisors Hearing: To be determined.
Owners: Ivy Forum, LLC Applicant: Carolyn Shears
Acreage: Approximately 0.9370 acres Special Use Permit for: Indoor Athletic Facility in
Commercial Office district
TMP: 06000-00-00-046C0
Location: 2200 Old Ivy Road (Attachments A & B)
By-right use: Offices, supporting commercial and
service.
Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: No EC: Yes
Proposal: Request a special use permit to allow an indoor
athletic facility in a building zoned for Commercial Office
use.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: 0
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 7 Comp. Plan Designation: Office Service – office
uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging
and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-34
units/acre)
Character of Property: The property is developed with an
office building, and related parking. (Attachment C)
Use of Surrounding Properties: Surrounding
properties are other office uses, a restaurant,
apartment complexes and some University of Virginia
buildings and facilities.
Factors Favorable:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. Provides an additional athletic facility option for
people who live and work in the area.
Factors Unfavorable:
None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of SP201200001, Ivy Forum with conditions.
Ivy Forum
PC Public Hearing 4/3/12
2
STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 3, 2012
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
SP201200001: Ivy Forum
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201200001/Ivy Forum
PROPOSAL: Special use Permit request for Indoor Athletic Facility on 0.9370 acres. No
dwellings proposed.
ZONING: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting commercial and service; residential
uses by special use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. Section 23.2.2 (14) Indoor Athletic
Facility.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office Service – office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities,
and residential (6.01-34 units/acre) in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: 2200 Old Ivy Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-046C0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
Character of the Area and Adjoining properties:
The subject property is located at 2200 Old Ivy Road. The surrounding area is primarily
developed with office uses, including a nearby restaurant (the Ivy Inn), a few apartment
complexes and some University of Virginia buildings and facilities. The southern boundary of
this site is the CSX railroad track. Across the street and to the north are the University of
Virginia Miller Center, baseball field and an apartment complex. The City of Charlottesville
boundary is located to the east of this property. To the west are a vacant tract of land and the
Ivy Inn Restaurant.
Background:
The property is zoned CO-Commercial Office and is currently being used as an office building
with associated parking. (See Attachment C) The applicant is requesting to use approximately
1,715 square feet of the 12,000 square foot office building for an indoor athletic facility. The
indoor athletic facility will consist of a fitness studio called Pure Barre, which uses the ballet
barre as the primary focus for the workout. An area not to exceed 20% of the floor area will be
used for the sale of dancing shoes and apparel. The applicant anticipates approximately 10
students with classes being run between 6:00 am – 9:00 am and 4:00 pm – 8:00 pm Monday
through Friday. Classes may also be offered on Saturday and Sunday at various times,
depending on the students’ wishes. There are no plans to change the exterior of the building or
property.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request:
The applicant believes this use of a fitness studio will provide wellness services and promote a
healthy activity option to nearby residents and professionals, many of whom will be able to
walk to the studio. This could be an additional amenity that will benefit the local community.
Ivy Forum
PC Public Hearing 4/3/12
3
Planning and Zoning History:
The building was built in 1975, and the property was zoned CO-Commercial Office prior to
1980. Over the last 25 to 30 years a variety of zoning clearances and an ARB submittal for
façade renovations have been reviewed.
Conformity with Comprehensive Plan:
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Office Service in Neighborhood Seven (7). The
Comprehensive Plan supports office parks and mixed-use planned development emphasizing
office uses, residential uses, and regional-scale research and uses providing information,
professional and support services to the County and the larger region. An indoor athletic facility
is appropriate within this land use designation and for this area. It can serve as a
complimentary amenity to neighborhoods such as this, which include office and residential
uses within close proximity to the proposed use. The site will not be used for residential
purposes.
An analysis for consistency with the Neighborhood Model was not done for this project since
site changes are not proposed. There are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building
or the property. This proposal is not in conflict with the Economic Development Policy and
encourages new business activity.
Staff Comment on SP 2012-00001-Request for Indoor Athletic Facility Use in the
CO Commercial Office District
Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as
follows:
Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property?
The indoor athletic facility is not expected to be of substantial detriment or impact to
adjacent property. At 1,715 square feet, the proposed use will take up a relatively small
amount of space. The location of the building is a corner lot bound with a railroad track,
bridge, vacant property and a restaurant. Parking is located on the property and is
adequate for the building with this use.
Will the character of the zoning district change with this use?
The character of the district is not anticipated to change with the addition of this use in
the existing building. This use will occupy interior space within the office building and
should operate very similar to the way an office would operate with the building.
Will the use be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance?
The CO zoning district is intended for development of administrative, business and
professional offices and supporting accessory uses and facilities. This district is intended as a
transition between residential districts and other more intensive commercial and industrial
districts. Indoor Athletic Facilities are allowed by special use permit in this district depending on
the location.
Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by right in the district?
This area contains a wide mix of existing uses; some public facilities, small scale strip
commercial development and some residential uses. Indoor athletic facility uses are
Ivy Forum
PC Public Hearing 4/3/12
4
allowed in the CO district with a special use permit. The proposed indoor athletic facility
is a supporting accessory use for several of the existing uses in the surrounding area.
Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance?
There are no additional regulations. However, a condition limiting the square feet of the use is
recommended because a larger facility could have a different traffic impact to the area.
Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the
use is approved?
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through
the special use permit process which assures that the proposed use is appropriate in
the location requested. There are no safety concerns with the proposed indoor athletic
facility use.
Summary:
Staff finds the following factors favorable to this request:
1. The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
2. Provides an additional athletic facility option for people who live and work in the
area.
Staff finds no factor(s) unfavorable to this request.
Recommended Action:
Staff recommends approval of SP 201200001, Ivy Forum with the following condition:
1. The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION—Special Use Permit:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use
permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2012-00001, Ivy Forum with the following condition:
1. The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this special use permit:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2012-00001, Ivy Forum. Should a commissioner motion
to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommen ding denial.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Tax Map
Attachment B – Vicinity Map
Attachment C – Survey of Lot 4A Pear Tree House Subdivision
Return to PC actions letter
IVY RD
O
L
D IV
Y R
DIVY DRFAULKNER WAYCOLONNADE DRL
A
NNIGAN LN
¡601
£¤250
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information Services. Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2012.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2011.
0 100 20050Feet
SP 2012 - 00001Ivy Forum
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
City Boundary
Buildings
±
60-46C
ATTACHMENT A
IVY R
D 25 0 /2 9 B Y P A S S
CANTERBURY RDS T A D IUM RDGEORGETOWN RD¡601
¡820 }ÿ302
£¤29
£¤250
Prepared by Albemarle CountyDivision of Information Services. Map created by Elise Hackett, March 2012.
Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only.
Aerial Imagery 2009 Commonwealth of Virginia.
Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2011.
0 1,000 2,000500Feet
SP 2012 - 00001Ivy Forum
Roads
Streams
Water Body
Parcels
Parcel of Interest
City Boundary
Buildings
±
60-46C
ATTACHMENT B
ATTACHMENT C
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 3, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
SP-2012-00001 Ivy Forum
PROPOSAL: Special use Permit request for Indoor Athletic Facility on 0.9370 acres. No dwellings
proposed.
ZONING: CO Commercial Office – offices, supporting commercial and service; residential uses by special
use permit at a density of 15 units/acre. Section 23.2.2 (14) Indoor Athletic Facility.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Office Service – office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34
units/acre) in Neighborhood 7.
LOCATION: 2200 Old Ivy Road
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06000-00-00-046C0
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Claudette Grant)
Mr. Benish presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
The applicant requests a special use permit to allow an indoor athletic facility in a building zoned for
Commercial Office use. The location map was reviewed. The property is surrounded primarily by office
uses, a restaurant, several apartment complexes, and some University of Virginia buildings including the
baseball diamond across the street. The property is zoned CO and currently is being used as an office
building. The proposed use will take up approximately 1,700 square feet within a building that is 12,000
square feet. The use will be located on the lower floor.
Favorable Factors:
• The use is consistent with the Land Use Plan.
• Provides an additional athletic facility option for people who live and work in the area.
Unfavorable Factors:
None
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of SP-2012-00001, Ivy Forum with the following condition:
The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
The purpose for the limit on the condition is just that use would run with the building so they want to make
sure the building by right could not convert to a 12,000 square foot gym, which may have different traffic
impacts. Additional square footage is a little arbitrary, but it is to provide for some flexibility based on the
size proposed.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph asked if a special use permit was applicable only for the life of the permitted business or
does the special use permit once it is applied to a space carry with the space in perpetuity.
Mr. Benish replied that it runs with the land.
Mr. Randolph asked if there was any allowance under our guidelines to do a special use permit for the life
of the business only.
Mr. Benish replied that they have done that for special events for the first event for that one time subject
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
2
to reapproval. He would ask Mr. Kamptner to answer as a general rule.
Mr. Kamptner said the Commission and ultimately the Board has occasionally imposed time limitations on
special use permits. There was a brief period in the late 1980’s when the Board was imposing a limitation
on the life of the special use permit and tying that to a particular owner. That practice ended shortly
thereafter and staff does not recommend any kind of condition that ties it to a particular owner.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to address the
Planning Commission. Since the applicant chose not to make a presentation and there were no
questions for the applicant, he invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public
hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of SP-2012-00001 Ivy
Forum with staff’s recommended condition.
1. The indoor athletic facility use shall not exceed 2,000 square feet.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that SP-2012-00001 Ivy Forum would be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a
recommendation for approval at a time to be determined.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 20, 2012
Jo Higgins
2564 Mt Torrey Road
Lyndhurst, Va. 22952
RE: ZMA 2011-008 Three Notch'd Center
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A3 Parcel 9
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 3, 2012, by a vote 7:0, recommended
approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on May 2, 2012.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
View staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to agenda
Sincerely,
Megan Yaniglos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
cc: Notch'd LLC
90 Stockton Ridge Pl
Greenwood Va 22943
ZMA2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, April 3rd, 2012
Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA 2011-00008, Three Notch’d
Center
Staff: Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
April 3, 2012
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
Not yet determined
Owner(s): Notch’d LLC Applicant: Jo Higgins
Acreage: 2.32 acres Rezone from: not applicable
TMP: 056A3000000900
Location: 5832 Three Notch’d Road
By-right use: industrial, office, and limited commercial
uses (no residential use)
Magisterial District: White Hall Proffers: Yes
Proposal: Request to amend the application plan
to include an automobile laundry use on property
zoned PD-SC- Planned Development Shopping
Center which allows large-scale commercial uses
and residential by special use permit at 15
units/acre. No residential is proposed.
Requested # of Dwelling Units: None
DA (Development Area): Community of Crozet and
EC (Entrance Corridor)
Comp. Plan Designation: Light Industrial-
manufacturing, storage, distribution, with supporting
office, retail, R&D, flex and commercial uses within
the Crozet Master Plan.
Character of Property: Currently developed with a
11/2 story frame house as a restaurant and a two-
story cinder block building with service/office uses.
Use of Surrounding Properties: Music Today, Starr
Hill Brewing Company, self storage, and undeveloped
Factors Favorable:
1. 1. The proposed amendment and use is a by-right
use within the PD-SC zoning district.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. None identified.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this zoning map amendment.
ZMA2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, April 3rd, 2012
Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Megan Yaniglos
PLANNING COMMISSION: April 3, 2012
ZMA 2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
PETITION
PROJECT: ZMA201100008, Three Notch’d Center
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the application plan to include an automobile laundry use on
property zoned PD-SC- Planned Development Shopping Center which allows large-scale
commercial uses and residential by special use permit at 15 units/acre. No residential is proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Light Industrial- manufacturing, storage, distribution, with supporting
office, retail, R&D, flex and commercial uses within the Crozet Master Plan.
LOCATION: 5832 Three Notch’d Rd, Crozet, VA
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 056A3000000900
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The site is approximately 2.3 acres in size and was rezoned to PD-SC in 2008. It is located in
Community of Crozet along Route 240/Three Notch’d Road. There are currently two aging
structures, a 1928 house that is currently occupied by a small cafe, and a two-story cinderblock
building with uses such as video rental, launder mat, and some offices above. Adjoining the site to
the west is the Crozet Self Storage recently constructed and Music Today and Starr Hill occupy the
former Con-Agra complex across Route 240. Most surrounding properties are zoned industrial, with
the exception of the Rural Area zoned undeveloped property to the east. (Attachment A-Location
Map, Attachment B-Zoning Map)
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a modification to the approved application plan (Attachment D) to add a
car wash onto the site. Auto laundries are a by-right use in the PD-SC zoning. The applicant is
proposing to reduce the square footage in the other buildings in order to meet the parking
requirements for the spaces that were eliminated with the addition of the car wash.
APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
As further described in Attachment C, the applicant states that due to the state of the economy, it is
not feasible to build office/retail space at this time. The owner of the property would like to make a
moderate investment and provide an auto laundry service to the Crozet community.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
ZMA2007-006- Approved rezoning of the property from Light Industrial to Planned Development
Shopping Center. This application included proffers. See Attachment K for BOS action letter.
SDP2008-179- Approved final site plan.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Crozet Master Plan: The current Master Plan adopted in 2010 designates this parcel as Light
Industrial. This designation represents uses that involve manufacturing, predominantly from
previously prepared materials, of products or parts. It may include processing, fabrication
assembly, treatment, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of these products.
ZMA2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, April 3rd, 2012
Page 3
Primary uses are light manufacturing, storage, and distribution. Secondary uses include related
office and retail activities (particularly wholesale), research and development (R&D), flex, other
commercial uses that are associated with the primary uses in the area, larger auto commercial
service uses, open space, and institutional uses.
The property was rezoned in 2007 from Light Industrial to PD-SC and was done so with
compliance to the 2004 Master Plan that was in place at that time. Since this is an amendment
to the application plan, and not a new zoning action to establish the PD-SC districts, staff has
found that this proposal is permissible and meets the requirements and uses within the PD-SC
zoning district.
Crozet Parks & Green Systems Map: The Crozet Parks & Green Systems Map shows no
amenities, such as trails, or environmental features on this parcel.
The Neighborhood Model: The proposal is just a zoning map amendment for a portion of the
property that is located near the back. The use proposed is a by right use in the PD-SC zoning. No
changes to the site are occurring that will impact the Neighborhood Model principles differently than
what was reviewed during the 2007 rezoning.
Economic Vitality Action Plan
The primary goal of the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan is to:
Increase the County’s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local
residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local
residents and existing local businesses.
The proposed change to the application plan to add an auto laundry would support the Plan by
providing an additional use which will expand the commercial tax base.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The purpose and intent of PD-SC districts is to serve areas not conveniently and
adequately provided with a broad range of commercial and service facilities.
As stated above, this use is a by-right use within the PD-SC zoning district. The proposal is to
amend the application plan for a prior approved rezoning.
Public need and justification for the change:
The addition of the auto laundry will add a service to the local residents of the Western
Albemarle/Crozet community.
Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: There are no environmental,
cultural, or historic resources on this property.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services:
Streets: The applicant provided a traffic analysis to VDOT for the impact that the addition of the
auto laundry provides.
ZMA2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, April 3rd, 2012
Page 4
VDOT staff recommends that the frontage improvements shown in the study, including a left turn
lane, should be included with the site plan amendment.
The County Engineer also made a recommendation that a travelway connection be established to
the Albemarle Storage LLC site. This recommendation was also given during the 2007 rezoning
review, and the applicant declined to address this comment because of security reasons on the
Albemarle Storage site. Staff did not make the connection a requirement and the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors ultimately approved the rezoning without this connection.
See Attachment E for VDOT comments, and Attachment F for County Engineer’s comments
concerning the streets and traffic. See Attachment H for the Planning Commission meeting minutes
from September 2007 and Attachment J from the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Schools: There are no residential units in this proposed rezoning, so schools will not be affected.
Fire and Rescue: The Crozet Volunteer Fire Station and the Western Albemarle Rescue Station
provide fire and rescue services to the area. The planned Ivy Area Station will also augment
services provided by the two existing fire and rescue stations in Crozet.
Utilities: Albemarle County Service Authority states that water and sewer service is available to the
site. They also state that the design for the auto laundry be submitted as to ensure waste water
infrastructure is properly protected from storm water. See Attachment G for ACSA comments.
Stormwater Management: The County Engineer is again recommending that additional water
quality measures be proffered beyond what might normally be required through the Water
Protection Ordinance. The County Engineer has also noted that that the storm water basin on the
Albemarle Storage site may require modifications to serve this site as proposed. See Attachment F
for County Engineer comments.
During the approval of the rezoning, storm water management was discussed, and Staff
recommended that additional storm water measures be required. However, the Planning
Commission and ultimately the Board of Supervisors approved the rezoning without additional
measures. See Attachment H for the Planning Commission meeting minutes from September 2007
and Attachment J from the Board of Supervisors meeting.
Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties:
Adjacent properties are industrial in character and intended to continue as employment uses. No
detrimental impacts are anticipated to surrounding properties.
PROFFERS
The proffer statement has been updated to reference the revised plan and date. See Attachment I.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. The proposed amendment and use is a by-right use within the PD-SC zoning district.
Staff has identified no unfavorable factors to this rezoning request.
RECOMMENDATION
ZMA2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center
Planning Commission Public Hearing Staff Report, April 3rd, 2012
Page 5
Based on the Board of Supervisors prior approval and the nature of this request, staff recommends
approval of this zoning map amendment modifying the application plan and proffers.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA 2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center as recommended by
staff.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA 2011-00008, Three Notch’d Center. Should a commissioner
motion to recommend denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial.
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A: Location Map
ATTACHMENT B: Zoning Map
ATTACHMENT C: Project Narrative
ATTACHMENT D: Application Plan
ATTACHMENT E: VDOT Comments
ATTACHMENT F: County Engineer Comments
ATTACHMENT G: ACSA Comments
ATTACHMENT H: September 18, 2007 PC Minutes
ATTACHMENT I: Updated Proffer Statement
ATTACHMENT J: December 12, 2007 BOS Minutes
ATTACHMENT K: BOS Action Letter
Return to PC actions
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
ZMA2011-008
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 23, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
100 ft
ATTACHMENT A
Points of Interest
AIRPORT
COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY
COMMUNITY
FIRE/RESCUE STATION
GOVERNMENT
HOSPITAL
LIBRARY
POLICE STATION
POST OFFICE
RECREATION/TOURISM
SCHOOL
Parcel Info
Parcels
Comp Plan Land Use Info
Crozet Master Plan Land
Greenspace *
Neighborhood Density (Lo
Neighborhood Density
Urban Density
Mixed-Use
Downtown
Institutional
Light Industrial
See Crozet Masterplan Te
ZMA2011-008 Zoning Map
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources March 23, 2012
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
100 ft
ATTACHMENT B
December 12, 2007 (Adjourned and Regular Meeting)
(Page 26)
said that they are hesitant to move the buildings because they are trying to stay far away from those
trees. They are willing to continue to make efforts to get Heritage Hall put something in writing for the
staff.
Mr. Cilimberg commented that there may not be a formal easement needed, but an agreement
from Berkmar Crossing would be, based on staff concerns.
Ms. Thomas emphasized that the question is whether or not this item should be referred back to
the Planning Commission.
Mr. Boyd said he is not sure it should be referred back to them if they are routine items that could
be resolved without that.
Mr. Rooker responded that if the plan has not changed in any substance, then it would be
appropriate for it to skip further Commission review.
Mr. Wyant asked why a buffer would be needed between Heritage Hall and this property. Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that the concern about the buffer was not staff’s; it was a Commission issue.
Mr. George Ray addressed the Board, stating that there was one Commission member who
expressed concern about the buffer, not the entire panel. He said that Heritage Hall was supportive of
the project and they are willing to sit down and talk about it. Mr. Ray said he feels they would be able to
work something out, and if necessary they could move the townhouses forward a couple of feet to create
a wider planting strip on the west side of the driveways.
Mr. Slutzky said he is not sure three or four feet will make that much of a positive impact on the
impact. He would rather leave it with the current lines and if there is a need for a buffer do it with Heritage
Hall.
Mr. Slutzky then moved to defer ZMA-2007-004 to the next appropriate meeting for the Board to
consider. Mr. Wyant seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis said that the request will probably need to be re-advertised, probably to the night
meeting in January at the soonest.
Mr. Cilimberg cautioned that they may run into the same time issue again.
Mr. Tucker said that the 16th would work if the 9th does not work.
Mr. Davis reminded the Board of its policy of having final plans and proffers submitted at least 23
days in advance of the hearing so that the public hearing could be advertised.
Mr. Cilimberg said the proffers do not include anything that addresses erosion and sediment
control. He asked if that is an expectation for this application.
Mr. Slutzky said, to be consistent with other applications, he would like to see that addressed.
Mr. Davis said another issue is that the applicant, in doing their proportional affordable housing,
one of their examples used a fraction of a unit of affordable housing that they are not building, and they
rounded the number down, which amounted to about $900 per unit. He is assuming the Board wants full
credit for any fraction of an affordable house that is not built.
Mr. Slutzky responded, “yes”, which was addressed in the Affordable Housing Policy. Board
members concurred.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
_______________
Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: ZMA-2007-006. Three Notch'd Center.
PROPOSAL: Rezone 2.3 from LI Light Industrial, which allows industrial, office, and limited
commercial uses (no residential use) to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center, which
allows for shopping centers, retail sales and service uses; and residential by special use permit
(15 units/ acre). The proposal is to redevelop the site with two office/commercial buildings with a
total of 40,500 square feet.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: CT5 Neighborhood Center in the
Crozet Master Plan which allows for a mix of uses and residential types at net densities of up to
12 units per acre; up to 18 units per acre if in a mixed use setting.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 5368, 5374, and 5382 Three Notch'd Road, located
on the northside of Three Notch'd Road approx 500 feet west of its intersection with Parkview
Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A3, Parcels 9 and 11.
ATTACHMENT J
December 12, 2007 (Adjourned and Regular Meeting)
(Page 27)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on November 26 and
December 3, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this request would rezone existing development from LI to PDSC in
Crozet and would permit the redevelopment for two new buildings totaling over 40,000 square feet. He
said that there would be certain by-right commercial uses that proffer out as part of this proposal. The
area is across the street from the old Con-Agra facility; there would be one two-story and one three-story
building. Most of the parking would be relegated. Mr. Cilimberg reported that there would be certain uses
permitted that would by by-right in C1, CO and HC as encompassed in the PDSC. There would also be
certain special use permit allowances and certain uses accepted by the proffers. The Planning
Commission recommended approval conditioned upon certain areas of the plan, and issues concerning
the proffers addressed.
Mr. Cilimberg said that the signed proffers were received in accordance with the Board policy. He
indicated that there was a minor technical correction to the proffers which the applicant made. The
change in substance is no different than what was previously provided to the Board. It does include the
various sections of the Zoning Ordinance that are referenced in the proffer for future uses that would
either be included or not included. The recommendation is for Board approval inclusive of the application
plan and proffers dated December 11, 2007, signed December 12, 2007.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to come forward.
The applicant’s representative, Ms. Jo Higgins, addressed the Board, noting that the only thing
changed on the proffer form was the statement that the proffers are voluntary. Ms. Higgins explained that
the Planning Commission voted unanimously to support this plan, and their concerns have all been
addressed. She explained that this location is currently a retail office to serve Con-Agra’s employment
center and Crozet population. Ms. Higgins said that the positive aspects of the plan include closing of five
entrances and a shared entrance on the east side, stormwater management facility sharing with the self-
storage company, a reduction in parking, sidewalks, a streetscape, and a complete lane across the front.
She reported that the ARB has weighed in positively on this plan. She asked for the Board’s favorable
consideration.
Mr. Rooker expressed confusion about what uses can be on the property, and what cannot.
Ms. Higgins replied that the paragraph was composed by the County Attorney’s office to stipulate
special uses.
Mr. Cilimberg explained said that the language says “shall include only those commercial and
service establishments allowed in the Code sections listed except the following:” The listed using
following that language are not allowed.
Mr. Davis noted that the intent of the language is to make it clear to allow the permitted uses that
were not part of the “excepted below list” plus all the special uses would continue to be allowed by special
use permit. He thinks the language may be redundant but the intent is to clarify uses not permitted and it
can be fairly interpreted.
Ms. Thomas asked if stormwater detention is included. Ms. Higgins explained that this will be an
improvement as the facility will be shared and the site is flat. There is no one down site of this property.
They did not include anything in the proffers to upgrade or exceed the requirements because if there is
any failure, it would affect the property owner which they have already entered into agreement.
There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Wyant moved to approve ZMA-2007-006 inclusive of the application plan dated
August 15, 2007 and the proffers dated December 11 and signed December 12, 2007. Mr. Rooker
seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Wyant, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Mr. Slutzky and Ms. Thomas.
NAYS: None.
(The proffers are set out in full below:)
Original Proffer ___X___
Amended Proffer ______
(Amendment #______)
PROFFER FORM
Date: 12 /11/2007 ZMA # 2007 – 006 Tax Map Parcel(s) # 56 A(3) – 9, 11
2.32 Acres to be rezoned from LI to PD-SC
in accordance with the Application Plan prepared by NP Engineering dated 1/2/07 revised 8/15/07
ATTACHMENT J
December 12, 2007 (Adjourned and Regular Meeting)
(Page 28)
Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the Owner hereby voluntarily
proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned with the offered
plans approved for development. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and
the Owner acknowledges that the conditions are reasonable.
The development of the Property shall be limited to those uses allowed by right under Section 18-25.2.1
and those uses allowed by special use permit under Section 18-25.2.2 of the Albemarle County Code,
excepting those by right uses delineated in Sections 18-22.2.1, 18-23.2.1 and 18-24.2.1 listed
below, as all of those sections are in effect on December 12, 2007, copies of which are attached hereto.
The following by right commercial and service establishments shall not be permitted on the Property:
(1) The Permitted uses of the property, and/or uses authorized by special use permit, shall be only
those uses allowed by Albemarle County Code Section 18-25.2 in effect on 12/12/2007. The by
right uses permitted under Albemarle County Code Section 18-25.2.1.1, the C-1, CO, and HC
uses cross-referenced therein shall include only those commercial and service establishments
allowed in Albemarle County Code Sections 18-22, 18-23, and 18-24 in effect on 12/12/2007
except the following:
A. Cemeteries: 18-22.2.1.b3, 18-23.2.1.4, 18-24.2.1.5
B. Fire & rescue squad stations: 18.22.2.1.b6, 18-24.2.1.13
C. Indoor theaters: 18-22.2.1.b9, 18-24.2.1.38
D. Libraries, museums: 18-22.2.1.b12, 18-23.2.1.5
E. Automobile service stations 18-22.2.1.b16, 18-24.2.1.5
F. Automobile, truck repair shop, excluding body shop: 18-22.2.1.b22, 18-24.2.12
G. Hotels, motels and inns: 18-24.2.1.20
H. Mobile home and trailer sales: 18-24.2.1.23
I. Modular bldg sales: 18-24.2.1.24
J. Motor vehicle sales, service and rental: 18-24.2.1.25
K. Building material sales: 18-24.2.1.4
L. Light warehousing: 18-24.2.1.21
M. Machinery and equipment sales, service, and rental:18-24.2.1.22
N. New automotive parts sales: 18-24.2.1.26
O. Sale of major recreational equipment and vehicles: 18-24.2.1.32
P. Wholesale distribution: 18-24.2.1.34
Q. Heating oil sales and distribution: 18-24.2.1.39
R. Indoor athletic facilities: 18-22.2.1.b24, 18-24.2.1.42
Copies of Albemarle County Code Sections 18-22.2.1, 18-23.2.1, 18-24.2.1, and 18-25.2 on 12/12/2007
are attached as Exhibit A.
(Signed) Jeffrey S. Sprouse Jeffrey S. Sprouse_(TMP 56A3-11)
Signatures of All Owners Printed Names of All Owners Date
(Signed) Jeffrey Sprouse Jeffrey Sprouse (TMP 56A3-9) 12/12/07
______________
Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing: ZMA-2007-014. Liberty Hall Amendment (Signs
#36&39).
PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.01 acres from NMD Neighborhood Model District - residential (3 - 34
units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses) to NMD Neighborhood Model
District - residential (3 - 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses to
amend the proffers to allow for for-lease affordable housing for approved units. No additional
dwelling units are proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Crozet Master Plan designates the
property CT3 Urban Edge: single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such
as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses, and CT4 Urban
General: residential (net 4.5 units/acre single family, net 12 units/acre townhouses/apartments,
net 18 units/acre mixed use) with supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and
mixed uses including retail/office.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes.
LOCATION: Tax Map 56, Parcels 97A, 97A1, and 97 (only a .833 acre southwest portion of the
property as shown on the General Development Plan) along Radford Lane near its intersection
with Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt. 250 W).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall.
(Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on November 26 and
December 3, 2007.)
Mr. Cilimberg reported that this is an amendment to broaden the application of affordable housing
opportunities in the project, rather than having it tied to specific units of a certain type. This would allow
both for-lease and for-sale affordable units and could include single-family attached as well as
condominiums, apartment, and flat type units. He said that Liberty Hall is located behind and adjacent to
Clover Lawn. The plan approved specifies affordable units and under the amendment the units could be
single or multi-family attached; they could be for sale or for lease, and the standard language for cash in
lieu of units is included in the proffers. He said that the Commission has recommended approval subject
ATTACHMENT J
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012
January 28, 2008
Jo Higgins
104 Ana Marie Blvd
Waynesboro, VA 22980
RE: ZMA-2007-00006, Three Notch’d Center (Sign #76)
Tax Map 56A3, Parcels 9 and 11
Dear Ms. Higgins:
The Board of Supervisors approved your rezoning application on December 12, 2007. Your
rezoning from LI Light Industrial to PD-SC Planned Development Shopping Center was
approved in accordance the attached proffers dated December 11, 2007 and signed on
December 12, 2007. An application plan/plan of development dated August 15, 2007 was
approved as part of the rezoning. Please refer to these documents for any future applications
and requests on this property.
Please be advised that although the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took action
on the project noted above, no uses on the property as approved above may lawfully
begin until all applicable approvals have been received and conditions have been met.
This includes:
compliance with applicable PROFFERS;
compliance with conditions of a SPECIAL USE PERMIT if any;
approval of and compliance with a SITE PLAN; and
approval of a ZONING COMPLIANCE CLEARANCE.
If you have questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact Sherri Proctor at 296-5832.
Sincerely,
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Director of Planning
ATTACHMENT K
Cc: Sprouse, Jeffrey
5995 Rockfish Gap Turnpike, Crozet VA 22932
Tex Weaver
Chuck Proctor (VDOT)
Steve Allshouse
Sherri Proctor
Sarah Baldwin
Bruce Woodzell (Real Estate)
File
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
ATTACHMENT K
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 3, 2012
Public Hearing Items:
ZMA-2011-00008 Three Notch’d Center
PROPOSAL: Request to amend the application plan to include an automobile laundry use on property
zoned PD-SC- Planned Development Shopping Center which allows large-scale commercial uses and
residential by special use permit at 15 units/acre. No residential is proposed.
PROFFERS: Yes
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Light Industrial- manufacturing, storage,
distribution, with supporting office, retail, R&D, flex and commercial uses within the Crozet Master Plan.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 5368, 5374, and 5382 Three Notch'd Road, located on the north side of Three Notch'd Road
approx 500 feet west of its intersection with Parkview Drive.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56A3 Parcel 9
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
(Megan Yaniglos)
Ms. Yaniglos presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report.
- This is a proposal to amend the approved rezoning application plan t o include an automobile
laundry use on property zoned Planned Development Shopping Center in Crozet.
Proposal:
The applicant is requesting a modification to the approved application plan to add a car wash or
auto laundry on the site.
Auto laundries are a by-right use in the PD-SC zoning.
The applicant is proposing to reduce the square footage in the other buildings in order to meet the
parking requirements for the spaces that were eliminated with the addition of the car wash.
The applicant states that due to the state of the economy it is not feasible for the owner to build
office/retail space at this time.
The auto laundry will be located in the northwest corner of the property, and will reduce the
number of parking spaces on site.
Favorable Factor:
1. The proposed amendment and use is a by-right use within the PD-SC zoning district
Unfavorable Factors: None Identified
Recommendation:
Based on the Board of Supervisors prior approval and the nature of this request, staff recommends
approval of ZMA2011-008 Three Notch’d Center - to amend the application plan and proffers.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Dotson noted the staff report says this is a by right use within PD-SC yet they are considering it. He
asked staff to explain that again.
Ms. Yaniglos replied that the application plan runs with the rezoning plan. The change is in the actual
plan. So they added a building in the site development area on the plan. The plan differs from what was
approved.
Mr. Morris opened the public hearing for public comment and invited the applicant to address the
Planning Commission.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
2
Jo Higgins, representative for the applicant, made the following comments.
They were troubled with having to go through this process to add a by-right use. It again to they
had always intended to have an automobile laundry if the prediction of the economy occurred this
way. They were not aware until the pre-app that they would actually have to go through rezoning.
They thought they could amend the site plan. However, they do have a fully approved site plan
that is in place. Also, the staff report has been sent to the adjacent property owner. Ms. Yaniglos
forwarded the email from the property owner to the east side that is in support of the request.
The property owner on the other side, which she is a member of, has actually cooperated and
there is shared storm water detention facility. There are shared easements between both
properties. Everybody is supportive of each other’s success for the industry in Crozet.
They have been before the Architectural Review Board with this as a work session. The ARB
actually approved the request with conditions about lighting and adjusting landscaping and such
things. Basically the building as proposed was approved. The m aterials were already on record
with the approval of the front buildings. The rendering from the architect on the front buildings
that they submitted earlier in 2007 was shown to the ARB. The car wash would go in as a phase
one. Therefore, it could be in there for a period of time where it is not totally blocked from the
Entrance Corridor. So they wanted to make it a really attractive building so it is basically asphalt
metal roof with brick and block. If there are not issues she would wait until they disc uss.
They submitted a traffic analysis. There is full frontage improvements proposed on this. They
have met with VDOT about their concerns with the entrances. They already have approved
entrances. It might require some modification. The total contro l will be played out through the
minor site plan amendment that they will have to do and that will be addressed on all the details
and how the parking, the internal circulation, and that sort of thing. It was done to a great amount
of detail because they wanted to get through the rezoning action and the details after they met
with the ARB. The ARB wants them to put the equipment, like the vacuum cleaners, and things
like that behind the building. So they wanted that input before they did the more detailed plan,
which will be done as a site plan. They ask for the Commission’s favorable approval and a date
for the Board as soon as possible.
Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach asked if this was in the 25 mile an hour zone, and Ms. Higgins replied yes it is.
Mr. Loach asked difference between a car wash and car laundry.
Ms. Higgins replied that in the zoning ordinance it is called an automobile laundry. It is proposed with two
automatic bays and two self serve bays. In real life it is called a car wash.
Mr. Randolph asked where currently in Crozet are vehicles commercially laundered.
Ms. Higgins replied there is one two-stall car wash that been there for a very long time if they pass the
site and head into the heart of Crozet it is on the right hand side before Great Value. It is just a metal
structure with very low water pressure. This is proposed to be state of the art. It will meet the Albemarle
County Service Authority water reuse regulations. They use 20 percent. However during a watch it can
go to 80 percent and actually the only thing they would use fresh water for is the final rinse. There are
processes in the mechanical room, which is between the bays. At any point where it goes into drought
conditions the Service Authority has total control to tell them when they can operate and when they have
to go on water reuse. The newer ones have converted. However, older car washes have to shut down
when they go into a drought watch.
Mr. Randolph noted attachment F, #3 indicates that the storm water basin on the Albemarle Storage site
may require modifications to serve this site as proposed. What kinds of modifications are proposed and
who would pay for those.
Ms. Higgins replied this site when approved in 2007 the property owner, which is the Charlottesville Self
Storage at Crozet, and the owner of Three Notch’d Center LLC entered into a share agreement to use the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
3
basin on the mini storage site. The modification has already been designed. They are not going to modify
the impervious area although there will be an interim if they do the car wash and then later on do the full
impervious area. There might be a two step that has to be built into it. But ultimately they are about at
the same impervious area. That modification would have to be done by this property owner because it
was already built as part of the mini storage. Using shared detention is always beneficial because they
have one pond and they actually have a maintenance agreement. They are also required to do a
maintenance agreement that is required by county engineering to sign and record that runs with the land
and has to be part of the responsibilities of each property owner. They actually have a separate
agreement that tells them which percentage they share. It is actually shared between three properties –
this property, the mini storage and 25 percent goes to the property owner on the other side, which is the
same owner as Con Agra. They actually share in that if they should ever use it if that property de velops.
It is all kind of built into the process with the agreements that are recorded documents that run with the
land.
Mr. Randolph said in #4 it is recommended that additional water quality measures be proffered. He
asked what that included.
Ms. Higgins replied she believed the county engineer generally makes that statement with most
rezonings. This particular water quality and storm water management plan is already an approved plan
and they did not expect a minor site plan amendment because they were not changing their impervious
area. If county engineering has a perception or a will to change or increase water quality requirements,
then she thinks the regulations need to be changed. She was frustrated to actually receive that comment
and some of the others because they did not seem cognitive of what already has been designed and
approved. This site has filterras, which are water quality filter devices at the collection points around the
parking lot with removal rates that will meet the county requirements. Mr. Brooks never spoke with her,
but generally makes that as a blanket comment. They did not proffer anything because they did not
intend a whole redesign since they are doing a by-right use on an existing area. They will meet the
requirements and did not intend to exceed them.
Mr. Randolph asked for reassurance on the left turn requirements on Route 240 after this facility is
constructed.
Ms. Higgins replied that a traffic analysis was done specifically to change with a reduction in t he square
footage on the buildings because they cannot build the ultimate buildings and take away the parking
spaces. Ultimately, the west building will probably not have a third floor. It won’t change the architecture.
Across the full frontage they are adding an additional lane. It was initially approved to add that lane for a
right turn. When looking at this VDOT had mixed feelings maybe a partial left and a right. If that were to
be imposed the western entrance would become a right in right out only. Then the lane would be split
and part of it would become left and then from a point over a right in. In other words it would be at the
mid-point. That is usually always covered under the site plan amendment. VDOT has ultimate control
because they are involved in the review and approval of the site plan amendment. What they did get
VDOT to confirm in their comments is that they felt like it would work. In other words, they have enough
information physically and then design to know that it is just a matter of do they want it to be one-half the
distance or one-third and they know that the improvements are available. There are five entrances
currently and very likely when car wash is done they are going to require us to physically block four of
them and use the center one. If they do that, then they will have to put a taper in that will allow people to
as they are turning leave the right-of-way a little quicker. It looks like a taper. They have to meet that at
site plan approval. They just confirm at this point that it is physically possible to meet that.
Mr. Morris invited further questions.
Ms. Monteith said following on the same line of question that item 6, attachment F says the response to
that is this comment remains. She thinks the concern is not just that there would be a more legible plan
provided, but there is a concern about the circulation patterns as they have been designed. She asked
how that will be addressed.
Ms. Higgins replied at site plan the DWG file will be modified. The concept plan currently is done with
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
4
arrows to show how the theory of the building fits and which parking spaces would be eliminated with the
addition of the car wash. The level of detail, which is fairly typical of application plans, was not of the
scale and type that it was as easy to measure each parking space. They actually know after having met
with the ARB that there are probably two more parking spaces that will be removed in order to put in
some plantings, as an example. They did not go to that level of detail because this is a concept plan that
goes with the application. Actually if they look back to the concept plan that was approved in the rezoning
in 2007 it is not exactly like the site plan. There is actually parking on this side that was not built into the
site plan. She pointed out that there is some variation between the levels of detail on the application plan
versus the final site plan.
Ms. Monteith noted her question was how the concerns will be addressed. From her perspective the
concerns are not necessarily the level of detail since she understands the difference between a concept
plan and a site plan. Her question is how the concerns that are expressed will be addressed.
Ms. Higgins replied the concept plan that actually went to the first application did not even have like the
arrows or the angled parking that they put on the ARB plan. They did not go to the level of detail to stripe
this area. They know there is adequate area there to meet it. Also, the vacuum devices that they had
shown at the end are now being moved to the back. The area is adequate. They did not show the lane
splits. The sizing of the plan was not enough to really scale and see that. They know they can and have
to meet it in site plan. It just was not shown maybe to the level of detail that the reviewer was looking for.
At the point where the building starts it is one way circulation. Do not enter signs have also been added
in their concept so that no one would turn left there. The drive through has now been indicated in how
people would access. That was not clear on that plan. She submitted a later plan. When those
comments were first generated they did not have the arrows, the signage and that sort of thing to show
the circulation. They know they have to satisfy it to get the site plan approved.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the reality is that the reviewer will many times comment from the ideal
maximum amount of information that they could get to render an opinion sometimes that amounts to a
site plan level. That is not really what has to be done in a r ezoning. Rezonings are more conceptual and
try to identify the major elements that need to be addressed at that time so they make sure when a site
plan comes in those elements are addressed. In this case there are elements that were identifying that
ideally this reviewer would have liked to have seen in the application plan that are in fact i tems they would
address at the site plan level. That is what is happening.
Mr. Franco said the way the comment is written what it is really saying is that the concept plan, which may
show arrows and things like that, is not vested so be aware that you have to address these concerns.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out they were just talking about there were things that may have to change in terms
of the site plan to make sure the circulation is working correctly at that time.
Ms. Higgins said the couple of parking spaces they are talking about that there is an island that is going
to have to put in there, they know they have to meet certain lane widths which will potentially modify those
details, the landscaping has to be adjusted, and the light poles actually have to be adjusted thru the ARB.
The ARB gave them a list of things they have to adjust on the site plan that staff can administratively
handle.
Mr. Franco asked staff as a follow up to the question raised with item #4 about wanting to see a proffer
above and beyond the water protection ordinance.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that is because this drains directly to Beaver Creek Reservoir. That is why the
comment was made. It actually was made in the first rezoning and the Commission and Board decided
not to require the proffer. So staff did not see this as instigating a change that they made that
recommendation that a proffer be provided at this time.
Ms. Higgins noted it was a carryover from the last time.
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2012
DRAFTMNUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL 4-24-12
5
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Loach pointed out that this land was previously zoned LI.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved for approval
Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and
the matter before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Loach moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2011-00008 Three
Notch’d Center as recommended by staff.
Mr. Franco noted that it was a 2.32 acre parcel. While he understands what Mr. Loach was saying about
losing it from LI there is still a question since they have not seen all of the other information yet whether
that is a practical size parcel or not.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Morris noted that ZMA-2011-00008 Three Notch’d Center will go to the Board of Supervisors on a
date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Draft: March 29, 2012
ORDINANCE NO. 12-2(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE
II, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, 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
2, Administration, Article II, Board of Supervisors, of the Code of the County of Albemarle,
Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2 -202, Compensation of Board of
Supervisors, as follows:
CHAPTER 2. ADMINISTRATION
ARTICLE II. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Sec. 2-202 Compensation of board of supervisors.
The salary of the board of supervisors shall be fourteen thousand six hundred eighty-seven
($14,687.00) fourteen thousand eight hundred thirty-four ($14,834.00) for each board member
effective July 1, 2011 2012. In addition to the regular salary, the vice -chairman shall receive a
stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired and the chairman shall
receive an annual stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00).
(6-13-84; 5-8-85; 5-14-86; 7-1-87; 7-6-88; 6-7-89; Ord. of 6-13-90; Ord. of 8-1-90; Ord. of 8-7-91;
Ord. of 7-1-92; Ord. No. 95-2(1), 6-14-95; Ord. No. 98-2(1), 6-17-98; Code 1988, § 2-2.1; Ord. 98-
A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. No. 99-2(1), 5-5-99; Ord. No. 00-2(1), 6-7-00; Ord. 01-2(2), 6-6-01; Ord. 02-2(2),
5-1-02; Ord. 03-2(1), 6-4-03; Ord. 04-2(1), 6-2-04; Ord. 05-2(1), 6-1-05, Ord. 06-2(1), 6-7-06; Ord.
07-2(1), 6-6-07; Ord. 08-2(2), 6-4-08; Ord. 11-2(1), 5-4-11; Ord. 12-2(1), 6-6-12)
State law reference--Compensation of board of supervisors, Va. Code § 15.2-1414.3.
This ordinance shall be effective on and after July 1, 2012.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance to Amend County Code – Chapter 10,
Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-120.1,
Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing to consider an ordinance to add Section 10-
120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass
Violations, to Chapter 10, Offenses--Miscellaneous, of the
County Code
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Brown, Sellers, and
Schwertfeger
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Over the past several years, there has been an increase in complaints regarding vagrancy and loitering on business
properties during non-business hours. This loitering and vagrancy often involves individuals who are drunk in public
and often disorderly and is especially prevalent in the urban areas of the County during warm weather. As part of
their efforts to remedy this problem, the Albemarle County Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police are
requesting that the Board of Supervisors consider the adoption of an ordinance to add a new section to the County
Code, to be designated as Section 10-120.1, which would allow the owner, lessee, custodian, or other person lawfully
in charge of a property to designate the Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such
property for the purpose of enforcing trespass laws. Designating the Police Department as a “person lawfully in
charge” of a property would allow police officers to order individuals found loitering on such property after hours to
leave the property and would further allow the officers to arrest for trespass anyone who refuses the order to leave or
returns to the property without permission. Authorizing the Police Department to act in this capacity is needed
because many commercial property owners work outside of the area and are not available to appear in Court to testify
when cases involving trespassing are heard. Many Virginia jurisdictions have enacted similar Ordinances, including
the City of Charlottesville.
A draft of the proposed ordinance is attached (Attachment A). This proposed o rdinance is authorized by Virginia
Code Section 15.2-1717.1.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed ordinance allows a property owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge of a property to
designate the Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of such property for purposes of
enforcing trespass laws. This designation would be in writing on forms developed by the Chief of Police and the
County Attorney. The proposed ordinance permits the Chief of Police to accept or reject, in the Chief’s sole
discretion, the designation of the Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge” of a property. The Chief can
rescind the acceptance of such a designation at any time. Violation of the trespass ordinance is punishable as a class
1 misdemeanor.
This new ordinance would allow Albemarle County police officers greater flexibility and authority in dealing with repeat
offenders and ongoing problems at various locations in the County. While the owners or lessees of properties can
currently issue no trespass notices against individuals and request that violations of those notices be prosecuted, the
trespasses usually occur after business hours by individuals not personally known to the property owners or lessees.
By allowing the owners to designate the Police Department as a person lawfully in charge, officers would be allowed
to order an individual to leave a property and not return, and to arrest any such individual who violates the order.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney and the Chief of Police believe that the proposed ordinance will be an effective and
relatively simple additional remedy to combat the vagrancy and loitering issues facing businesses in certain areas of
the County. The ordinance authorizes the Chief of Police, with the assistance of the County Attorney and the
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance to Amend County Code – Chapter 10, Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-
120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
May 2, 2012
Page 2
Commonwealth’s Attorney, to set out the rules and procedures concerning the acceptance and rescission of
designations in order to provide maximum flexibility to effectively use this enforcement tool permitted by Virginia law.
BUDGET IMPACT:
If an ordinance permitting the designation of the Police Department as a person lawfully in charge of property is
adopted, the Chief of Police anticipates the initial impact will be a limited number of requests for such a designation,
which will temporarily involve a small increase in administrative time for the Police Department. There may also be an
increase in court time for officers to assist in trespass prosecutions. However, no additional staff or officers are
anticipated to be hired to handle these matters.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance to amend County Code –
Chapter 10, Offenses—Miscellaneous to add Section 10-120.1, Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violation
(Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A –Ordinance to add County Code Section 10-120.1
Return to agenda
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO. 12-10(1)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10, OFFENSES-MISCELLANEOUS, 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 10,
Offenses-Miscellaneous, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Adding:
Sec. 10.120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
Chapter 10. OFFENSES-MISCELLEANOUS
Sec. 10.120.1 Designation of Police to Enforce Trespass Violations
An owner, lessee, custodian, or person lawfully in charge of any real property may designate the
Albemarle County Police Department as a “person lawfully in charge of the property” for the purpose of
forbidding another to go or remain upon the lands, buildings, or premises as specified in the designation. The
decision whether to accept or rescind any such designation is solely within the discretion of the chief of police
or his designee, who may base his decision on factors including, but not limited to, resource levels of the police
department and the proper allocation of resources. Any such designation shall be in writing on forms
promulgated by the chief of police and the county attorney and shall be kept on file with the police department.
The chief of police, in consultation with the Commonwealth’s Attorney and the county attorney, shall
promulgate rules, regulations, and/or procedure for the acceptance, use, and rescission of such designation.
State law reference – Va. Code § 15.2-1717.1.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Annual review of Community Development Department’s
priorities
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham and
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the Community Development Department provides the Board and public a summary of major projects,
progress on initiatives, achievements as well as an overview of workload measures and a synopsis of proposed
projects to be undertaken by the Department during t he course of the next 12-18 months. The purpose of this report
is to review the Community Development Department’s activities for 2011 and obtain Board concurrence on priorities
for the remainder of 2012.
DISCUSSION:
2011 Review
The 2011 Community Development work program was established following Board discussions in February and April,
2011. While there was agreement with most of the initial staff recommendations, the Board modified the work
program to prioritize amending the critical slopes regulations ahead of Zoning Ordinance changes for Rural Area
Churches. Since the 2011 work program was established, the Board has identified several new initiatives in 2011 and
2012 that should be included in the 2012 work program. These include updating the wireless policy and ordinance, as
well as ordinances pertaining to noise, inoperative motor vehicles, transient lodging in the Rural Areas zoning district,
and most recently, stream buffer regulations on intermittent streams in the Development Areas wi thin water supply
protection areas.
Attachment B provides a five year history of department resources and workload for Community Development’s
primary functions. As illustrated by the graphs, the number of 2011 plan reviews and inspections continued to rise
with the economic recovery that started in 2009. While the workload is still less than the long-term average levels for
many programs, staffing levels were adjusted downward in 2007-2009 and have not increased since then. As shown
in the bottom graphs for each program, starting on the second page of Attachment B, the applications per staff
member are now exceeding that seen during the height of the building boom for many programs. Process
improvements and internal efficiency efforts have made this possible, but the quality of reviews and staff morale
requires careful monitoring if this trend continues. Meanwhile, the data demonstrates that Community Development
maintains a limited capacity for additional policy-related work program initiatives.
With respect to the 2011 work program as shown in Attachment A, staff notes completion of the following major
projects:
Places 29 Master Plan
Phases 1 and 2 of the light industrial zoning ordinance changes
Agricultural roundtables ( for both the Economic Vitality Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan update)
Updates to Home Occupation Regulations and associated Zoning Ordinance fees
Establishment of simplified ARB administrative processes
Streamlining of the County’s farm winery regulations
Redistricting of magisterial districts pursuant to the 2010 U.S. Census
Sign ordinance changes that were adopted by the Board in March, 2012.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
May 2, 2012
Page 2
The ministerial and legislative process changes have been delayed due to workload issues; however, this has proven
somewhat fortunate. The recent Sinclair Court decision limited the role of staff and the Planning Commission for
waivers and modifications, requiring staff to modify the Zoning Ordinance to match the proposed process changes to
the recent court decision. It is possible that Sinclair holds the potential to address some of the Board’s intended
streamlining goals. A draft of the Zoning Ordinance changes is now being completed and s taff has scheduled a work
session on ministerial changes with the Planning Commission for May 15th and anticipates this reaching the Board for
public hearing in July. The legislative changes are following a month later. Work on the critical slopes has
progressed to the point that staff is now preparing for roundtables to share the concepts and anticipates this to be
before the Planning Commission in May and the Board by August.
Finally, Community Development completed an internal restructuring in 2011. This was done because the
department has lost 26 positions in the last 4 years and staff believed that the department could improve service
delivery by flattening the department. T his restructuring was completed several months ago and appears to have
been accomplished rather seamlessly, as evidenced by the fact that no customer complaints have been received
regarding the structure changes. The resulting organization structure is provided in Attachment C. For the Board’s
purposes, the same people continue to function as the Director, Building Official, County Engineer, Planning Director,
and Zoning Administrator, and the contacts for issues remain unchanged.
2012 Work Program
Community Development’s work program for policy-related matters is typically driven by two factors. First, priority is
given to allocating available staff resources to address the plan reviews, which is the department’s core function.
Once mandated plan review needs are met, all policy-related work program initiatives are staffed/addressed based on
available slack resources and priority. Second, the amount of public participation affects resource demands and
capacity to undertake projects/initiatives. Public participation is essential for quality products and public trust, but it is
also time consuming and resource intensive. Staff attempts to designate the amount of public participation based on
the nature of the initiative. For example, the recent ZTA for auto body shops on Highways Commercial zoned
property is a successful example of an abbreviated process, requiring only three months from start to finish. On the
other hand, the recent ZTA for farm sales is an example of a process requiring considerable public involvement,
extensive staff time, and eight months to complete. From experience, staff has learned that attempts to shortcut the
process for controversial issues is usually counterproductive, often resulting in multiple public hearings, incre ased
resource demands, increased public distrust, and delays to other initiatives.
Staff’s recommended 2012 Work Program is provided as Attachment D. In drafting the proposed work program, staff
has prioritized initiatives based on: 1) mandates, 2) existing County policy, 3) ongoing efforts, and 4) Board direction
on new initiatives. For example, the Economic Vitality Action Plan is an existing policy (#2), while a review of the
Comprehensive Plan is mandated by Virginia law (#1), and changes to the wireless policy are a new initiative (#4).
Staff’s prioritization reflects previous Board input and ongoing priorities that it had previously est ablished and is more
fully described below:
1. Comprehensive Plan Update – recognizes the recent Board work sessions directed staff to maintain
the original work plan. Staff anticipates this will be presented to the Board in the first quarter of 2013.
2. Stormwater Management – Placeholder for anticipated mandates required as a result of the
Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Staff anticipates this will be presented to the
Board in the second quarter of 2013.
3. Economic Vitality Action Plan –
a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 – Broaden allowed uses. Staff anticipates this will be presented to
the Board in the fourth quarter of 2012.
b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 - Land use changes based on updated Comprehensive Plan. This is
expected to be undertaken once the Board adopts its updated Comprehensive Plan.
c. Ministerial Process Changes – site plans/subdivisions. Staff anticipates this will be presented
to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
d. Legislative Process Changes – rezonings/special use permits. Staff anticipates this will be
presented to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
4. Critical Slopes Modifications – Completion of ongoing efforts. Staff anticipates this will be presented
to the Board in the third quarter of 2012.
AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program
May 2, 2012
Page 3
5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – The proposed contract with the consultant has been
established and the notice to proceed is in the process of being issued. The final schedule is
currently being finalized by the consultant.
6. Transient Lodging/B&B’s in the Rural Areas – Staff anticipates this will be presented to the Board in
June 2012,
7. Inoperative Motor Vehicles – Defer to 2013. Legislative priority to provide same authority as some
other counties.
8. Noise Regulations – Scheduled for a Planning Commission work session in June. The schedule for
Board action is not yet established.
9. Rural Areas Churches – remove special use permit requirement for most situations. No schedule is
established.
10. Zoning Ordinance Recodification - Simplify zoning ordinance. Major task recommended for 2013.
Work not yet fully scoped; however, is expected to be finalized in 4th quarter of 2012.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The work program is intended to rely on available staff resources. No additional budget impact is anticipated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed 2012 Work Program (Attachment D) and concur with its
program phasing and prioritization.
ATTACHMENTS
A – 2011 Work Program, mid-year update
B- Workload Data
C- Community Development Organization Chart
D - Proposed 2012 Work Program
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Work Program – midyear
update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the current status of items in Community
Development’s Work Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliot, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg,
Fritz, and Ms. McCulley.
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
September 7, 2011
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
This report provides the Board an update on Community Development’s progress on its 2011 work program. This
work program was presented to the Board in February, 2011, and includes changes to reflect the Board’s direction to
prioritize additional work items, such as Critical Slopes and Rural Area Churches. Additionally, the Board directed
staff to consider the Interstate Interchange Policy review with the Comprehensive Plan Update so that the targeted
industry study may first be completed.
DISCUSSION:
Attachment 1 is the work program as presented to the Board in February, 2011. Attachment 2 presents the work
program status as of August, 2011. Staff notes the following highlights:
1. Work completed since February, 2011 includes Places 29 Master Plan, Redistricting, Zoning Fees, Phase 2
of W inery changes, and Phases 1 and 2 of Light Industrial zoning changes.
2. As a result of work on the LI zoning changes, staff is investigating the need for a third phase beyond what
was previously anticipated. This third phase would consider the broadening of uses allowed in the Light
Industrial zoning category.
3. Staff estimates the Comprehensive Plan update has been delayed approximately 2 months due to the need to
obtain Board concurrence with the Consortium Agreement and the inability to move forward until that
agreement was approved.
4. The ministerial and legislative changes remain on schedule, with the ministerial changes anticipated to reach
the Board in the fourth quarter of 2011 and the legislative changes anticipated to reach the Board in the first
quarter of 2012.
5. Work on the Critical Slopes amendment is anticipated to restart as the ministerial changes are finalized.
Work on the Rural Areas churches has been delayed until 2012 pursuant to the Board’s direction at the April
2011 work session.
6. Finally, work on possible amendments to the sign ordinance have been delayed approximately six months,
but are now proceeding to public hearing, and it is anticipated to be presented to the Board in the fourth
quarter of 2011.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff anticipates there will be no budget impact resulting from this executive summary.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This report is for information only and no action is required.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – 2011 Work Program
Attachment B – 2011 Work Program, mid year status
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
January-07 January-08 January-09 January-10 January-11 January-12
Staffing - Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)
1/3
Reduction
since 2006
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Expenditures / $ Million Fiscal Year
Community Development
Budgeted Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Building Permit Applications
Building Permit Applications
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
800.0
900.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Building Permit Applications
per FTE
Applications / Building Inspector
Applications / Zoning Inspector
Applications / Intake Specialist
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
ARB Applications
ARB Applications
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
ARB Applications per Planner
ARB Applications per FTE
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Site Plan and Subdivision Applications
Subdivisions
Site Plans
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
50.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Site Plan Applications per
Planner or Engineer
Site Plans/Planner
Site Plans / Engineer
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Legislative Applications
Legislative Applications
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Legislative Applications per Planner
Legis Applications per Planner
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Water Protection Ordinance Applications
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
WPO Applications per Engineer / Inspector
WPO Applications /
Inspector
WPO Applications /
Engineer
2012 Community Development Work Program Attachment B
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Zoning Workload
Zoning Violations
Home Occ Permits
Zoning Clearances
Sign Permits
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Zoning Violations / Inspector
Violations / Inspector
Community Development Organization Chart
January 2012 – 58 FTEs
Director of Community
Development
Mark Graham
Building Inspections
Jay Schlohauer
Building Permit
Review
Residential Permit
Inspections
Commercial Permit
Inspections
Building Official
Engineering
Glenn Brooks
Engineering
Development Review
Engineering Bonding
and Inspections
WPO
Inspections
Central Water &
Wastewater
County Engineer
Planning
Wayne Cilmberg
Development Review
David Benish
Legislative
ARB
Ministerial
Long Range Planning
Information Services
Tex Weaver
Central Operations
GDS
Records Management
County View
Zoning
Amelia McCulley
Zoning Enforcement
Zoning Administration
Proffer Management
Zoning Administrator
Management Analyst
Ana Kilmer
Assistant to Director
Bill Fritz
2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - Proposed March 2012 Attachment D
Anticipated Board Date 2011 2012 2013 2014
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Comprehensive Plan Master Plans
Rivanna Complete
Crozet Update Complete
Pantops Complete
Southern Urban With Comp Plan Update
Wireless Policy Update TBD
Comp Plan Update 1st Quarter 2013
Advisory Councils ONGOING
Future Year, Not Scheduled
Places 29 Update *****TBD
Rivnanna Update *****TBD
Pantops Update *****TBD
Odrinance Amendments
Sign Ordinance Updates Complete
Industrail Uses Phase 1*Complete
Industrail Uses Phase 2*Complete
Industrail Uses Phase 3 *3rd Quarter 2012
Ministerial Process Improvements 3rd Quarter 2012
Legislative Process Improvements 3rd Quarter 2012
RA Uses - Part 1 ***3rd Quarter 2012
Wireless - Requsted Process fixes 4th quarter 2012
Critical Slopes **** 3rd Quarter 2012
RA Uses - Churches ****3rd Quarter 2013
RA Uses - Part 2 ***Follows Comp Plan Update
Industrail Uses Phase 4**Follows Comp Plan Update
Future Year, Not Scheduled
NMD Amendments TBD
Stormwater - "After the Storm"TBD
Zoning Ord Recodification TBD
Zoning Housekeeping, Phase II TBD
Other Initiatives Redistricting Complete
MPO, PACC, Etc Ongoing
Eng. Process Future Year, TBD
ARB _Guidelines Update Future Year, TBD
Natural Heriate - Resource Plan Future Year, TBD
LEGEND * Phase 1 - Expanded LI uses through Special Use Permit
Staff Work * Phase 2 - Update and clarify industrial performance standards
Planning Commision Work * Phase 3 - Expand industrial uses in commerical districts and industrial district
Board Work ** Phase 4 - Placeholder for Targeted Industry and Comp Plan Strategies, Industrial Zoning Map Changes
*** Phase 1 RA Uses - Transient Lodging/B&B's - Clarify requirements; Phase 2 RA Uses - Placeholder for Comp Plan changes
**** Critical Slopes switches with RA Churches, RA Churches placeholder for 2012 following Legis Process Changes
***** Updates for Master Plans to be Considered Following Completion of Comp Plan Update
Board-to-Board
May, 2012
A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) – During its April 12, 2012 meeting the School Board
reviewed its annual plan and application for providing special education and related services to children with disabilities
in order to follow eligibility requirements to receive the federal flow through grant. The policies must be consistent with
the Virginia Special Education Regulations, IDEA 2004 and corresponding Federal Regulations. The plan was reviewed
by the ACPS Special Education Advisory Committee and does not include any changes to ACPS special education policy and
procedures at this time. The School Board approved the plan on April 26, 2012.
Principal Search for Monticello High School – Dr. Matt Haas is leading a search committee to interview and recommend
candidates to succeed Dr. Catherine Worley as Principal at Monticello High School. Dr. Worley announced she will leave
her position at the end of June 2012. The search committee plans to recommend candidates to the School Board in May
2012.
Congressman Robert Hurt Visits Agnor-Hurt Elementary School – School Board member Ned Gallaway and
Superintendent Pam Moran welcomed Congressman Robert Hurt to Agnor-Hurt Elementary School on April 13, 2012.
Congressman Hurt read to Mrs. James’ second grade class, then visited with Mr. Hunter’s fourth grade World Peace
Game students. Mr. Gallaway, Superintendent Moran, and Principal Castner shared ACPS’s support for the
reauthorization of the federal No Child Left Behind Act.
Agnor-Hurt Students Pentagon Visit - The Washington Post reported the fourth graders’ historic visit to the Pentagon on
April 19, 2012:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/fourth-graders-meet-with-top-pentagon-leaders-to-talk-about-
peace/2012/04/19/gIQAJsoaTT_story.html
The students shared their experience about visiting the Pentagon with Congressman Hurt when he visited Agnor-Hurt and
indicated their excitement upon receiving an invitation for a follow-up visit.
High School Drama Productions on Tap – Spring provides the opportunity to enjoy ACPS students’ skills in the high
school drama departments.
Albemarle High School - Fiddler on the Roof
May 3, 8pm; May 4, 8pm; May 5, 8pm (dinner-theatre option); May 6, 3pm
Tickets available online www.ahspresents.com or by calling 1-800-594-8499
Adults $17.50 online, $20 at door; students $13.50 online, $15 at door
Preview night May 3, 8pm, $10 sold only at AHS
Monticello High School – The Wedding Singer
May 10, 7:30pm; May 11, 8pm; May 12, 8pm; May 12, 2pm
Students $5, Adults $10 in advance available at MHS and Rivanna Gear, Pantops
$7/$12 at the door
High School Graduation Schedule – The graduation schedule for ACPS high schools and CATEC is listed below:
CATEC Completer Ceremony
May 23, 2012
7pm
Charlottesville High School Martin Luther King Performing Arts Center
Murray High School
May 31, 2012
6pm
Murray High School, 1200 Forest Street, Charlottesville, VA 22903
Western Albemarle High School
June 1, 2012
8pm
Warrior Field at Western Albemarle (weather permitting; rain location is gymnasium)
Albemarle High School
June 2, 2012
John Paul Jones Arena (JPJ)
9am
Monticello High School
June 2, 2012
1:00pm
John Paul Jones Arena (JPJ)
Budget Development Review – The School Board’s April 26, 2012 work session included discussion regarding the current
budget development policy and process. Stakeholder groups including the School Finance Advisory Council, the
Superintendent’s Budget Advisory Committee, the Teacher Advisory Committee, the Classified Employee Advisory
Committee, Parent Council and Student Council shared insight to the current process and potential issues for revision.
The dialogue set the stage for Board consideration of possible change to improve the budget development process at the
School Board’s June 4, 2012 retreat.
Budget Impact – Following the General Assembly’s approval of the next biennial budget, ACPS is in the process of
determining impact upon the Division. Superintendent Moran recommended reducing operating expenses by another
$313,000 and offer a 1% salary increase for employees to maintain commonality with local government. These two
actions reduce the funding gap to $1.7 million. Mandated Virginia Retirement System (VRS) increased contributions will
have a significant impact, and the Division is awaiting definitive figures and information from the Virginia Department of
Education regarding VRS and State Aid.
www.k12albemarle.org
MEMORANDUM
To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
From: Gary B. O’Connell, Executive Director
Date: April 24, 2012
Re: Albemarle County Service Authority Quarterly Briefing
Cc: Mr. Tom Foley, County Executive; ACSA Board of Directors
Thank you for the opportunity to continue to update the Board of
Supervisors on activities going on at the Albemarle County Service Authority
(ACSA). Below are some highlights of current items for the ACSA:
1. FY 2013 Budget, and Water and Sewer Rates – The budget/rates for
the next year were proposed to the ACSA Board on April 19 th. Our
rates are effective with the start of the next fiscal year, beginning July
1st. The past two years we have been able to operate without any rate
increases. This year we are proposing rates that will increase less
than 4%. The average single-family residential customer will see a
3.3% increase. As I have mentioned to the Board of Supervisors on a
number of occasions, due to the significant number of Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority (RWSA) projects ($201 million), this upcoming
budget year becomes the time we have to start paying the bill.
Actually RWSA wholesale rates are increasing almost 12%. Through
good financial planning over several years, the ACSA is able to hold
down a rate increase that could have been double digit to our
customers. Two-thirds of our budget is based on the wholesale water
and sewer rates of the RWSA.
2. New Connection Fees – The “connection fees” are the financial way for
new development to pay the ACSA for growth related water and
wastewater capital costs, which relates to having the water and sewer
capacity to serve new development in the future. Again, as expressed
above, much of the capacity increases relate to water and wastewater
facility improvements in the RWSA system. Next year we are
proposing that connection fees increase by 12% to reflect the large
amounts that are being spent to increase capacity for water and
wastewater.
3. FY 2012-13 Capital Projects – As I have mentioned before, much of
our work involves maintenance of our water distribution lines,
wastewater collection system and the associated pump stations and
tanks that serve those systems. We also have a number of major
maintenance and capital replacement projects that we have underway
in the ACSA service area. Our capital improvements program for next
year totals $5.5 million. I will briefly highlight those that are underway,
and several new projects proposed for the next budget year beginning
in July.
4. Stormwater Management – As part of our environmental management
initiatives, we have a planned project to upgrade our fleet fueling
station and vehicle wash area to address stormwater runoff from our
Pantops location.
5. Western Ridge-Foxchase Water Connection – As part of our efforts to
create system redundancy and water loop for secondary feeds in our
system this connection is planned. This helps with emergency water
flow or a fire situation, and also improves water quality. The
connection will be from Fairwinds Lane to Carlyle Place.
6. Scottsville Streetscape Water Line Upgrades – As part of the Town’s
streetscape project, we will be performing water line replacements on
the main street.
7. Key West Water Main Replacement – This project is to replace an
undersized and old water system serving the Key West subdivision.
Currently under design for a late 2013 construction start.
8. Two Crozet Water Line Replacement Projects:
a. St. George Avenue/Buck Road Water Line Replacement – A Crozet
project to replace 70 year old water lines which are in poor
condition and prone to breaks. We are completing easement work
for a construction start in the fall.
b. Tabor Street Area – Older water lines in need of replacement are in
design for the areas along High Street, Hilltop Street and St.
George Avenue, east of Crozet Avenue, over 6,000 linear feet of
water line replacement is planned.
9. Ashcroft Water and Pump Station Improvements – The design for this
replacement project is about complete. A replacement water tank is
one part of the project, improvements to existing undersized pump
stations is another, and the third part is undersized water line
replacement on North Pantops Drive.
10. Glenmore Tank – We continue the planning and easement acquisition
for the future construction of a new water tank and pump station to
provide a redundant emergency water supply for the Village of
Rivanna. This project has been pushed back to a later date to help
make way for funding of some more pressing water line replacement
projects where we are seeing breaks in very old lines in other parts of
the system.
11. Ivy Road-Flordon Water Connection – This project is to supply a
redundant water supply to the West Leigh area, for fire and emergency
protection and to improve water quality. This work is planned in
conjunction with an upgrade to the Ednam Pump Station.
12. Hardware Street Water Main Extension – This is a new water line in
Scottsville to connect the existing water lines. This will provide a
secondary emergency water feed into the Town of Scottsville from t he
Stony Point Water Tank, and improve water quality. The design is
complete, and we will be going to bid for construction soon on this
project.
13. Berwick Road Water Line Replacement – This water line replacement
in the Ednam – Boar’s Head area has been installed and is in service.
14. Buckingham Circle Water Line Replacement – The existing 60 year old
water lines are being replaced, they are older and undersized to serve
this area. This project is out for bid for construction.
15. Oak Hill Sewer – New public sewer and service laterals to serve 55
homes in the Oak Hill subdivision have been completed. Some of the
individual home connections are in the process of being completed.
This is a project in conjunction with funding from a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) through Albemarle County.
16. Biscuit Run Sewer System Rehabilitation – As part of our continuing
efforts to reduce wet weather infiltration and inflow (I/I) into the sewer
system, we will be conducting manhole and some line rehabilitation in
this area.
17. Sewer System Rehabilitation – We continue daily through our CCTV
program (televise via a robotic camera to visually inspect our sewer
lines) to identify areas in our sewer system that have I/I problems, and
we are particularly focusing on the parts of our system that are
reaching the end of their useful life, and where mains consist of clay
pipes. We anticipate spending nearly $500,000 on these rehab ilitation
repairs next year. We also have a thorough sanitary sewer evaluation
study (SSES) planned for the Woodbrook Drainage Basin as our next
sewer drainage basin study for planned system rehabilitation.
18. North Fork Regional Sewer Line and Pump Stations – The construction
of the sewer line has been completed, and we are nearing completion
of Camelot Pump Station to replace the old treatment plant, and the
finishing of the construction of the new North Fork Pump Station on
Route 29, adjacent to the UVa Research Park. This new line and
pump stations will serve the North 29 area. This $10 million project is
the largest project the ACSA has undertaken.
19. Hollymead Water Line Replacements – We are continuing our street
by street replacement of these small diameter water lines that are
aging and in need of replacing. This work is being done by an ACSA
crew. Raven’s Place is the latest line to be completed, and we will be
moving in the next year to Redwing, Maiden and Derby Lane.
20. SCADA – We will soon be installing a SCADA system (computerized
controls) on all our 50 facilities, so we can have on -line control and
monitoring of all our pump stations, tank and pressure reducing valves.
We look forward to discussing with the Board.
GBO/dbh
010202BOSQuarterlyBriefingMemo042412
MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Local Board of Building Code Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
CA Convention and Visitors Bureau Management Naresh Naran 6/30/2012 6/30/2014 Yes
CA Convention and Visitors Bureau Management Barbara Hutchinson 6/30/2013 No
Recommended replacement:
Jason Burch See Letter
Crozet Community Advisory Council Charles Mitchell 3/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Crozet Community Advisory Council Michael Marshall 3/31/2012 3/31/2014 Ineligible
Crozet Community Advisory Council Chuck Johnston 3/31/2012 Resigned
Following application received:
Kim Guenther
Community Policy and Management Team Vacant, Parent Rep.Three year term Vacant Advertised, No applications recv'd
Following application received:
Susan Bressack
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Don Franco 12/31/2013 Planning Commission member
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Raymond Gaines 11/21/2011 11/21/2016 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Christopher Dumler 11/21/2012 Resigned
Fire Prevention Board of Appeals Following application received:
James Barber
Historic Preservation Committee Sean Dougherty 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 Waiting for response
Historic Preservation Committee Christine Devine 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 Waiting for response
Historic Preservation Committee K. Edward Lay 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 Yes
Historic Preservation Committee Emilie Johnson 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 Waiting for response
Historic Preservation Committee Melissa Celii 6/4/2012 6/4/2015 Waiting for response
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Wallace McKeel 10/20/2012 10/20/2015 Deceased
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Following application received:
Jim McGrath
Jefferson Area Comm Criminal Justice Board Ernie Allen 6/30/2012 6/30/2015 Yes
Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Board Tim Tolson 6/30/2012 6/30/2016 Ineligible Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee John Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, No applications recv'd
Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Phil Stokes 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No
Natural Heritage Committee Mike Erwin 9/30/2013 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned
Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned
Pantops Community Advisory Council Casey Beeghly 6/30/2012 6/30/2015 Yes
Pantops Community Advisory Council Jason Dugas 6/30/2012 6/30/2015 Yes
Piedmont Virginia Community College Board Stanley Cook 6/30/2012 6/30/2016 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Piedmont Virginia Community College Board Debbi Goodman 6/30/2012 6/30/2016 Yes
Piedmont Virginia Community College Board Paul Newland 6/30/2012 6/30/2016 No
Following application received:
Sean Moynihan
Places29 Community Advisory Council Joseph Barnes 1/31/2013 Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Places29 Community Advisory Council Drew Lawrence 1/31/2013 Resigned
Planning Commission Tom Loach 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received:
James Fulcher
PRFA Joseph Henley 12/13/2011 12/31/2014 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd
Following application received:
Adam Hastings
Region Ten Community Services Board Christopher Dumler 6/30/2012 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd for
Following applications received:for 1 vacancy; looking for individual Deborah Baker w/experience in education or health
Thomas Cooke
Paul Newland
Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County Advertised, No applications recv'd
Social Services Board Claude Foster 12/31/2011 12/31/2015 No, (White Hall)Advertised, No applications recv'd
Village of Rivanna Lindsay Dorrier 12/31/2011 Ineligible Board representative
Workforce Investment Board Rod Gentry 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Yes
Workforce Investment Board Sue Goldman 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 No Recommendations to come from TJPED
Workforce Investment Board Barbara Kessler 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 Waiting for response
Revised 04/26/2012
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Natural Heritage Committee Annual Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Annual report on the activities of the Natural Heritage
Committee
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Benish, Clark,
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Natural Heritage Committee was appointed by the Board to provide assistance with documenting and planning
for the protection of the County’s biological communities. One of the Committee’s assigned tasks is to report to the
Board annually. As in past years, this report focuses on the Committee’s work achievements and suggests areas in
which they can be of assistance to the County.
DISCUSSION:
The Annual Report summarizes the activities that the Committee has been involved in, noting that progress has been
made in all of their assigned tasks except for the development of the conservation plan called for in the
Comprehensive Plan. Development of that conservation plan will require more time than is currently available from
staff or from the Committee members, as well as development of specialized GIS projects .
The Committee also offers its assistance in several areas of the County’s planning and resource -protection efforts.
They note, however, that their current reduced membership (only 6 of 12 positions are filled) limits their ability to
provide assistance. These openings are currently advertised on the Board’s web site. The Committee hopes that the
openings will be filled by persons with experience in Geographic Information Systems, conservation science, and/or
natural history.
BUDGET IMPACTS:
The Committee’s report is provided as information for the Board, and does not have budgetary impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the Committee’s report; no other action is required. Should the Board want
additional information on the topics covered in the Annual Report, the Board will need to provide direction to staff
on the information desired. Staff will work with the Committee to gather that information and report back to the
Board.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Natural Heritage Committee 2012 Annual Report
Return to agenda
Our contributions over the past year include:
Education:
● Developed guidance on what species and habitats are important to emphasize in local
environmental education programs.
● Staffed a table at Charlottesville Earth Week, which
○ Included community education on land conservation and species and habitats of
Albemarle County.
○ Included a Monticello seed giveaway.
● Created an educational article on using native plants for green roofs:
www.piedmontdiscovery.blogspot.com/2011/07/ecosystem-living-and-gardening-part-
i.html
Notable Biodiversity Discoveries and Events
● Began the reassessment process for previously documented sites
○ Including a rare Paper Birch Forest. See documentation here:
www.blueridgediscoveryproject.blogspot.com/2011/06/eco-antique.html
○ Returned to Monticello to document rare species and their site conditions.
● Documented a few new sites,
○ including a rock outcrop in the Southern Albemarle Mountains featuring our
native cactus, and other unusual succulents.
● Created a model for data sharing between local citizen scientists
● One of our members, Devin Floyd, discovered a national champion tree, Black Haw
(Viburnum prunifolium)
Policy & Program Recommendations:
● Planning
○ Participated in the Comprehensive planning process by providing comment at
Many Plans, One Community and Livability Implementation Plan meetings.
○ Assisted in the development of a Master Plan for Biscuit Run State Park
● Requests for input on proposed changes to programs and regulations
○ Members of the Committee contributed to the development of a rural economic
action plan that emphasizes agriculture, sustainability, and tourism.
○ Worked with Water Resources Management Staff and community experts in a
workgroup to collaborate on a regional native plant initiative that can be used for
public projects, and which could potentially create a new agricultural market for
native plants.
● Used field data to help identify native plants that would be useful for green roof
applications and helped distribute propagation material to a local green roof plant
nursery (Stone Crop) to help get more local plants on the market that can be used for
restoration.
Out of five primary tasks assigned to us by the Board of Supervisors, we continue to make
good progress on most of those; however, the Biodiversity Action Plan development and
implementation depends highly on the support and assistance of staff for the landscape analysis
portion. We feel that significant progress could be made with the allocation of eight hours of
staff time for GIS work and other staff input, as needed.
Secondly, given that we are tasked with “Responding to Board, Planning Commission, and Staff
requests for inputs on proposed changes to programs and regulations” we feel we could be
consulted more often. Typically, we find out about many issues after the fact from media
organizations like Charlottesville Tomorrow, and then we do our best provide input after the fact.
Ideally we would operate more like other advisory committees, by receiving a bit more direction
from both staff and the Board.
Indeed our members made some very positive contributions to the rural section of the economic
development plan and our proactive engagement on future changes to rural policy could be
helpful to the county. Staff and the Planning Commission may lack clarity on where it is
appropriate to enlist our comments or assistance. There may even be some areas outside of
our current charge where we could be of more service to you and the county. We would be
interested and willing to provide input of the following kinds of policy as they apply to biodiversity
and natural resources:
● Rural and Urban Critical slopes
● Rural and Urban Stream buffers
● Rural economic vitality
● The ACE program Scoring System
● Rural area land use policy
● Policies that conserve greenfields by incentivizing redevelopment
● Storm water treatment, and the Chesapeake Bay TMDLs
● Urban stream protection
● Greenspace and parks
● Processes for gathering of public input on natural resources (For example, our inclusion
in the Biscuit Run planning process, was very positive and we appreciated being
invited.)
Lastly, we also have a significant number of open seats on the committee. To be successful we
need the Board’s guidance on the issues that you would like us to work on, and need
appointments to our committee that have the appropriate technical expertise, including
experience with GIS, Conservation Science, and/or Natural history. Thank you for the
opportunity to serve Albemarle County and assist you in protecting it’s most important places
and natural resources.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CACVB Marketing Plan Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Report on the status of the marketing plan under
development for the CACVB
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley and Davis; and Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
As part of the ongoing restructuring and repositioning efforts involved in developing the County’s Five Year Plan, staff
refined the County’s approach to community agencies to focus on core services, performance, and fund balances for
community agencies that are supported and/or funded by the County consistent with how the County has approached
local government departments and the School Division for the past several years. As a result of this review, staff felt
compelled to address the very significant fund balance accumulated by the Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and
Visitors Bureau (CACVB) over the past two years. The Five-Year Financial Plan as adopted last fall proposed that the
Board of Supervisors request that the fund balance be reduced to a 20% level and that t he excess funds be returned
to the County and City to support tourism initiatives by both jurisdictions, an approach that was fully endorsed by the
City Manager’s Office.
In response to the draw down presented in the Five-Year Financial Plan, the CACVB Board sent a resolution to the
Board of Supervisors requesting that the Board allow the fund balance to remain intact with the assurance that “The
CACVB Board of Directors has directed the CACVB Director and staff to develop, within a short period of time, a
targeted marketing action plan to augment targeted direct marketing of tourism attractions, events, locations,
shopping, entertainment, agri-tourism, recreation and other identified tourism assets while drawing down the
accumulated Fund Balance from its present level to an operational level of between 15% – 20% of annual operating
budget levels within a period not to exceed three (3) years.”
The Board of Supervisors indicated a willingness to consider leaving the fund balance intact pending reassurance that
the CACVB would implement a meaningful and productive marketing plan with performance measures that would
insure that expenditure of the fund balance would achieve specific tourism outcomes, including regular reporting and
accountability.
DISCUSSION:
Board members requested that the CACVB provide an update at the Board’s May 2, 2012 meeting as to the status of
the marketing plan, major objectives, and a schedule for completion and implementation. Representatives from the
CACVB and the consultant firm selected to create the marketing plan, Payne Ross and Associates, will be present at
the May 2, 2012 Board meeting to provide an update on these items.
BUDGET IMPACT: A decision to leave the CACVB fund balance intact would reduce revenues by approximately $250,000 over the
course of the Five Year Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board receive and evaluate the CACVB update. A final decision regarding use of the fund
balance will be scheduled upon completion of the plan.
Return to agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Target Industry Study Recommendations for Albemarle
County
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public comment and Board Discussion on study
recommendations for Albemarle County
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, and Cilimberg, and Ms. Catlin
and Ms. Stimart
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
May 2, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development (TJPED) directed consultant work on a Target Industry
Study for its member jurisdictions, including Albemarle County, which was completed in early April. This study
identifies types of industries that have the strongest potential to succeed and offer the best prospects for "good jobs,"
meaning jobs that offer a higher quality of life (security, higher wages, opportunities for advancement, training,
flexibility), both in our larger region and specifically in Albemarle County. The consultant, Younger Associates,
presented the completed Target Industry Study to regional stakeholders on April 11. The Board also held a work
session during which the consultant, Board members and staff focused specifically on the study’s results and
recommendations for the County. Board members requested a follow up discussion to include the opportunity for the
public to comment on the study’s results.
DISCUSSION:
Optimal Targets
Target industry groups have been identified for the County and screened to select sectors that have the strongest
local rationale and best global industry outlook. New and emerging industry, technology assets, workforce and
locational strengths were considered in screening for select target sectors. The list of target sectors is a list of optimal
targets and should not be considered to exclude related sectors. Optimal targets should provide solid business
rationale for firms looking to relocate or expand in the County and provide County residents with a strong reason to
support their presence in the County. It is critical to emphasize that the Target Industry Study supports the cultivation
and nurturing of start-up companies and existing businesses, and considers employment of current residents as its
most important outcome.
Screening criteria for optimal targets included:
• High relative wages
• Support or strengthen existing industry groups/clusters
• Make use of the location’s unique attributes, including technology assets
• Leverage local/national/global trends
• High relative jobs multiplier
• Utilize incumbent occupational skill-sets
• Match the area’s educational infrastructure and postsecondary completions
• Match the area’s capacity and desire for growth and development
• Potential to employ underemployed and unemployed
For each target area matching the screening criteria, the fina l selected targeted industries had to meet two additional
conditions: positive projected employment growth over the next five years , and industry-specific earnings greater than
the overall local or state average. Based on the screening criteria, optimal targets for the County fall into four major
categories. A set of complementary targets that build upon local competitive advantages has been identified as well.
AGENDA TITLE: Target Industry Study Recommendations for Albemarle County
May 2, 2012
Page 2
Recommended target industries:
Bioscience and Medical Devices
Business & Financial Services
Information Technology and Defense & Security
Agribusiness and Food Processing
Complementary targets:
Health Services
Arts, Design and Sports & Media
Site Inventory
During the work session there was discussion regarding the availability of sites to accommodate the recommended
targets. Staff understands the importance of ensuring an adequate level of suitable land to support desired target
industry enterprises, and several strategies are underway to address this issue in both the more immediate and the
longer term. Because the targets have yet to be formally endorsed by the Board, staff is still working through the
detailed analysis required by these strategies, which are described below.
Current Availability
The Planning Commission Staff Report for March 20: Industrial Land Inventory, Rural Interchanges, and Locations for
Industrial Uses and Target Industries, provided at the April 11 work session on the Comprehensive Plan Update,
provides a detailed analysis of industrial land inventory. The Report gives an idea of both what is currently available
and what may be needed in the future to support general industrial needs. The high level conclusions of the Report
are as follows:
Many of the target enterprises can be accommodated on commercially zoned land of which there appears to
be a sufficient amount.
Target industries that involve a manufacturing component would likely require industrially zoned land.
(Research and Development are currently allowed in the Commercial Office district by special use permit.)
Industrially zoned land is needed for basic support industries in addition to target industries.
If existing trends continue, there will be a need for additional industrial land for uses that cannot be
accommodated in commercially zoned land. This need can be met by rezoning existing Comprehensive Plan
designated land to industrial (zoning process) and designating new industrial land (Comprehensive Plan
Update) and then rezoning that land. More specific requirements depend on further analysis of endorsed
targets. The initial analysis identifies potential options for re-designating land to industrial to match
preliminary target industry needs and discusses the possibility of combining smaller parcels under the same
ownership to form larger parcels required for some targets.
Specific locational preferences and infrastructure requirements of the targeted industries impacts where
designated land needs to be available. An exact “acres available to acres needed” match is not always
sufficient.
Once the targets are formally endorsed by the Board, staff will review and finalize this analysis , and these findings will
inform both the zoning changes and the Comprehensive Plan Update process described in the Developing New
Options section below.
Developing New Options
As directed by the Economic Vitality Action Plan, staff is approaching the development of new light industrial options
through several strategies.
Zoning Changes – Appropriately zoned land with flexibility in uses to accommodate evolving industrial practices
provides the best possibility for successfully locating desired target industries.
Staff is developing zoning text amendments that recognize the changing nature of industrial uses. These
changes, which would impact both the industrial and commercial districts, provide greater flexibility in uses
and allow a greater mix of complementary commercial and industrial uses without undermining the purpose of
industrial districts to provide land and buildings for future industrial use.
AGENDA TITLE: Target Industry Study Recommendations for Albemarle County
May 2, 2012
Page 3
Following adoption of the zoning text amendments, staff will initiate a County-wide rezoning to an appropriate
industrial district for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the development areas that are designated as industrial
use on the County’s Land Use Plan. Only properties where the property owner has agreed to accept this
zoning change will be included in this rezoning. This County-initiated rezoning will be similar to what was
done for the downtown district rezoning in Crozet.
Outcome: Liberalization of uses in industrial and commercial districts to support evolving industrial needs, and
additional property zoned for industrial uses
Timeline: W ork session on zoning text amendments with the Planning Commission in late May, with Board
consideration by August, 2012
Comprehensive Plan Update – Additional industrially designated land provides future options to meet the
location, size and infrastructure/proximity needs of target industries.
Staff is proposing options to add additional industrially designated land to create more inventory that meets
requirements of endorsed target industries as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. The environmental
and community impacts of these proposed changes are being carefully considered. The County could
consider another round of County-initiated rezoning after adoption of the Comprehensive Plan changes to
align zoning to land use designation for newly designated areas.
Outcome: Increase in land designated as site options for industrial projects
Timeline: Consideration by Board in early 2013
Next Steps
As mentioned at the work session, there is immediate work to be done in implementing the Target Industry Study,
along with whatever longer term regional strategies might emerge from working in partnership with the TJPED. The
following actions are either underway or will begin immediately upon endorsement of the County’s selected target
industries:
Further analysis and clarification of target requirements for sites and buildings
Developing and making available a detailed sites and buildings inventory
Continued progress on the zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes outlined above
Analysis of NAICS codes for existing businesses to better understand and support our current target
enterprises
Regional work with TJPED and sub-regional work with the City and UVA
BUDGET IMPACT:
No budget impact is anticipated at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board endorse the target industries and complementary targets recommended by the
Target Industry Study for Albemarle County.
Return to agenda